01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
A Gap in Teachers' Awareness of the Use of ICT in Classroom Practice at Schools.
Wakio Oyanagi
Kansai University, Japan
Presenting Author: Oyanagi, Wakio
This study attempts to clarify how using ICT and educational data in schools have been promoted since 2020 through case reports. From a survey of elementary school teachers in one city, it became evident that there were some differences in teachers' understanding of the relationship between ICT and educational data use. It is argued that this result is a problem, and an issue to be discussed when considering the potential use of ICT in education.
We used the database to analyze how elementary and secondary education had been facing COVID-19 since 2020, while using technology. The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), an online library sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education, was used to search for relevant articles from 2020 that included "COVID-19," "Elementary and Secondary Education," and "Technology Use in Education" in their abstracts. Peer-reviewed articles were surveyed. As a result, 110 articles were retrieved. Among the 110 articles, 57 dealt with distance education, 41 with barriers, 35 with teacher attitudes, 28 with access to computers, 23 with the teaching method, 15 with learner engagement, 14 with equal education, and 11with educational change.
For instance, Yanoski et al. (2021) and White et al. (2022) demonstrated how an ICT environment can contribute to the safety and security of students when they have been stopped from learning. They identified what was required of schools, administrators, and teachers, as well as what responses were effective in bridging these regional gaps. Burgin et al. (2022) pointed out the importance of examining student engagement in distance learning and bringing needs and voices into consideration in lesson design. Naff et al. (2022) found that the home environment, socioeconomic status, and previous mental health or disability diagnosis had an impact while addressing the effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of PK-12 students. Administrators should focus on well-being of children and teachers, carefully examine their emotions, and be agile in advancing policies with teachers on how to respond to crisis situations (Kwatubana & Molaodi 2021; Wilson, 2021; Farhadi & Winton 2022). Yıldız and Göçen (2022) examined teachers' opinions on leadership and guidelines for teachers' behavior to survive in turbulent times and attempted to identify what teachers should do in response to the new normal.
Thus, the articles published over the past three years confirm that elementary and secondary education, through its response to COVID-19, has become more confronted with the digital divide and the students' mental health care that exists in the region and the importance of the attitude and role of principals and teachers in facing these issues. Through our research with ERIC, we found that since COVID-19 started, the use of ICT in schools has been discussed in detail as a response to various problems, with references to ICT as a tool for guaranteeing learning and close communication. However, we did not find many references to the use of ICT for data application in solving various problems.
The research question for this study is: In relation to the use of ICT in schools, do teachers consider the use of ICT in the classroom and the use of educational data as two separate things?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe discuss the results of this research on the current state of ICT use in schools and classrooms, including efforts in 2022, when face-to-face instruction were the norm.
The participants in the survey were elementary school teachers from City A. Elementary school teachers have made more progress in using ICT in their classes than secondary school teachers. We selected teachers with three years of experience working for the school because we wanted them to respond to the question about their experience since 2020, when the school environment changed. We decided that it was necessary for the purpose of this study to identify how teachers were using ICT, so we asked elementary school teachers to cooperate.
City A is a large city that includes mountainous and urban areas, and we requested their cooperation because we believed that, as a city in Japan, the location of its schools was unbiased and representative. All study participants provided informed consent and the study design was approved by the appropriate ethics review board. Forty teachers in leadership positions and 177 teachers in their third year of service who accepted to participate in the survey were requested to complete the questionnaire in early June 2023. However, only 20 teachers in leadership positions and 80 in their third years of service responded to this deadline. At the end of June, we requested 177 teachers in their third year of employment who had already participated in the survey to self-evaluate their use of ICT. Consequently, 132 teachers responded to the deadline.
A survey was conducted on the use of ICT in schools using the following 8 questions among teachers in leadership positions during teacher training and in their third year of employment. Participants were asked to respond to the questions rated on a 5-point scale, with five being very positive and one being very negative.
