Ubiquitous Learning

VOLUME 5 ISSUE 4

Ubiquitous Learning An International Journal

__________________________________________________________________________

The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers' Technology Integration

A Survey in Thirteen Countries DANIEL LIGHT AND ELIZABETH PIERSON

ubi-learn.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL http://ubi-learn.com/ First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing University of Illinois Research Park 2001 South First St, Suite 202 Champaign, IL 61820 USA www.CommonGroundPublishing.com ISSN: 1835-9795 © 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact . Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Typeset in CGScholar. http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Impact of School Technology Infrastructure on Teachers’ Technology Integration: A Survey in Thirteen Countries Daniel Light, Education Development Center, USA Elizabeth Pierson, Education Development Center, USA Abstract: This paper uses survey data collected from participants of the Intel Teach professional development program in thirteen developing countries to examine how differing degrees of access to information and communications technology (ICT) influences technology use with students. The PD course promotes student-centered uses of technology and project-based approaches. The researchers created indices of the robustness of teacher and student access to ICT to examine the influence of teacher and student access on the use of technology in the classroom. The analysis found that, above a minimal level of access, teachers’ access to technology did not influence frequency or type of technology use with students. However, the analysis did find that students’ access was important. Teachers were more likely to use technology with students if they had access in classrooms and in computer labs, rather than just computer labs. A 1 to 1 environment was similar to the combined classroom and lab access. These findings suggests that providing students multiple and flexible access to computers is important to encourage teachers to use more ICT with their students. Keywords: Student Computer Access, Teacher Computer Access, 1 to 1 Computing Environment, ICT Integration, Web 2.0 Tools, ICT Infrastructure, International Research, Quantitative Analysis

Introduction

T

his paper aims to illuminate trends in teacher technology use across a wide range of international contexts using a data set that was originally gathered from a 13-country survey intended to measure the impact of the Intel® Teach Essentials Course for teachers (Light & Pierson, 2011). That survey collected detailed information about the distribution of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) resources within schools, 1 and this analysis highlights the importance of access to ICT resources for students as a key contextual factor that contributes to the successful integration of various technology tools and software. Our data suggest that the distribution of ICT resources within schools, and flexibility in how teachers and students can access the technology, also impact what types of ICT-based activities teachers are able to do with their students. This flexibility is not simply a function of the number of computers available, but of accessibility and reliability of the machines. More specifically, it is where and how students can access computers that impact a teacher’s ability to integrate technology into his or her lesson. Teachers whose students have more than one access point tend to use more technology. Teachers whose students have moveable technology that is not locked into one place or in one room also use a wider variety of technology tools; they also use them more frequently. Intel’s Essentials Course has been the flagship program within Intel’s efforts to partner with national governments to improve education. Over the last decade, the program has trained more than 10 million teachers in more than 60 countries (Lemke & Metiri Group, 2012). The Essentials Course offers teachers the knowledge and skills to integrate information and communication technologies as critical tools to encourage active student learning. Though Intel has supported the evaluation of its educational programs since they began in 1999, this report goes beyond program assessment to look at the role that various types of technology access points can have on a teachers’ use of technology tools and software with 1

“ICT resources” in this context refers to desktop computers, laptops, Internet access, Interactive Whiteboards, and projectors.

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Volume 5, 2013, www.ubi-learn.com, ISSN 1835-9795 © Common Ground, Daniel Light, Elizabeth Pierson, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

students. Results from this data analysis can be used to inform wider policy decisions around technology acquisition, installation, and maintenance.

