16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
Teachers Utilizing Diverse Aspects of Professional Digital Competence – Challenges and Possibilities in a Highly Digital Teaching Practice
Christina Löfving, Marie Utterberg Modén
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Löfving, Christina
In many countries all over the world, digitalization has, during the last decades, had an impact on teaching practices. This has led to opportunities for teachers, e.g. more accessible colleagues and material via the internet, and challenges, e.g. teachers’ decreased autonomy to self-regulate their work due to platformization, i.e. digital platforms designed in particular ways for communication, assessment, and schoolwork, finding their way into the teaching practice (Selwyn et al., 2017; Williamson, 2017). In this environment, European policies aim at supporting schools to take advantage of digitalization and to promote teachers’ professional digital competence (PDC), where one aspect is to facilitate students’ digital competence (European Commission, 2020; European Commission et al., 2022; Redecker & Punie, 2017). Previous research highlights teachers’ complexity in utilizing PDC, leading to dilemmas and negotiations in practice (Löfving et al., 2023). However, in the literature, there is a focus on teachers’ PDC concerning technological and pedagogical competences on an individual level rather than as a collective responsibility in the school organization, leaving other aspects sometimes unattended (Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022). Further, research on PDC often draws on teachers’ self-evaluation through surveys (Moltudal et al., 2019; Svoboda et al., 2020; Tomczyk, 2020; van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, 2018). Even if these findings are valuable, we here want to investigate teachers’ PDC through their everyday work as part of a larger organization.
The present study is part of the project Reconfigurations of Educational In/Equality in a Digital World (RED) (https://www.edu-digitalinequality.org). We contribute with an ethnographic approach to be able to explore teachers’ daily experiences and interactions connected to their PDC that take place in practice. We use the lens of disruptive fixation, where educational reforms addressing digitalization, and calling for disruptive solutions, often are framed by powerful outsiders in a first cycle, reworked in a second cycle by educational experts who present solutions, and then executed in a third cycle by, here, teachers. However, the problematization and the reforms seldom take all unmeasurable aspects into account. Instead, teachers must respond to unanticipated destabilizing forces. Thus, the objective is to unpack what in the teaching practice particularly enables and constrains teachers to utilize various aspects of PDC when teachers are understood to be part of a digital teaching practice that reaches beyond the individual teacher and the classroom.
The results show that new time-consuming teaching tasks, e.g., administrating digital technology and instructing students how to use a wide range of such technology, are identified to constrain teachers utilizing diverse aspects of PDC. Additionally, there are enabling factors, e.g., a wide range of resources and infrastructures for communication. We will elaborate further on these constraining and enabling factors.
The study takes place in a highly digitalized teaching practice. Thus the results are useful for researchers and school organizations in other emerging digital teaching practices in Europe and other parts of the world. We hope for interesting discussions on how our contribution can illuminate how organizations can further facilitate diverse aspects of teachers’ PDC.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study takes its departure in qualitative ethnography, where it seeks to understand teachers’ PDC through their work in a Swedish highly digitalized school (grades 6-9). Sweden is of particular interest as it is part of the Nordic countries in Europe, where there is a long tradition of a high degree of self-determination for teachers to interpret policies in their local teaching practices (Klette, 2002). The methodology is chosen to gain first-hand knowledge by observing what is happening in situ for an extended period (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007).
The data was gathered for one year in 2022 and 2023 when two researchers observed five teachers’ work. The researchers wrote fieldnotes, collected documents, took pictures of artifacts, interviewed, and had shorter conversations with various staff members in, and in close connection to, the school. The interviews have been transcribed, then read and re-read, and together with the other data material, discussed by the participating researchers to gradually identify themes in the entire data set during the fieldwork.
Writing field notes and comparing and discussing them with others is often an essential part of ethnographic work (Emerson (2011). Using this methodology, we, the researchers, could reflect on what we had observed and decide how to conduct the fieldwork further. The involvement of several researchers provided a nuanced understanding of the teaching practices by observing with various concerns in mind (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), and multiple interpretations were discussed and reformulated during the year of observation. Findings were also discussed with researchers in the international RED project during online meetings throughout the year.
The findings presented here derive from analysis using a disruptive fixation lens previously used in ethnographic educational studies (Sims, 2020). Disruptive fixation means that educational reforms addressing digitalization often are “based in technologically centered formulations” and “move through cycles of ‘disruptive fixation’ that consolidate, rather than dismantle, inherited patterns and inequities” (Sims, 2020 p.183). That means powerful outsiders, e.g., politicians, formulate problems that call for disruptive solutions. These solutions are formulated in a second cycle by educational experts who try to meet the needs and gain support from those powerful outsiders. In a third cycle, the ones who are supposed to execute the reform initiatives, here the teachers, tend to look for well-known stabilizing resources to lean on. All the cycles are part of digital reforms in education, even if we focus on the teachers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhile teachers in this study are tool-oriented, as Selwyn et al. (2017) previously have identified in other contexts, other aspects of PDC are more or less left out. Even if this teaching practice is highly digitalized and centered around various platforms, the teachers spend much time instructing students on how to use these artifacts. This finding adds to previous results on platformization by Williamson (2017) and can be regarded as a new teaching task constraining opportunities to focus on other areas of PDC. The different platforms thereby constitute teachers’ PDC in several ways. Even if there are enabling factors such as infrastructures for communication and moments of actively engaging students, e.g., when teachers instruct the students to film their speeches, extensive and diverse expressions of creativity in the teaching practice seem to be constrained by activities steered by the platforms. However, further research is needed on how school organizations can facilitate teachers’ PDC, not leaving it to single teachers to interpret and utilize all by themselves.