Q1.Teachers' use of ICT in the lessons. Q2.Students' use of ICT in the lessons. Q3.Teachers' use of ICT in school affairs. Q4.Utilizing various survey information on students to understand students. Q5.Utilizing various survey information on students to improve lessons. Q6.Need for teacher training on the use of educational data. Q7.Conducting self-designed surveys to understand how students are doing in order to improve lessons. Q8.Conducting self-designed surveys to understand how students are doing for classroom management.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results showed that teachers in the two positions rated the school in the same way regarding the use of ICT by teachers and students in the classroom in Q1. and Q2. However, in Q4 through Q6, teachers in both positions gave lower ratings to the school's efforts to use educational data than in Q1 and Q2. Teachers in leadership positions were willing to consider the need for training in the use of educational data in schools, but teachers in their third year of service were somewhat reluctant to actively promote such training.
There was a difference between the school's efforts and one's own efforts in Q2, " Student's use of ICT," and Q5, "using survey information to improve lessons," and that there was variations in the responses. Looking at the results of Q7 and Q8, it could be identified that the respondents were more negative, on average, to conduct their own surveys to improve their lessons and classroom management than the results of the other question items. The standard deviation was also larger than that of the other questions, so it could be interpreted that there was a tendency for variation in response among teachers.
According to the "free answers" of teachers in their third year of employment, it was evident that they tend to consider the "use of ICT in teaching as well as learning activities" and the "use of educational data using ICT" to be two different things. The tendency has become evident that "ICT use in teaching and learning activities" was understood as an initiative that contributes to the improvement of teaching and learning, and "ICT use of educational data" is considered as an initiative to evaluate students.
ReferencesBrushwood R., C., & Bimm, M.(2021). Children, schooling, and COVID-19: What education can learn from existing research. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 3–20.
Burgin, X. D., Daniel, M. C., & Wasonga, T. A. (2022). Teachers’ perspectives on teaching and learning during the pandemic in the United States. Educational Process: International Journal, 11(3): 122-140.
Farhadi, B., & Winton, S. (2022). Ontario teachers’ policy leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 200, 49-62.
Huck,C., & Zhang,J. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on K-12 Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Research and Development Journal, 24(1), 53–84.
Kwatubana, S., & Molaodi, V. (2021). Leadership styles that would enable school leaders to support the wellbeing of teachers during COVID-19. New Challenges to Education: Lessons from Around the World. BCES Conference Books 19, 106-112.
Naff, D., Williams, S., Furman-Darby, J., & Yeung, M. (2022). The mental health impacts of COVID-19 on PK–12 students: A systematic review of emerging literature. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221084722
White, S., Harmon, H., Johnson, J., & O'Neill, B. (2022). In-the-moment experiences of rural school principals in the COVID-19 pandemic. The Rural Educator, 43(2), 47-59.
Wilson, A. (2021). Emotionally Agile Leadership Amid COVID-19. School Leadership Review: 15(2). https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol15/iss2/1
Yanoski, D. C., Gagnon, D., Schoephoerster, M., McCullough, D., Haines, M., & Cherasaro, T. L. (2021). Variations in district strategies for remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (REL 2021–118). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved September 18, 2023, from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Yıldız Ş., S., & Göçen, A. (2022). Teachers' views on leadership in the new normal. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5979709
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
An Ethnographic Study of Digital Workplace Learning Through Crowdwork Practices
Karen Schwien
Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Schwien, Karen
The digital transformation has a profound impact on how we live, learn, and work while information, knowledge, and learning become increasingly important (Castells, 2017). In this context, learning is not only characterised by an acquisition of knowledge but rather by the continuous creation and recreation of knowing and learning in practice (Gherardi, 2008). To meet the associated demands employees often rely on workplace learning, a concept that has attracted practical and scientific attention in recent years. However, there remains a scarcity of empirical evidence in digital contexts (Ifenthaler, 2017). This study explores how learning and knowing are enacted in digital work practices in crowdwork. Crowdwork describes “paid crowdsourced work [mediated through platforms] where the delivery of service occurs entirely online” (Margaryan & Hofmeister, 2021, p. 44). It combines various trends in digital work like flexibilization, marketisation, individualisation, and the dissolution of boundaries (Ashford et al., 2018; Frey et al., 2004; Kleemann et al., 1999; Rump & Eilers, 2017).
