a case-study on technology mediation in a school ...

Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education

Between access and use: a case-study on technology mediation in a school environment M. Cristina Ponte*1,2, Ana M. Jorge†1,2, and Daniel S. Cardoso‡1,2 1 2

CIMJ, Av. De Ceuta Sul, Lote 2, Loja 2, 1064-254 Lisboa, Portugal Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas - Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Avenida de Berna, 26-C, 1069-061 Lisboa, Portugal

ICT are often seen as useful tools for educative purposes, in an instrumental perspective that corresponds to a certain appropriation of technology for social mobility. The investment on ICT from families as well as from State derives from an expectation on their utility regarding the children’s education, as long as - and in so far – as they are regulated and controlled for maximized utility. As children are thought of as having a natural disposition to handle technology, but to progressively become more resistant to school education, the integration of technology in school is regarded as a useful and even necessary measure to keep them interested as well as to prepare them for the future. We conducted a case-study in a private religious school from the 5th to the 9th grade, which was equipped with new computers, interactive boards and Internet connection under the project "School of the Future [Escola do Futuro]" from Portugal Telecom, a major Portuguese telecommunications company. Here, we intend to discuss and analyze the conflicting perspectives and desires from the three main protagonists in the school setting (students, teachers/board and parents) regarding ICT usage. Keywords education; regulation; access; Internet; youth

1. On technologies in school In the 1980s, when the Projecto Minerva [Minerva Project] introduced micro-computers in Portuguese schools, there was much discussion about the “crisis of school” and how important and urgent new technologies were in teaching. The belief in technology as a mere instrument of change was the dominant note on a discourse where statistics about how far behind Portugal was and about the “European challenge”. A quarter of century later, as if no time had elapsed at all, we find the same optimistic trust that technology will transform school and that schoolrooms of nowadays, equipped with electronic boards and Internet access, will have nothing in common with the old wall maps and chalk boards. In this technophile approach, where technology determines pedagogy, the power/inequality and social relations that characterize school are underestimated, along with the conservative dimension of this institution, and at the same time the marketing for the “educational technology” grows and disseminates, along with the commerce of the needed equipments. Today, like in the past, two discourses emerge regarding the computer’s place in the schoolroom: the computer as a new “electronic teacher”, able to steer the learning processes and to give individualized teaching experiences, associated with “computer assisted teaching”, something old on more developed countries; and the computer as another “working instrument”, part of a diversified context of resources, where the teacher is no longer the exclusive knowledge centre. That is the dominant line of the “humanist” school discourse on technology, one that does not do away with teachers, and summons the “rhetoric of inevitability”, appealing to the professionalism of “good teachers”. These, just like “good parents”, should give their students the access to those resources (Robin & Webster, 1999, in Buckingham, 2007: 7). Fullan and Pomfret (1977) emphasized as a positive characteristic of any innovation in the field of education that it was clear and simple when presented; they also noted that there should be an environment open to change, with constant activation of involvement and feedback between all the participants. These aspects tend to be left behind in a technological deterministic approach and when new learning styles (like digital platforms and e-learning) are separated from their social and relational component: what does one do in such platforms? Are they building new “online communities” or perpetuating an “educational panoptism”, as Buckingham (2007: 26) questions? Thought of as means to ensure future working competences in the ever changing work market, the usages of new technologies in school, be it as teaching resources or machines, have little to do with how they are used outside school. That dissonance leads this author to consider the existence of a digital divide, an ever-growing *

M. Cristina Ponte: [email protected] Ana M. Jorge: [email protected] ‡ Daniel S. Cardoso: [email protected] †

8


one: “whereas social and cultural experiences of children have been transforming drastically during the past 50 years, schools have been unable to cope with the pace of this change” (Buckingham, 2007: 96). The case study conducted in the context of the “School of the Future” initiative brings some answers to how things have been evolving, along with some new questionings.