Perspective Around the globe, ministries of education are promoting information and communication technologies (ICT) as an element of a modern education system. As they respond to the challenge of globalization, policymakers and educators recognize that educational applications of ICTs are a crucial element in a 21st-century education system. A motivation behind many of these ICT programs is the desire to overcome with one powerful resource the historical lack of educational tools and resources available in developing countries. When effectively integrated into high-quality learning environments, researchers have demonstrated that ICT can help deepen students’ content knowledge, engage them in constructing their own knowledge, and support the development of complex thinking skills (Balanskat, Blamire, & Kefala, 2006; Beatty & Gerace, 2009; Bruff, 2010; Caldwell, 2007; Johnson & McLeod, 2004; Lemke, 2006; Light & Pierson, 2012; Light & Pierson, 2013; Salend, 2009; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). In line with this research, the Essentials Course encourages teachers to put students in control of technology in the classroom, using technology to gather and analyze information, make presentations, and share their interpretations with others. The research on educational ICT in developing countries often finds a common problem: The computers, once distributed to the schools, may seldom be used in the classrooms (Valiente, 2010; Winthrop & Smith, 2012; Zucker & Light, 2009). Research on ICT initiatives easily identifies the challenges to their use in classrooms as teacher training, time constraints, or outdated teaching approaches (Akbaba-Altun, 2006; Comenius, 2008; Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009; Light & Rockman, 2008; Vyasulu Reddi & Sinha, 2003; Winthrop & Smith, 2012). Many of the teachers surveyed, all of whom completed the Intel Essentials training course, indicated that they were frequently using a variety of technology resources with their students. Using this population, this study sought to better understand the connection between access and the frequency and diversity of technology use across teachers. As this analysis shows, the distribution models of ICT resources within schools is a critical factor that affects the types of activities that teachers are able to do with their students. While this data permitted neither an analysis of the quality of use nor of the affects on students, understanding how best to increase technology use is a vital first step for fostering further changes in developed nations.

Methods Survey Design Between August 2010 and January 2011, one self-reporting online impact survey was made available to Intel Essentials Course graduates in 12 countries. The survey was designed to get a quick look at the current state of the Intel Essentials Course across a range of countries and contexts. The survey covered issues such as teachers’ implementation of a technology-rich lesson; obstacles and challenges to implementation; changes in teacher practice; and technical infrastructure in the schools in which the respondents work. This survey was developed using the previous Intel Teach global impact survey (Light, McMillan Culp, Menon, & Shulman, 2006a, 2006b) and updating it to reflect changes in the program in the intervening years. The survey also was shortened and simplified to make it easier for teachers to complete. SRI International oversaw the process of translation, dissemination, and data collection. The English language version of the survey was posted online in Lime Survey® by SRI. SRI then trained local evaluators on how to access Lime Survey to create a translated version of the impact survey that would feed back data in a consistent format. Twelve countries used the online format, and one country administered a paper-and-pencil survey, the data of which were ultimately aggregated with the other countries’ responses. 30

LIGHT AND PIERSON: IMPACT OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Data Analysis The research for this paper is based in quantitative methods. Methods of analysis included both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. Frequencies and cross-tabulations were run to gain a better understanding of how survey responses were distributed across a variety of demographic and school-level contextual data. Statistical methods, including two-tailed independent sample ttests, two-tailed paired samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA), and chisquared tests, were used to determine whether relationships in the descriptive data were statistically significant or whether they occurred simply by chance. The types of variables being considered determined which analysis was used. A small number of countries had discrepancies of varying degrees in their online survey that affected some of the data, resulting in the exclusion of their data from certain analyses. Places where data were excluded are clearly marked.

Participant Background The response rate varied across the participating countries (See Table 1, below). Across all 13 countries there were 2,473 total respondents, and 1,922 of those respondents were classroom teachers. Four geographic regions were represented, including the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Table 1: Final Sample of Classroom Teachers by Country Country

Number of respondents

Egypt Turkey Jordan Saudi Arabia Mid-East Regional Total South Africa African Regional Total Costa Rica Brazil Argentina South American Regional Total India Thailand Sri Lanka Philippines Pakistan Asian Regional Total Total respondents:

341 340 288 94 1,063 76 76 19 39 254 312 291 159 382 83 107 1,022 2,473

Number of classroom teachers 175 293 202 77 747 57 57 9 17 187 213 285 111 355 62 92 905 1,922

