AERA2010-Domains of Control

8/7/2019 AERA2010-Domains of Control

1/6

AERA 2010 Commentary paper Division K Teaching and Teacher Education / Section 9 1

A holistic view of teachers risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational change

Sarah K.

Howard

University of Wollongong [email protected]

This paper presents the domains of control framework conceptualizing teachers risk

perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational change. This

framework provides a holistic view of teachers risk perceptions drawn from

educational, sociological, and anthropological approaches and theories. Risk

perceptions are understood as part of a reflexive relationship between individual

teachers and their school culture. Interactions between the two domains will

influence teachers choices to use technology in the classroom. Through gaining an

understanding of individuals risk perceptions associated with technology use and

changing teaching practices, school leadership can better support teachers change

processes and their engagement in school change initiatives.

1

Introduction

In the current educational climate, numerous change initiatives are taking place in schools, many of which include technology (Hew & Brush, 2007). For every change, there are associated risks. In fact, risk and change are inextricably linked without taking risks; change and innovation are not

possible. In the context of technology related change, it is important to understand teachers perceived risks, as these perceptions will guide teachers decisions to use technology in the classroom. On an individual level, research has shown that up to 50% of people experience anxiety and frustration when using technology (Wilfong, 2006). On a school cultural level, teachers are expected to use technology in their practice, but often teachers beliefs about teaching and technology do not align (Ertmer, 2005). These factors, and others, will influence teachers risk perceptions and thus their choice to change and incorporate technology into their practice.

This discussion presents the domains of control (DoC) as a way to examine teachers technology related risk perceptions through three areas of teachers lives: individual beliefs (primary), the classroom (secondary), and the school culture (tertiary). This framework provides a holistic examination of teachers risk perceptions through educational, sociological, and anthropological approaches and theories. This sociocultural view is an important affordance of the DoC framework, as it has become clear that innovations cannot be implemented without regard to the internal social structures of schools or other pressures that schools face (Zhao & Frank, 2003, p. 831).

Why consider risk perceptions? Over the past two decades, risk society theorists have identified an increasing public awareness of technological, natural, and social risk (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). It is argued that this trend has emerged from the individuals and cultures desire to control and manage risky outcomes. When researchers discuss risk they often mean perceived risk : peoples evaluations of possible hazards (Rohrmann, 2000). Risk perceptions are based upon what individuals and groups perceive as undesired outcomes, thus values and beliefs will guide their choices (Lupton, 1999; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & McGregor, 2004).

In educational research, the following types of comments have been made regarding risk, technology, and change:


2/6

Title: A holistic view of teachers risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational change

2

...these types [technology related beliefs] of changes are riskier for teachers.

(Ertmer, 2005, p. 26)

...change requires tremendous sophistication as well as some risk taking by

teachers... (Fullan, 2007, p. 35)

While these developments have undoubtedly concentrated teachers energy and

efforts ... improvement has also introduced some risks and drawbacks. (Hargreaves,

2009, p. 95)

While the previous statements include the concept of risk, what the risks are has remained undefined. Educational research has not clarified: what these risks are, what it means to be riskier , and what constitutes a risk taker . Risks have remained undefined, but risk taking has been identified as an essential part of learning (e.g., Reio, 2007). In the context of learning, risk taking can be seen as a way of framing the world, where it is imaginative, inventive, uncertain, and goes beyond the ordinary and predictable ... (Lightfoot, 1997).

The DoC framework helps to clarify risk in two ways, it provides: 1) a holistic examination of social structures in schools, and 2) a useful conceptualization of teachers risk perceptions. First, educational anthropology has made a call for analysis that goes beyond broad group level views of school culture, to develop a deeper understanding of teaching and learning (Pollock, 2008, p. 370). At the same time, research examining technology and innovation requires a broader view of social structures in schools (Zhao & Frank, 2003). This framework provides a view of both levels, as well as their point of interaction in the classroom. Second, as previously stated, educational research has identified that teachers need to be prepared to take risks in order to participate in educational change (e.g., Ertmer, 2005; Fullan, 2001). When risks have been identified, better informed decisions can be made in change related situations (Vose, 2008). This framework provides a conceptual model to examine teachers risk perceptions.

2 Reflexivity, teachers, and school culture The domains of control (DoC) framework is part of a larger PhD study, conducted in Australia and the United States, considering teachers and school cultures risk perceptions from sociological and anthropological perspectives. In this paper, risk perceptions are considered part of a reflexive cultural system (see Figure 1), understood through Giddens (1984) sociological theory of structuration.

