Listen and learn: Research paper Presentations with similar research topics are each assigned to round tables where hour-long discussions take place. Roundtables are intended to be more collaborative discussions about research.
This is presentation 3 of 3, scroll down to see more details.
Other presentations in this group:
In this this study, I examined teachers’ technology-supported practices as well as their purposes for technology use. Therefore, it was imperative that I selected theories that enhanced understanding of technology use and teacher practice in primary settings. According to Marsh (2015), the theories that have framed studies of young children and technologies are usually derived from psychology, linguistics, sociology, and cultural studies. With those ideas in mind, my research is framed by sociocultural theory (Rogoff, 1995, 1990; Vygotksy, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985, 1989) and multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996). Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) is particularly well-suited to exploring the social, cultural, and historical contexts that have shaped teacher practice and the advanced pedagogies surrounding technology integration (Verenikina, 2010). When used effectively, digital technology may result in learning that is more collaborative, interconnected, and social (Gee, 2010; Jenkins, 2006) for both teachers and students.
Teachers’ use of technology to create these collaborative and social learning opportunities became particularly important during emergency remote teaching.
In primary classrooms, teachers work closely with young children to move them forward in their learning, with the aim of helping children operate within zones of proximal development. The relationships that take place between novices and experts (such as children’s use of technology or teachers’ development of new skills) are a component of primary teaching practices and align with Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory. The role of the more knowledgeable other is not limited to in-person learning situations, and the role of technology in scaffolding and personalizing instruction during COVID-19 gained new significance.
To further enhance and explain my research findings, multiliteracies theory (New London Group, 1996) is a useful framework. Multiliteracies theory is a suitable lens for examining the different aspects of technology-enhanced teaching, learning, and communicating. This theoretical framework encompasses the interconnections of linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial modes of communication, related to each other through multimodal patterns of meaning (New London Group, 1996). Hesterman (2013) explained that multiliteracies pedagogy is supported by multimodal theory (Kress, 1997) which postulates that children make meaning using numerous modes, meanings, and materials as they interpret and express.
The addition of multiliteracies theory supports the multiple forms of communication, expression, and meaning-making made by possible by technology integration (New London Group, 1996). The vast multimedia resources of the Internet may support pedagogical approaches such as inquiry-based and project-based learning as well as emergency remote teaching. Digital learning products created in primary classrooms may include linguistic, visual, and audio elements that allow children to share their learning in new and different ways. Lastly, multiliteracies theory (New London Group, 1996) offers insight into how teachers may function as designers of learning environments while classrooms and schools may be seen as sites for media access, learning, collaboration, and creativity.
My study draws on a mixed-methods case study approach (Yin, 2018) and used the following methods: i) an online survey administered to all Kindergarten-Grade 2 teachers in one rural and one urban district in Manitoba; ii) monthly semi-structured interviews with four teachers; iii)
conversations; iv) observations of recorded lessons; and v) document analysis of provincial/district technology policy documents, school and classroom websites, teacher and classroom blogs, and student and teacher digitally-created texts.
The 13-item online survey was used to provide a broad overview of how teachers integrated technology, their purposes for doing so, and their access to devices and tools. The survey also recruited participants who identified as frequent, intermediate to advanced users of technology for the multiple-case study. Following the administration of the survey and the identification of two rural and two urban primary teachers, the research was structured as a multiple-case study design (Yin, 2018). A multiple case-study design enabled me to develop a highly detailed description and gain a more thorough understanding (Creswell, 2009; Mertler, 2015) of how technology was used in primary settings. Sources of information were triangulated and interview transcripts checked for accuracy by participants.
Six interviews ranging in length from 40-70 minutes were conducted with each of the four teacher participants. Questions probed the following topics: i) teacher beliefs about teaching, learning, and technology integration, ii) teacher and student access to technology; iii) how and why they integrated devices such as tablets and interactive whiteboards; iv) how and why they integrated tools such as Seesaw, SMART Notebook, and iPad apps; v) technology-supported pedagogical approaches including inquiry-based and project-based learning, anti-racism/diversity education, coding and computational thinking, and collaboration between classrooms in the Global Read Aloud; vi) emergency remote teaching and hybrid teaching models during the pandemic; vii) teachers' use of technology to access resources, communicate with families, document and enhance student learning, and build community; and viii) barriers experienced by teachers in their efforts to integrate technology. Interviews were recorded using Microsoft Teams and transcribed in Microsoft Word. NVivo 12 Plus was used for organization and coding of data.
The online survey was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode, and percentages). Each case was analyzed separately using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Following these analyses, vignettes were developed of each teacher to provide a snapshot of how they typically integrated technology. Following the vignettes, the cross-case analysis was presented in framework matrices with two overarching themes and four themes. Specific examples of teacher practice from the multiple-case study were displayed alongside the quantitative results to enhance understanding and provide additional context for both kinds of data.
Shifts caused by the pandemic as well as important similarities and unique differences among the teachers’ technology-supported practices were highlighted to further address the research questions.
After analyzing the data in its entirety, I returned to the original research questions with greater clarity. Although there was variation in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and device access, there was significant similarity in their purposes for using technology. Teachers integrated technology in their Kindergarten-Grade 2 classrooms for the common purposes of enhancing teaching and learning, building community and fostering connection, to overcome barriers and maintain educational continuity during COVID-19, and to enact their pedagogical beliefs and personal preferences.
They accomplished this technology integration by leveraging powerful and versatile platforms and tools such as Seesaw, iPads, Chromebooks, SMART Boards or a similar projector display, and a variety of online resources and apps. Amid all these teaching and learning activities, teachers endeavoured to balance screentime, creation, and consumption, while imparting essential digital competencies.