ReferencesEmerson, R. M. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2. ed. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
European Commission. (2020). Digital education action plan (2021-2027). Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/deap-communication-sept2020_en.pdf
European Commission, et al. (2022). Digcomp 2.2, the digital competence framework for citizens: With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. https://doi.org/doi/10.2760/115376
Hammersley, M., et al. (2007). Ethnography : Principles in practice (3 ed.). London : Routledge.
Klette, K. (2002). Reform policy and teacher professionalism in four nordic countries. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 265-282. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021234030580
Löfving, C., et al. (2023). Teachers' dilemmatic spaces connected to students' net-based out-of-school activities. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40(1), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2022-0042
Moltudal, S., et al. (2019). The relationship between teachers’ perceived classroom management abilities and their professional digital competence. Designs for Learning, 11(1), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.128
Redecker, C., et al. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: Digcompedu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/DOI:10.2760/159770
Selwyn, N., et al. (2017). High-tech, hard work: An investigation of teachers’ work in the digital age. Learning, media and technology, 42(4), 390-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1252770
Sims, C. (2020). Pedagogic fixation. In M. Stocchetti (Ed.), The digital age and its discontents (pp. 183-210). Helsinki University Press.
Skantz-Åberg, E., et al. (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2063224. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
Svoboda, P., et al. (2020). Research of teachers’ digital competences in an international context. The Impact of the 4th Industrial Revolution on Engineering Education, Cham.
Tomczyk, Ł. (2020). Skills in the area of digital safety as a key component of digital literacy among teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 471-486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09980-6
van de Oudeweetering, K., et al. (2018). Teachers' conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first century competences: Exploring dimensions for new curricula. Curriculum journal (London, England), 29(1), 116-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1369136
Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education : The digital future of learning, policy and practice. Los Angeles : SAGE.
16. ICT in Education and Training
Paper
The Development of Assessment Scale for Computational Thinking Competence of In-service Primary School Teachers
Xinlei Li1, Johan van Braak1, Martin Valcke1, Guoyuan Sang2
1Ghent University, Belgium; 2Beijing Normal University, Beijing
Presenting Author: Li, Xinlei
In the context of modern information technology, computational thinking (CT) as a key competence is considered necessary to live an active life that is required to adapt to the discipline of teachers’ teaching and students' learning in the digital world in primary education. CT can be seen as a thinking process and skills that are essentially about using strategies and cognitive knowledge to solve problems and test solutions with supported attitudes. Some researchers have perceived and defined CT competence. Jocius et al. (2020) mentioned that the value of CT is a way to enhance and support more complex discipline-specific and interdisciplinary understandings, not just an isolated concept associated with computer science. Brennan & Resnick (2012) proposed the key dimensions of the CT framework: “computational concepts (the concepts designers engage with as they program, such as iteration, parallelism, etc.), computational practices (the practices designers develop as they engage with the concepts, such as debugging projects or remixing others’ work), and computational perspectives (the perspectives designers form about the world around them and about themselves)”. CT plays an important role in the teaching of the subject by teachers. Understanding teachers' CT competence and their ability to teach CT is particularly necessary for teachers to instruct effective subject education. There are researchers have begun to focus on teachers' cognitions of CT. Teachers' understanding of CT must build on the subject matter they teach (Yadav et al., 2014). In an experiment to assess the impact of CT modules on in-service teachers, a statewide survey of primary Maryland teachers is conducted to understand how to integrate CT into other content lessons. The survey asked teachers about their conceptualization of CT, the CT resources they rely on, CT integration and their comfort levels to provide effective CT instruction for their students (Garvin et al., 2019). However, most CT assessments are more reflective of Europe and North America and students’ CT (Cutumisu et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2021). Based on the findings of the existing CT assessment, the evaluation content includes CT knowledge and skills, but less attention is paid to CT attitudes. There are few CT assessment instruments in a non-programming environment, and there is a lack of CT assessment instruments combined with specific subject teaching knowledge. Therefore, more research attention needs to be directed to the rest of the world and teachers’ CT competence and their teaching competence assessment to fill the research gaps. Based on the above analysis, this research mainly solves the problem of in-service primary school teachers’ CT competence and CT teaching competence. Specifically, the following questions need to be solved: (1) What are the cognition aspects of CT competence and CT teaching competence considering primary teachers' characteristics in China? (2) How to construct an assessment scale of CT competence and CT teaching competence for Chinese in-service primary school teachers? In this research, a scale has been developed for the purpose of determining the aspects of CT competence and CT teaching competence of the teachers. The assessment scale for CT competence is a six-point