Source: Data adapted from Light & Pierson, 2011 The survey respondents included both classroom and non-classroom educators: The bulk of respondents work directly with students—77.7% were classroom teachers, and another 3.2% were technology coordinators or oversaw computer labs (See Table 2). The remaining respondents were divided between 15.9% teacher-trainers and 2.7% school administrators. Because the goal of this analysis was to explore how Essentials Course participants were using technology with their students, the analysis was restricted to the classroom teachers who work

31


directly with students. School administrators, teacher-trainers, and technology coordinators were removed from the sample. This limited sample has 1,922 respondents. Table 2: Respondents’ Professional Role (n=2,473) Role

Percentage

Classroom teacher

77.7%

Teacher-trainer

15.9%

Administrator

2.7%

Technology coordinator

3.2%

Other

.4%

Source: Data adapted from Light & Pierson, 2011 Table 3 shows that the respondents are evenly distributed across teachers at all levels of the school system, from primary to secondary, with only a slightly lower share in lower primary (17.1%). In addition, the sample includes educators who have substantial teaching experience, with nearly half (41.6%) of teachers having 10 to 20 years of teaching experience (See Table 3). A fifth of teachers teach all of the subject areas (20.5%). And most of the teachers work in the core subject areas of science (18.5%), language arts (17.6%), and math (16.2%). Also, 11.8% teach computers. Table 3: Classroom Teachers by Subject Area, Grade Level, and Years of Experience (n=1,922) Percentage

Subject Area

Grade Level

Teaching Experience

All English/ Language Arts Math Social Studies/ Geography/ History Science Computer Science/ Technology Education Foreign Languages Arts/ Music Health/ Physical Education Other Lower primary Upper primary Lower secondary or middle school Upper secondary Other Less than 3 years 3 to 9 years 10 to 20 years Over 20 years

Source: Data adapted from Light & Pierson, 2011 32

20.5% 17.6% 16.2% 12.3% 18.5% 11.8% 6.1% 3.2% 2.4% 1.3% 17.1% 28.9% 36.7% 29.6% .1% 10.2% 30.9% 41.6% 17.3%


Results The results are divided into three sections. First come two sections that review the technology tools and applications that teachers are using with their students, and the nature of the type of access teachers and their students have in school. The final section is an analysis of the relationship between access to ICT resources and the use of ICT with students.

Technology Use In order to explore the relationship between students’ computer access and ICT use, the survey first sought to establish what technologies teachers used with students and to what degree they were used. The teachers were surveyed on their use of 21 common technology resources and activities with their students. The items surveyed ranged from productivity software to Internet research to social networking. Teachers’ responses were analyzed along two dimensions: Do teachers use the tools with their students or not, and to what degree (frequency) do teachers use the tools with their students? For analysis, the tools and strategies were grouped into three categories: 2 productivity and traditional ICT tools, Web 2.0 tools and applications, and Internet research activities. Figures 1 through 3 show the percentage of teachers who report using each type of ICT tool or software. The most frequently used tools are presentation software at 97.1% and word processing at 96.6%, which are both from the productivity tools category (Figure 1). The most commonly used Web 2.0 tools are document-sharing sites, with 83.5% of teachers using that tool with students (Figure 2). Over ninety-two percent of teachers report accessing selected websites for Internet research with their students (Figure 3). Looking across the three categories of ICT tools and activities, the productivity tools and the Internet research activities are more commonly used by teachers than are the Web 2.0 tools.

Figure 1: Teacher Use of Productivity Software and Traditional ICT Tools with Students* *

This graph depicts teachers who report using these tools, regardless of frequency.

Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

2

Data from Costa Rican teachers was removed from this section because of a local variation in these survey items.