Learning in the workplace is based on the “holistic nature of performance […] [and] requires several different types of knowledge and skill” (Eraut, 2004, pp. 256–257). Unlike formal education learning in the workplace is often unintentional, contextual, and collaborative. It produces situation-specific explicit and tacit knowing through cognitive and physical activities (Eraut, 2004; Tynjälä, 2008). The separation between performance and learning is much less evident (Billett, 2010). To consider the holistic and complex character of workplace learning, this study builds on a practice-based approach.
Summarizing different praxeological perspectives, Schatzki (2001, p. 2) defines practices as “arrays of human activity centrally organized around shared practical understandings”. Most practice theories agree that practices are human mental and physical activities, mediated through artefacts and objects. However, practice theories disagree on the relationship between knowing, learning, and practice (Gherardi, 2008; Schatzki, 2001). Building on the concept of knowing-in-practice by Gherardi (2019), knowing and learning cannot be separated as they are constantly produced and reproduced in practice. This makes knowing and learning part of everyday routines which are socially shared as “something people do together” (Gherardi, 2008, p. 517). These everyday routines are not mindless automatic acts. Rather they combine intentionality, cultural norms, and unpredictability (Billett, 2010; Reckwitz, 2003). A praxeological analysis of workplace learning, therefore, comprises carefully examining working practices and how learning and knowing are enacted (Gherardi, 2010).
In 2020, there were more than 500 digital labour platforms in Europe, comprising online crowdwork and offline services (Groen et al., 2021). Crowdworkers mainly work part-time and self-employed (Mrass & Peters, 2017; Piasna et al., 2022). Crowdwork tasks require various skill levels. Microwork asks for low to medium-level skills, online freelancing requires specialised professional skills (Margaryan & Hofmeister, 2021). Findings on learning are ambivalent. On the one hand, opportunities for personal and professional development seem limited, as most tasks can be carried out with low to medium-level skills (Groen et al., 2021) and Altenried (2017, p. 176) even defines crowdwork as “digital taylorism” (Altenried, 2017, p. 176). On the other hand, crowdwork offers informal workplace learning opportunities (Margaryan, 2017) and supports crowdworkers with learning skills for the “new world of work” (Ashford et al., 2018, p. 23).
This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of how learning and knowing are enacted in crowdwork practices that reflect digital workplace learning. Therefore, this study’s research question is:
- How is knowing and learning in digital work practices enacted in crowdwork?
This study will explore the finding’s implications for future educational research and policies in crowdwork and digital workplace settings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study employs a Netnographic approach. Netnography describes a methodology which encompasses ethnographic and qualitative research methods and is deployed in online environments (Kozinets, 2020). Going beyond its original use for social media research, Netnography has become an accepted approach to many digital contexts (Kozinets & Gambetti, 2021). Like other ethnographic approaches it implies an iterative research process in which data generation and evaluation alternate and researchers are in close contact with the research field (Breidenstein et al., 2020; Kozinets, 2020). Netnography is characterized by investigative, interactive and immersive data operations, meaning exploration of the research field, interacting with research participants, and keeping a research diary (Kozinets, 2020). It can also encompass autoethnography, in which the researchers “immerse themselves in an interpretive exploration of their own participation”(Howard, 2021, p. 218) in a certain research field. Ethnographic approaches like Netnography are particularly useful for workplace learning studies (Eraut, 2004, p. 248).
This study employs qualitative methods to examine the work and learning practices of crowdworkers on two platforms from a holistic, explorative point of view. One platform offers hardware and software testing tasks requiring low to medium level skills and one is a freelancing platform offering more complex tasks. The fieldwork combines three phases. First, an autoethnographic study was conducted from June until August 2022 to gain first-hand insights into crowdwork practices. Then, a diary study comprising 24 crowdworkers was conducted consisting of a pilot and a main study phase. The pilot was carried out from February until April and the main study from Mai until June 2023. Over a period of up to six weeks participants submitted voice messages in which they described crowdwork tasks. Furthermore, they answered questions about learning practices and the recreation of knowing in practice. Following the diary study, they participated in online interviews. Among the 24 participants, 12 were testers and 12 were freelancers who work on the platform between a few weeks and more than eleven years. The crowdworkers have been contacted through the work platforms and voluntarily participated based on the ethical principles of Netnography including informed consent and data protection agreements.