Figure 1 The reflexivity of teachers' agency and school culture


3/6


3

Reflexivity suggests that while individuals are affected by their structure (cultural context; school culture), individuals (teachers) actions can affect and change the structure through agency ; referred to as the duality of structure . Individual teachers actions (agency) will have an impact upon their school culture (structure), at the same time, the decisions teachers make will be influenced by their school culture. Educational research has previously identified this relationship between teachers and

school culture (e.g., Hargreaves, 1994), but not in terms of reflexivity.

The DoC framework extends Giddens (1984) theory of structuration to include a secondary domain, which contextualizes the classroom as the space in which agency and structure interact. Individual beliefs and values guiding actions are invisible until they become visible in behaviour; culture is visible through a combination of values and behaviours (Hofstede, 2001, p. 10). Teaching behaviours observed in the classroom space, as well as teachers reflection upon these behaviours, will reveal teachers values and beliefs about teaching and technology.

3

Teachers risk

perceptions

To understand risk taking behaviours, perceived risks must be first identified (Vose, 2008).

Individuals risk perceptions can provide a useful framework through which values and beliefs can be examined (Lupton, 1999). Individual teachers agency and perceived risks, as well as their perceptions of the school culture will influence their choice to integrate technology in teaching. Perceptions are rooted in individuals social knowledge, past experiences, and values, each teacher will view teaching, technology, and school culture differently but not entirely. By the nature of individuals being teachers and having similar general experiences in that role, they will have a common disposition (Bourdieu, 1994). At the same time, teachers often fulfil different roles within a school, which will affect how they perceive situations and actions. Teachers perform multiple roles as part of their day to day life, including their lives outside of the school. The risks individuals associate with their role as a teacher are defined through their choices and practices in the classroom (Howard, 2009). When considering technology integration, individuals will base decisions

on

their

perceived

value

of

technology,

the

role

of

technology

in

teaching

(Ertmer,

2005),

as

well

as

past experiences using technology (Todman & Drysdale, 2004).

The larger study, which the DoC framework was developed in, has shown that teachers believed the over arching cultural value in education, and therefore the main area of concern and risk perceived in relation to technology integration, was student learning . While the findings from this study are from a small sample and are not generalizable (two case study schools, eight teachers), they were consistent with prior research identifying student learning as teachers primary source of satisfaction (e.g., Dinham & Scott, 2000), as well as it often being the benchmark for teacher effectiveness (e.g., Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakides, & Robinson, 2005). Teachers identified several concerns related to student learning, when integrating technology into teaching (Howard, 2009):

How technology supports notions of effective and quality teaching

Loss of classroom control when using technology

Time to prepare to teach with technology, and instruction time lost where there were

problems teaching with technology

Fulfilling cultural expectations (e.g., test scores, curriculum alignment, etc.)

Individuals evaluate the costs and benefits of risks through a combination of rational and affective analysis (Slovic, et al., 2004). Personal benefit can be understood as gains supporting something a person values. Zhao and Frank (2003) describe this as perceived relative advantage. Teachers, that

are likely to use technology, will generally perceive a positive benefit from technology integration, such as increase in student engagement (Howard, 2010). Others would see the possible risks, such as


4/6


4

students being off task, as limiting factors and would not integrate technology into their teaching. This preference has little to do with the actual risks associated with technology integration in the classroom. Perceptions of cost and benefit, influences on the perception of advantage, can be conceptualized through the DoC framework.

4

The domains

of

control

framework

The DoC framework provides a way to understand influences on teachers risk perceptions. It offers a holistic view of teachers perceived risks in the context of technology related change by considering teachers beliefs about their own efficacies, teaching, and using technology in conjunction with their perceptions of classroom and school cultural influences. The three general domains are presented with teachers technology related risk perceptions, as identified by Howard (2009), in Figure 2. The framework and the related risk perceptions are not intended to be a rigid categorization. The domains build upon each other; therefore, conceptual overlap between the areas would be expected.

Figure 2

Technology related risk perceptions aligned with the domains of control

The concept of control , as it is understood in the DoC framework, is derived from risk society theory. In modernity, it is assumed that individuals have a certain amount of control over, and that they are responsible for, their interactions and environment (Giddens, 1990, 1991; Lupton, 1999). The relativity of objects to an individual refers to the level of control they are able to exert within each of

the domains, and thus manage risk. Historically, teachers could symbolically exercise control over their classroom, have occupational autonomy, by closing the classroom door (Robertson, 2000). In the current educational climate, specifically considering state level testing requirements, teachers and schools are being held more accountable for their practices and student learning outcomes. This shift in priorities places increasing external pressure on teachers to ensure student learning shows adequate yearly progress; to use language from the No Child Left Behind initiative (Hargreaves, 2009).