2. Research context and methodologies One of the schools equipped by Portugal Telecom, a major Portuguese telecommunications company, in the context of the “School of the Future” contest/initiative was analyzed by the research team. This religious private school, encompassing children from kindergarten up to the 9th grade, has received several kinds of electronic and networking equipment and teacher training to give them competence to deal with those new technologies. The study focused on the target demographic of the prize/initiative: students from the 5th to the 9th grade, trying to understand how technologies are used inside the classroom, at school and at home, how technology is represented by students, parents and teachers both as a learning tool and as an entertainment medium. Our aim was to try and understand how that technology had affected the school community in its broader sense. In a privileged economic position, these students already had many technological resources available at home and the school itself already possessed some computers and a network infrastructure, but the “School of the Future” project altered that reality in a quite drastic way. To reach these objectives, the investigation sought to understand the usages, accesses and representations about technology held by the different agents of the school community (students, parents, teachers and the school management), using several methodologies. As if we were pealing an onion, we went through several layers to map out the different interactions and expectations of each group. Surveys were used, along with interviews, group interviews and non-participant observation to several samples of each population (surveys were conducted online for both parents and children, and offline for teachers; no observation was made regarding parents, only interviews), in an attempt to capture something from each school year. Focusing especially on students, we tried to understand how these new technologies changed their interest in class, the way they are conducted, how they deal with homework and how they use the internet and computers n school, but outside the classroom. And also how they relate with technology, what it means to them, what they like to do and what they actually do, and so on. Starting with that matrix, we then move on to underline the tensions between how the different social actors represent technology, how the school acts as a mediator and how parents view the youngsters’ use of the Internet.

3. Discussing results 3.1

Accessing technologies

Although this was a digitally included population prior to the “School of the Future” prize, the project made a profound impact on both the quantity and the availability of said technology. The current technological assets this school has are vastly superior to most public or even private schools; at home, it was similar – an above average rate of electronic equipment. The school was equipped with desktops and laptops, a wired and wireless network infrastructure, an interactive multiple answer evaluation system (“QWIZDOM”), along with pairs of digital projectors and interactive boards - “smartboards” - in all the classrooms of grades 5th to 9th. But this tells us nothing of how technology is used. Inside classrooms, the interactive board is not only being used but, according to a 9th grade girl, “abused”. The short term “smart”, from “smartboard”, coined by both students and teachers, reveals how much of a close relationship this is. It has practically replaced the chalk board for most of the classes and now the blinds are kept always close, so it is easier to see the projected image on the interactive board. The students that use glasses sit in the front of the class, so it is easier on their eyes. Although this particular technology is intensively used during most of the classes, most of the time, it does not necessarily translate likewise to the usage pattern of other technologies, like Internet usage, either by logistic or by pedagogic reasons. The original idea was to have a laptop per student in the classrooms, and it would have been much more functional, even if not all of the classrooms were equipped. – Portuguese Language teacher

9


The school board applies some protectionism when it comes to accessing computers and the Internet, be it to protect the equipment from the students (who are seen as potential harmers) or to apply an educative philosophy. The most heavily equipped room is locked to student access except on very rare occasions – during our visit, the principal authorized a group of students, duly accompanied by a teacher, to use it just because all other computer labs were occupied and with a special recommendation for the utmost caution dealing with the equipment. This happens despite the fact that one of the two computer laboratories still does not have a wired connection to the school’s mainframe. But a purview of the school’s inventory wouldn’t allow one to guess just how limited the students’ access to the internet is. Outside the classrooms, the library is the only access point, but it is closed during recess, lunch break and shortly after the classes finish for the day. It has only a few of the oldest computers, open to access only during class time, with due authorization, to do or complete a school assignment. Anything else, like reading an e-mail, is strictly forbidden. Access to the wireless network is only possible in the school’s laptops, which are only used inside the classrooms for a couple of courses, at the teachers’ discretion. The QWIZDOM is never used: it allegedly clashes with the school’s pedagogic system. The best way for a student to do his work up until the 9th grade is by repeating, by writing the same thing, since by doing so we’re mentally reproducing the discourse [the teacher gives the student]. –Principal