The resulting screenshots, documents, transcripts and research diary entries were analysed following the recommendations of Netnography combining coding and interpreting data analysis (Kozinets, 2020). In addition to netnographic principles the coding follows Kuckartz's (2016) qualitative content analysis. The interpretation of data was based on the Bohnsack et al.'s (2013) documentary method.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results suggest that crowdwork practices comprise more than “digital taylorism” (Altenried, 2017, p. 176). Crowdworkers do not only process paid orders. Beyond that, they interpret digitally mediated social indices, integrate tasks into complex work and life arrangements, practice self-guidance, deal with uncertainty, and navigate the digital, market-based sphere. Crowdworkers categorise their digital practices in between work and leisure. The knowing incorporated includes, for instance, an understanding of the digital interconnectedness of the world, the navigation of contradicting life spheres and self-governance.
Unlike most work and learning practices in permanent employment, crowdwork practices comprise more self-regulated learning techniques and the use of digital artefacts. Activities typically associated with workplace learning, like interactive activities (Eraut, 2004) are less evident. Crowdworkers often are amateurs who learn even basic skills through practice. Their learning has an implicit and reactive character which can imply the risk of making false assumptions. Despite this risk, some crowdworkers overcome limitations and even manage to pursue personal learning goals.
This study shows that digital work contexts, such as crowdwork, are more contextualised and connected to other areas of life than in permanent employment. Altough further research is required, the findings also imply that workplace learning theory could benefit from a more holistic and inclusive perspective on professional learning. This comprises, for instance, targeting people who are not fully trained before engaging in a task and considering their work and life contexts. It also implies educational interventions in crowdwork such as supporting reflection on learning and offering opportunities for social exchange. In the long term, this could facilitate the utilisation of the advantages of the “new world of work” (Ashford et al., 2018, p. 23) and mitigate its disadvantages such as a shortage of skilled labour.
ReferencesAltenried, M. (2017). Die Plattform als Fabrik. PROKLA. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft, 47(187), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.32387/prokla.v47i187.140
Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001
Billett, S. (2010). Learning through practice: models, traditions, orientations and approaches. Scholars Portal. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2
Bohnsack, R., Nentwig-Gesemann, I., & Nohl, A.‑M. (2013). Die Dokumentarische Methode und Ihre Forschungspraxis: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung (3., aktualisierte Aufl age). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19895-8
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245
Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated Knowledge and Situated Action: What do Practice-Based Studies Promise? In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organisation (pp. 516–525). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200394.n89
Gherardi, S. (2019). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods (Second edition). Edward Elgar E-Book Archive. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781788973557/9781788973557.xml https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973564
Groen, W. P. de, Kilhoffer, Z., Westhoff, L., Postica, D., & Shamsfakhr, F. (2021). Digital labour platforms in the EU: Mapping and business models. European Commission. https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/digital-labour-platforms-in-the-eu/
Howard, L. (2021). Auto-Netnography in Education: Unfettered and Unshackled. In R. V. Kozinets & R. Gambetti (Eds.), Netnography unlimited: Understanding technoculture using qualitative social media research (pp. 217–240). Routledge.
Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Digital Workplace Learning: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning with Digital Technologies (1st ed. 2018). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46215-8
Kozinets, R. V. (2020). Netnography: Redefined (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kozinets, R. V., & Gambetti, R. (Eds.). (2021). Netnography unlimited: Understanding technoculture using qualitative social media research. Routledge.
Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (3., überarbeitete Auflage). Beltz Juventa.