likert type scale and consists of 31 items that could be collected under five factors in this research. The theory in this research is mainly based on the new taxonomy of educational objectives to assess teachers’ CT competence in life application and professional application context. We hope to promote reflection on the education and teaching of CT by enriching the CT assessment scales in different contexts. Meanwhile, we hope to use this scale to further our understanding of the current situation and characteristics of in-service primary school teachers' CT competence in European and other educational contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study uses the quantitative methodology to achieve research goals. The digital questionnaire is developed with the six-point likert type scale. The sample group of this study was selected from Chinese in-service primary school teachers who have the knowledge, teaching experience and basic competencies required for the assessment of CT competence and CT teaching competence. The main subjects taught by the respondents are Chinese, English, mathematics, science, information technology, music, arts, morality and the rule of law, sports and health, which shows that the subjects covered are in line with the current trend of the types of subjects taught to primary school students in China. The scale development process has started firstly by literature review and the formation of the item pool. The item development draws on several CT assessment scales that have been developed by researchers (Fang et al., 2021; Korkmaz et al., 2017; Doleck et al., 2017). The item pool also referred to the specific requirements of the Compulsory Education Curriculum Programme (2022 version) for CT education in primary schools in China and was designed from analytical, practical, attitudinal and professional perspectives. The study has established a team of experts consisting of teachers and researchers from universities, primary schools and educational institutions who are engaged in research related to CT to evaluate the items. In order to ensure the coverage and representativeness of the sample, the sampling method of the study was based on quota and stratified sampling. The main research process took place in three phases over a period of three months. The first stage was a pilot test, in which 27 primary school teachers were randomly selected to interview their feelings and revise the questionnaire based on interview results. The second stage was a pre-survey with exploratory factor analysis with 215 questionnaires were collected from primary school teachers and 189 valid questionnaires were filled in. The third stage was a formal survey with confirmatory factor analysis. 493 primary school teachers were surveyed in China and 442 valid questionnaires were filled in. This paper uses SPSS, Amos and other software to analyze the data and modify the model.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a result of the analysis, it has been concluded that the scale is a valid and reliable scale that could be used in the identification of CT competence aspects and CT teaching competence aspects of in-service primary school teachers. Since the reliable and valid assessment tool aiming at measuring CT competence from professional and teaching perspectives for in-service primary school teachers is seldom constructed in the literature, it could be thought that this measurement tool could make important contributions to the literature. The Cronbach 𝛼 for all five factors in this study are above 0.8 and the overall reliability is above 0.9, indicating good reliability of the scale. The factor loadings of items are higher than 0.7, indicating that the items corresponding to each latent variable are highly representative. The attained model reveals that the factors are confirmed by the data. When the values of the goodness of fit are examined, they have been found overall model fit is good (CMIN/DF=2.886, RMSEA=0.065, CFI=0.941, TLI=0.934). This study aims to promote the development of CT education by generating assessment scales to improve the awareness and competence of future teachers in CT education and to promote the deep integration of CT education with interdisciplinary teaching at European and international dimensions. This study considers the differences in policies, cultural backgrounds, and knowledge systems of the respondents. Moreover, it is also the application value of this study to formulate an assessment scale suitable for the respondents in combination with the national education policy, talent demand, and educational culture characteristics, and to improve the cultural applicability of the scale. However, this study is limited to investigating the CT competence of primary school teachers. Future research needs to focus on teachers' investigation in secondary schools or in higher levels.
ReferencesBarr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).
Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 651-676.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., Saxena, A., & Basnet, R. B. (2017). Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(4), 355-369.
Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191-202.
FANG Min, SUN Ying, LV Shenmin, ZENG Pengxuan, LIU Qian, FU Chen. (2021). Development of Assessment Scale for Computational Thinking of Pre-service Teachers Based on Teaching Competency: An Exploration on Sternberg's Theory of Successful Intelligence and Teaching Theory of Thinking. e-Education Research, (02),112-120.
Garvin, M., Killen, H., Plane, J., & Weintrop, D. (2019). Primary School Teachers' Conceptions of Computational Thinking. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 899-905).
Jocius, R., Joshi, D., Dong, Y., Robinson, R., Catete, V., Barnes, T., Albert, J., Andrews, A., & Lytl, N. (2020). Code, Connect, Create: The 3C Professional Development Model to Support Computational Thinking Infusion. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 971–977).
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior, 72, 558-569.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (Eds.). (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Compulsory Education Curriculum Programme (2022 version). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1-16.
|