There is evidence that teachers’ technology-supported activities shifted during the pandemic. Given the nature of teaching young children, all teachers were required to explore and harness multimodal features of tools such as video, images, and audio to engage and communicate with their students online. During this time, teachers’ most frequently used tools and platforms were Seesaw and video calling platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or Zoom. With its integrated multimodal features for audio, video, images, and text, Seesaw rose to the forefront as a platform for remote and hybrid learning activities as well as parent communication. One teacher described it as a “one stop shop” for learning, student work, assessment, and communication, and these advantages were evident in the frequent and diverse uses of the tool during the time of data collection.
Within the classroom, practice changed as well. SMART Boards and other projection displays gained increasing importance to make materials accessible during social distancing. Social distancing also resulted in fewer or no opportunities for play and collaborative learning. Two participants reported that students used iPads and Chromebooks in isolation rather than working with a partner or small group. One teacher also indicated that there was less time for technology-supported activities and projects such as The Global Read Aloud and coding due to the time-consuming nature of COVID-19 requirements.
Differences were noted in the practices of rural and urban teachers. The two urban teachers described their practices as student centered and were passionate about inquiry-based learning as a vehicle for honouring children’s interests. Both urban teachers approached planning and instruction from the perspective of the children’s interests and then determined how to integrate the curriculum. This pedagogical approach was not part of the classroom practices of the rural teachers. Both rural teachers described their practices as more teacher led and expressed strong preferences for structure and routine.
Despite these differences, all four teachers integrated technology to enact their pedagogical beliefs and personal interests and priorities.
The two rural teachers experienced stronger access to devices and technology coaching but suffered from Internet connectivity issues and a lack of knowledge about student-centered pedagogical approaches. The two urban teachers experienced the barrier of device access and limited support.
I contend that my doctoral research is of significance to the field due to its capacity to increase knowledge and understanding of how and why primary teachers integrate technology. Although technology integration has been an ongoing process in primary classrooms for many years (Ertmer et al., 2012), a digital divide still exists concerning access to technology, classroom practices, teacher preparation, and technology use at different levels (Kotak et al., 2021; Ruggiero & Mong, 2015). The current pandemic situation has only made this divide more apparent and critical in education (Kotak et al., 2021). Educators may find value in research as a source of ideas to solve classroom problems or to clarify purposes, priorities, and next steps in times of change (Campbell, 2016). In-depth descriptions of teacher practice can create models of innovation that other teachers can draw from to strengthen practice (Freeman et al., 2017). In addition to guiding individual teachers, my research may also play a role in strengthening the development of pre-service and practicing teachers by inspiring well-planned and timely professional learning.
Campbell (2016) posited that timely and relevant research may bridge the gap that is evident in relation to teachers’ technology-integrated practice when it is applied in professional learning programs to strengthen theoretical and pedagogical knowledge, understanding, and skills. In order for professional development to shape teacher practice and student learning, it must be grounded in a strong knowledge base informed by research (Hodges, 1996). Furthermore, both practice-based and theory-based research can foster a richer knowledge of the education and development of future teachers (Smith, 2015). A clearer understanding of technology use in Manitoba primary classrooms may assist teacher educators in developing programs aligned with the demands of provincial curricula, emergency remote teaching, and reflect current educational technology practices.
Lastly, my research has the potential to support local decisions and policy development. Hollands and Escueta (2019) noted that decision-makers at the local level consulted three sources of information when making decisions: data, local knowledge, and empirical research. When decision-makers examined research, they used it to inform their understanding of an issue, to support a decision that had already been made, or to drive current decisions (Hollands & Escueta, 2019). Examining primary teachers’ integration of technology in their classrooms is therefore significant to the field as a source of new information and ideas which may inform teacher practice, pre-service and practicing teacher development, and local educational decision-making and policy development.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide . SAGE Publications Ltd. .Campbell, R. J. (2016). Researching primary education. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203990230-15
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. https://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf
Gee, J. (2010). New digital media learning as an emerging area and “worked examples” as one way forward. MIT Press.
Hodges, H. (1996). Using research to inform practice in urban schools: 10 key strategies for success. Educational Policy, 10(2), 223–252.
Hollands, F., & Escueta, M. (2019). How research informs educational technology decision-making in higher education: the role of external research versus internal research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09678-z
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Jeong, H. I., & Kim, Y. (2017). The acceptance of computer technology by teachers in early childhood education. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1143376
Kerckaert, S., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2015). The role of ICT in early childhood education: Scale development and research on ICT use and influencing factors. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1016804
Kotak, A., Leblanc, S., Martell, T., & Snider, N. (2021). Manitoba and a digital-first future: The implications of connectivity for equity and education.
Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. Routledge.
Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M., & Ritchie, L. (2017). Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15582095
Mertler, C. (2015). Introduction to educational research. SAGE Publications.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2015). Barriers to the integration of computers in early childhood settings: Teachers’ perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9281-9
Rogoff, Barbara. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking : Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174299.008
Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.28945/2227
Smith, K. (2015). The role of research in teacher education. Research in Teacher Education, 5(2), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976920150105
Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L. H., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2013). Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: Teachers’ stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.16
Verenikina, I. (2010). Vygotsky in twenty-first-century research. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 16–25). AACE. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ca/&httpsredir=1&article=2337&context=edupapers
Vidal-Hall, C., Flewitt, R., & Wyse, D. (2020). Early childhood practitioner beliefs about digital media: integrating technology into a child-centred classroom environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735727
| Related exhibitors: | Seesaw Learning, SMART |
Return
Trips and Tours