This philosophy was reproduced in the classroom: no files were passed from the teacher to the students through pen drives, e-mail or the electronic platform the school has: students had to copy everything to their notebooks. All this technology assumed the students had the required means to cope with its inherent necessities, which was not always the case. So the new technologies also instigated the need for personal investment by parents, in providing their children with Internet connections and computers. So the parents were almost forced to [...] do a personal investment, in computers [...] and it’s obvious that not all of them have the means to do it, isn’t it? – History teacher

The online survey distributed to parents revealed that parents' access the Internet mainly through their working places, more than at home. So, Internet availability varies greatly from family to family, especially in families where the students are younger. Until fairly recently, I thought the Internet connection in our home wouldn’t be made until further on, since I have some fear when it comes to some of the usages that can be made, I signed on with some reluctance, but for the moment I haven’t had any problems with wrong usage. – Mother of a 6th grader

Parents who do not want or cannot afford Internet connections see their children confronted with added difficulties in doing school work when it comes to assignments that require Internet access or a computer to actually type out the work or prepare a PowerPoint presentation. 3.2

Using technology

In between all of this, the school usages of technology seem to be evaluated against those that are not schoolrelated, and there is a particular tension between these two dimensions. The same applies to cell phone usage: all of the phones had to be left in a box in the teacher’s desk, when entering the room. In fact, when it comes to using technology to communicate, teachers mostly do not use it to talk to their students or transmit information. Outside of the classroom, the Internet is just a tool for helping students do their homework, it seems. On the other hand, both teachers and students have quickly adapted to the “smartboard” and the related software: there is almost a consensus amongst parents, teachers and students, that technology in the classroom makes the environment more motivational and encouraging. The new technologies have the abstract advantage to make kids much more motivated to learn. Because it’s so much easier for them to do their schoolwork by using the Internet and being at the computer, driving them to research books and so on, since they already lack a lot of motivation. – Mother of a 7th grader

10


It should be noted, however, that the “smartboard” is mostly used like a normal chalk board, with the exception of some impromptu incursions into the Internet and, of course, the fact that the work done during class can be saved (but not shared) and loaded. The laptops are only used in classes, at the command of the teacher, and mostly in classes considered to be less important, like Religious and Moral Education or Project Area. This also entails some time consumption that eats into the class time, and raises some fears of lack of control. I’ve been using it, but I must confess I’ve been doing it with some reserve. For instance, when I tell them to do some research, I don’t deploy one computer per student, and if they have to go to the Internet... well, we’re inside a classroom, during school time, and I can’t control 15 or 16 computers, right? Especially since the computers aren’t facing me. And they’re fast enough to open a website I’m not interested in along with the one I’m telling them to go to at the same time. [...] I’d rather do [the Internet research using the smartboard]... which I can see, and we’re all looking at the same thing and so no one goes to websites I don’t want them to go to. – History teacher

At home, things fall quite in line with several other research points available. Parents overestimate their children’s Internet usage when it comes to schoolwork and underestimate it when it comes to entertainment. Figure 1, below, shows us what the youngsters report doing and what their parents believe they do. It is quite evident that the discrepancies demonstrate different stands regarding the new media and especially Internet usage. Students prefer the playful aspects of the Internet, but report high levels of usage for working and studying, a possible consequence of parental control.

Fig. 1

Reported (students) and assumed (parents) youngsters’ Internet usage at home.