33


Figure 2: Teacher Use of Web 2.0 Activities with Students * *


Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

Figure 3: Teacher Use of Internet Research Activities with Students * *


Source: Light & Pierson, 2011 In addition to calculating what percentage of teachers is using particular technology tools and software, we created two indices measuring frequency of use for the productivity tool and Web 2.0 tool categories. The first index is a continuous measure of the variety and frequency of technology use. The teachers’ responses to the six items about productivity tools, the 11 items about Web 2.0 tools, and the four items about Internet research activities were combined to create a single indicator for each category to capture some aspect of the frequency and variety of tool use. On average, teachers scored a 7.39 on the traditional tool scale, a 9.08 on the Web 2.0 scale, and a 5.17 on the Internet research scale. 3

3

Responses were recoded where “Not at all” was equivalent to a 0, “A little” was given a 1,” and “A lot” was allocated a 2. Respondents’ scores were summed across the three groups to give them one score for each index. The scores on the traditional technology tool indicator ranged from 0 to 12, scores on the Web2.0 indicator ranged from 0 to 22, and scores on Internet research indicator ranged from 0 to 8.

34


Technology Access The survey also asked respondents a variety of questions about where and how they can access ICT resources for themselves and for work with their students. The following section reviews the data on teachers’ and students’ access to ICT resources and then examines the relationship of access to their use of technology. Teachers across the sample reported having access to computers through a variety of access points. Figure 4 shows the percentage of teachers who have different types of access to ICT for professional use. The survey also asked various questions about where students could access ICT resources in school. The results of both of these series of questions were compiled into a six- and five-level index respectively. Each response is mutually exclusive. The most common ICT access point for both teachers and their students are computer labs at their school. While 30.4% of teachers say their students can access computers in both a lab and in the classroom, only 12% of teachers reported that same flexibility of access for themselves, since many teachers are prohibited from using lab computers for their own planning. In addition, regardless of their access points at school, 89.9% of teachers report having computer access at home.

Figure 4: School-Level Computer Access Points for Teachers and Students Source: Light & Pierson, 2011

Influence of Multiple Access Points to School-Based ICT Resources on Use We ran an ANOVA to look at the effect of the type of school-based access to ICT on the teacher’s degree of technology use with students. The first major finding is that the type of teacher access point has no significant impact on that teacher’s use of technology with students. In other words, there is no significant difference between the frequency or type of technology that teachers use with their students, regardless of whether they have access to a laptop, a teacher lab, a classroom computer, or both lab and classroom (p>.05). In contrast, the data show that the type of student access point does, in fact, significantly impact teachers’ use of technology, though not use of Internet research activities. In fact, teachers who have more flexible access points (i.e., lab and classroom or one-to-one environment) not only use a wider variety of tools, but they use them more frequently. Table 4 shows the average number of tools used alongside the average degree of use by student access point. The first notable finding is that even teachers in schools with no student-level technology access are doing 35


some ICT activities with their students. Most likely, this is through community access points like cybercafés. In addition, both the number of ICT resources used and the amount of use increase as teachers gain flexibility in ICT access. Because teachers were given a higher value if they indicated that they used a tool “a lot,” the average degree of use column reflects the fact that teachers are using the tools more frequently.

Table 4: Number of Tools Versus Degree of Use Across Types of Tools and Activities Type of access No access Classroom only (Not one-to-one) Computer lab only Lab and classroom One-to-one environment 1 2

Web 2.0 technology1 Average # of Average tools used degree of use 4.7 6.68

Traditional technology2 Average # of Average tools used degree of use 3.2 6.45

4.6

6.27

3.6

7.27

6.3

8.72

4.2

7.33

6.8

9.76

4.5

7.51

7.4

10.82

4.7

7.71

Maximum # of tools: 11; Range of degree of use: 0 to 22 Maximum # of tools: 6; Range of degree of use: 0 to 12

Source: Data adapted from Light & Pierson, 2011 The ANOVA analysis, run on the data from Table 4, also found that teachers who have lab and classroom access to ICT, or have a one-to-one environment, were both significantly more likely to use ICT than were their peers who have access only to a computer lab (p