Using the DoC framework teachers technology integration can be evaluated in the three domains. For example, a teacher makes the choice to integrate technology into their teaching practice (primary domain); part of this decision would be guided by their individual beliefs about teaching and technology. The second domain is the act of integrating technology into their teaching and the classroom, where risk taking behaviours can be observed. While the teacher may value technology, do they feel the benefit is worth the cost of instruction time? The tertiary domain represents how


5/6


5

the action would be situated in the wider school culture. Was the teacher fulfilling an explicit school level expectation; or, were they independently motivated to integrate technology, and if so, was the choice supported by the school?

5

Significance and

contribution

to

the

field

Risk perceptions are highly contextualized in culture and specific to the individual. The DoC framework draws upon educational, sociological, and anthropological approaches and theories to conceptualize teachers technology related risk perceptions. In Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas (2006) review of educational change literature, it was identified that, The focus is not just on individual teachers professional learning but of professional learning within a community context. The framework addresses this priority, by providing a holistic way conceptualize the impact of school culture, within an examination of individual teachers risk perceptions.

Risk theorist have identified a growing awareness of technology risks, and a desire to control these risks (Giddens, 1991), but teachers need to be risk takers in educational change (Fullan, 2007). As previously outlined, risk perceptions can provide a useful framework for examining individuals and

groups values and beliefs (Lupton, 1999). Teachers technology related risk perceptions were identified in Howards PhD study (2009) and conceptualized through the DoC framework. This construct will help researchers and school leadership to better understand teachers experiences with technology integration, thus more informed decisions can be made to support teachers in change related situations.

In conclusion, the DoC framework provides a unique way to consider technology related educational change, and teachers uptake of technology integration in the classroom. The frameworks reflexive perspective supports the current need to contextually examine the interaction of teachers experiences within their school culture. The holistic approach, examining teachers risk perceptions in the three domains, offers a new and potentially powerful tool illustrating the intricacies of teachers experiences in innovation and change initiatives.

6

References

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London: SAGE Publications.

Bourdieu, P. (1994). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology . Cambridge: Polity Press. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. Journal of

Educational Administration, 38 (4), 379 396. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology

integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53 (4), 25 40. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College

Press. Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28 (3), 35. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration . Berkeley:

University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity . Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age . Cambridge:

Polity Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers' work and culture in the

postmodern age . London: Continuum. Hargreaves, A. (2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity an

introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 10 (2), 89 100. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K 12 teaching and learning: Current

knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Tech Research Dev, 55 , 223 252.


6/6


6

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Howard, S. K. (2009). Teacher change: Individual and cultural risk taking perceptions in the context of ICT integration. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Sydney.

Howard, S. K. (2010, April 30 May 4). What makes technology risky?: An exploration of teachers

perceived risk in the context of technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Lightfoot, C. (1997). The culture of adolescent risk taking . New York: Guilford Press. Lupton, D. (1999). Introduction: risk and sociocultural theory. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and

sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 1 11). Cambridge: University Press.

Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., & Robinson, W. (2005). Making the case for differentiated teacher effectiveness: An overview of research in four key areas. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16 (1), 51 70.

Pollock, M. (2008). From shallow to deep: Toward a thorough cultural analysis of school achievement patterns. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39 (4), 369 380.

Reio, T. G. (2007). Exploring the links between adult education and human resource development: Learning, risk taking, and democratic discourse. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 21 (1/2), 5 12.

Robertson, S. L. (2000). A class act: Changing teachers' work, globalisation and the state . New York: Falmer Press.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & McGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24 (2), 311 322.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7 (4), 221 258.

Todman, J., & Drysdale, E. (2004). Effects of qualitative differences in initial and subsequent computer experience on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 20 (5), 581 590.

Vose,

D.

(2008).

Risk

analysis:

A

quantitative

guide :

John

Wiley

and

Sons.

Wilfong, J. D. (2006). Computer anxiety and anger: The impact of computer use, computer experience, and self efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 22 (6), 10011011.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (4), 807 840.

Documents

AERA2010-Domains of Control