According to the interviews and surveys conducted, parents seem to empathise with their children’s need for entertainment, but at the same time they seem to restrict computer and Internet usage based especially on scheduling, timing, and checking what they do, post facto, using software. Even so, the school direction considers there is not enough control. This lack of control the school perceives taking place at home induces behaviour patterns that do not help or may even hinder their school performance. So it seems these children and teenagers are students and, at least as far as the school is concerned, no more than that. Their cultural and sociability needs – those that are not brought by or mediated through school classes – are seldom taken into account when talking about what they do online. And not all the parents are comfortable with that. The school has a lot of prohibitions, a lot of things the kids can’t do... But they could stimulate their creativity. Especially given all the new technologies the school has, the kids could receive incentive to work a bit more and all of that. – Mother of a 7th grader

11


3.3

Representations

The control that some parents and the school deems necessary derives clearly from representations about how youngsters should use these new technologies. These representations exist previous to the current technological setting of the school, and although the presence of more technology can alter them, it can also accentuate some responses. Parents represent technology as a way to prepare them “for the future”, noticing how they can do their homework faster and more easily, and considering it “stimulates learning everything related to technology”. But dissonant voices also arise to state otherwise: short-time effects can also be feeble, and long-time effects more accentuated. Teachers also view technology as a time-saver, and as a way to once again instil motivation upon their pupils. That mostly pays for the time investment they had to undertake to get the training to use the tools. But the fear of the “copy/paste” way of doing things is always present. It becomes the symbol for lax practices, a battle of wits between students and teachers, a danger to the school’s conservative and labour-intensive take on teaching and learning. But some of that interest and excitement may be waning, and students are critical of other factors that for teachers and parents go mostly unnoticed. According to the students, their electronic school cards, used to register each transaction they do and when they enter or leave the school, undermine their relative freedom and the need they have to psychologically separate themselves from their parents, especially when entering their teens; likewise for the very restricted use of the Internet. The school’s control over accessing technologies is not just about its teaching philosophy; it is also about securing and maintaining the equipment – but at the same time the auxiliary staff that more closely deals with maintaining the laptops, for example, has not received any training whatsoever to do so, and things like battery autonomy may have degraded because of that. So there is ambiguity in how technology is seen, between the possible benefits and the problems with enabling lax study practices. Youngsters are seen as being digital natives and at the same time those more prone to “damage” the equipment with their experimenting. Views on technology are thusly fitted into previous, nontechnology related models. More than an actual change, the heavy introduction of technology provoked some adaptations – usages seem to be easier to change than attitudes and representations.

4. Conclusions The technological potential for education is not only seen in confrontation with its communicative and playful usages, but also as ambiguous in itself. In the context of a school that does not represent the broad Portuguese reality, there were specific difficulties but also some facilitating aspects in accommodating the new resources. In the end, however, the fundamental relationship between students and teachers remained essentially the same, although also essentially analogical. If it is true that the children feel – and both parents and teachers acknowledge so – that technology is empowering, in that they often learn in a more independent way and are more competent at dealing with technology than adults (Livingstone, 2002), it is also true that technology is seen as capable of inverting the traditional authority relations between students and teachers, children and parents (Drotner, 1992). That effect was minimized in this school due to the heavy training given to the teachers and also due to the fact that many households were already heavily equipped with technology, compared with the overall Portuguese scenario. The control parents exerted over their children was another factor. The impact technology had cannot be searched for in a restricted or short-term fashion, nor can one measure it solely through the grades students get. Technology is one of several processes that influence the learning experience, interacting with other social factors and actors within the school community. In other words, evaluating the technological impact in school implies a comprehension of the social specificity that frames this institution, the interactions and standards of power between those involved, and the relationship between education and the much broader social world the youngsters are in.

References [1] D. Buckingham, Beyond technology. Children’s learning in the age of digital culture (Polity, London, 2007). [2] M. Fullan and A. Pomfret, Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research (1992, Vol. XLVII, pp. 335-397). [3] S. Livingstone, Young People and New Media: Childhood and the Changing Media Environment (SAGE, London, 2002). [4] K. Drotner, Modernity and media panics. M. Schroder and K. Christian (Eds.) Media Cultures: Reappraising transnational media (Routledge, London, 1992, pp. 42-62).

12