Margaryan, A. (2017). Understanding Crowdworkers’ Learning Practices. In Proceedings of 2017 Conference. European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI). https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/understanding-crowdworkers-learning-practices
Margaryan, A., & Hofmeister, H. (2021). The Life Course: An interdisciplinary framework for broadening the scope of research on crowdwork. Human Computation, 8(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.15346/hc.v8i1.124
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice Theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
The Role of ICT in Teacher Collaboration and Leadership
Soo-yong Byun, Suyoung Park, Gerald LeTendre
Penn State University, United States of America
Presenting Author: Byun, Soo-yong;
LeTendre, Gerald
Information and computer technology (ICT) is expanding rapidly. Whether in the form of virtual assistants like Alexa (Dousay and Hall 2018), generative artificial intelligence (AI) like ChatGPT (Jeon and Lee 2023) or social robots (LeTendre and Gray 2023), teachers must now contend with multiple new technologies. While educational technology corporations promote the advantages of these technologies as improving student achievement, the actual impact on teachers is unclear. In some cases, teachers may find themselves spending less time on instruction and more time on dealing with failing technology (Serholt, Pareto et al. 2020). We know that inclusion of ICT in teacher education has important effects on teachers’ use of ICT (Davis, Preston et al. 2009, Davis and Loveless 2011). Teacher characteristics also play a critical role in the use of ICT (Gil-Flores, Rodríguez-Santero et al. 2017). However, little research has been conducted on how ICT is related to teacher collaboration or teachers ability to enact leadership in schools via professional learning. Collaboration is crucial to the teaching profession and is linked with teacher’s ability to enact leadership (Woo, LeTendre et al. 2022). Professional cooperation has been identified as a central element in major reviews of teacher leadership. (York-Barr and Duke 2004, Wenner and Campbell 2017, Nguyen, Harris et al. 2018). Does training or professional development in ICT promote teacher collaboration?
To address this lack of research, we undertook a study to examine how the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education and participation in professional development (PD) for ICT skills for teaching are related to teacher collaboration and cooperation. Using the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018, we looked at two composite measures of collaboration and cooperation. In TALIS 2018, teacher collaboration was measured with a scale that includes: “teaching jointly as a team in the same class; observing other teachers’ classes and providing feedback; engaging in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects); taking part in collaborative professional learning.” On the other hand, teacher cooperation was measured with a scale that includes: ““exchanging teaching materials with colleagues; engaging in discussions about the learning development of specific students; working with other teachers in this school to ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress; and attending team conferences.”
Our fixed-effects estimation showed that both the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in formal teacher training and participation in PD for developing ICT skills were significantly and positively associated with teacher collaboration and coordination across a broad range of societies including many European countries (e.g., Austria, Finland, Italy), even after controlling for other variables. In addition, we found that both the inclusion of ICT in formal teacher training and participation in PD were positively associated with professional collaboration in almost all societies only with a few exceptions.
Together, our findings suggest that systematic training or access to ongoing PD in ICT appears to be a promising area to improve teacher’s ability to collaborate and cooperate, and thus enhance teacher’s leadership capacities. It is likely that teachers who have access to high quality training and PD are more likely to be aware of the positive aspects of new technologies and better able to navigate their pitfalls. We argue that the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education and participation in PD regarding ICT skills for teaching will become even more salient in the future as the explosion of ICT continues.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedData and Sample
Our data source was the 2018 TALIS administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Beginning in 2008, TALIS has been collecting various information on teachers in mainstream schools in 24 OECD member countries, as well as other partner countries, every five years to assist countries in developing teacher-level policies aimed at promoting high-quality teaching and learning (OECD, 2019). The 2018 TALIS is the most recent survey conducted for this study. The target population includes teachers and school leaders in lower secondary education (OECD, 2019). The intended sample size is 200 schools per country, with 20 teachers and one school leader participating (OECD, 2019). For the 2018 TALIS, 47 economies participated. We excluded regional participants, such as Alberta (Canada), Buenos Aires (Argentina), and Shanghai (China), while including England (UK).
Measures
Dependent variables. Our dependent variables were (1) teacher collaboration and (2) teacher cooperation. Due to space limitations, a detailed description of the items measuring teacher collaboration and teacher cooperation is provided in Appendix Table 2. For both variables, TALIS generated a composite score with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 2.
Independent variables. Our independent variables of interest were (1) the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education and (2) participation in PD for ICT skills for teaching. The inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education was measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether the use of ICT for teaching was included in teachers’ formal training. Participation in PD for ICT skills for teaching was also measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether ICT skills for teaching was included in teachers’ PD activities during the last 12 months.
Controls. We controlled for gender, age, educational levels, teaching as the first choice as a career, and full-time employment status when estimating the models predicting teacher collaboration and teacher cooperation.
Analytic Strategies
We performed descriptive analyses to examine cross-national differences in the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education and participation in PD for ICT skills for teaching. We also estimated the fixed-effect model to examine whether the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in teacher education and participation in PD for ICT skills for teaching were related to teacher collaboration and cooperation, controlling for other variables.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur analysis shows that, on average, about 60% of lower secondary school teachers in 41 nations indicated that that ICT was included in their formal training (see Figure 1) or that they participated in ICT-related PD during the past 12 months (see Figure 2). There was considerable cross-national variation with many European countries (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Belgium and Denmark) falling in the low end of the distribution. For example, only 37.8% of teachers in Sweden indicated that the use of ICT for teaching was included in their formal training, but the corresponding percentage in Viet Nam was 96.3%. Only 39.4% of teachers in England indicated that they participated in PD for developing ICT skills for teaching during the past 12 months, whereas the corresponding percentage in Viet Nam was 92.8%.
Our fixed-effects estimation showed that the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in formal teacher training was significantly and positively associated with teacher collaboration and coordination in many societies, even after controlling for other variables. We found that participation in PD for ICT skills for teaching was positively associated with professional collaboration in all 41 societies. Similarly, we found a positive relationship between the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in formal education and teacher cooperation in 28 out of 41 societies.
Given the positive relationships between the inclusion of the use of ICT for teaching in formal education and teacher collaboration in 29 out of 41 societies, countries with low levels of ICT intergration in teacher education and PD should carefully consider the impact this may have on teacher’s collaboration and coordination. Improved access to high quality training in ICT may play a role in promoting the conditions for more active teacher leadership via increased professional collaboration.
ReferencesDavis, N. and A. Loveless (2011). "Reviewing the landscape of ICT and teacher education over 20 years and looking forward to the future." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 20(3): 247-261.
Davis, N., et al. (2009). "ICT Teacher Training: Evidence for Multilevel Evaluation from a National Initiative." British Journal of Educational Technology 40(1): 135-148.
Dousay, T. and C. Hall (2018). “Alexa, tell me about using a virtual assistant in the classroom”. EdMedia + Innovate Learning. Amsterdam, NC, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Gil-Flores, J., et al. (2017). "Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure." Computers in Human Behavior 68: 441-449.
Jeon, J. and S. Lee (2023). "Large language models in education: A focus on the complementary relationship between human teachers and ChatGPT." Education and Information Technologies: 1-20.
LeTendre, G. K. and R. Gray (2023). "Social robots in a project‐based learning environment: Adolescent understanding of robot–human interactions." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Nguyen, D., et al. (2018). "A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003-2017)." Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 69-80.
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning, TALIS. OECD Publishing.
Serholt, S., et al. (2020). "Trouble and Repair in Child–Robot Interaction: A Study of Complex Interactions With a Robot Tutee in a Primary School Classroom." Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7(46).
Wenner, J. and T. Campbell (2017). "The Theoretical and Empirical Basis of Teacher Leadership: A Review of the Literature." Review of Educational Research 87(1): 134-171.
Woo, H., et al. (2022). "Teacher leadership – Collective actions, decision-making and well-being." International Journal of Teacher Leadership 11(1).
York-Barr, J. and K. Duke (2004). "What Do We Know about Teacher Leadership? Findings from Two Decades of Scholarship." Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255-361.
|
