Introducing ICT in schools in England: Rationale and consequences

This paper provides a critical perspective on the attempts to promote the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching and learning in England. It describes the rationale given for the introduction of ICT in terms of its potential to impact on educational standards to contribute to developing a curriculum which has more vocational/social significance and, more generally, to provide a catalyst for curriculum reform. The introduction of ICT is underpinned by the argument that schools should show a higher degree of correspondence with a wider world where the use of technology is pervasive. However, the claims made for ICT display excessive optimism and a sense of “inevitability.” ICT has had only a modest impact on schools, though impact has to be considered in the context of what can realistically be expected: the contribution of ICT has not been negligible. Future development in the use of ICT should be more measured and adaptive, taking account of the multidimensional nature of technology. This paper provides a critical perspective on the attempts to promote the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching and learning in England. The first section describes the rationale for the introduction of ICT, particularly the claims that ICT can impact on educational standards, carry a vocational/social significance and provide a catalyst for curriculum reform. The second section shows how each of these goals has been distorted by excessive optimism and a sense of “inevitability.” The final section of the paper discusses the case for using ICT and argues for a more measured and adaptive policy and practice. The introduction of the ICT into schools in England A feature of the attempt to introduce ICT into schools in England has been the consistent and proactive championing of technology by successive governments (see eg, Buckingham, 2007; Twining, 2002; Wellington, 2005). The first “Computers in the Curriculum Project” was set up in 1973 and was followed by initiatives such as the 1981 “Micros in Schools” scheme, the Microelectronics Education Programme (1980–86), and the broader Technical and Vocational Initiative (TVEI). Interactive video was promoted in the 1980s alongside Neris, a teacher-resource database available online. Initiatives in the 1990s included support for the use of Integrated Learning Systems, multimedia laptops for teachers (1996–98) and the Education Department’s Superhighways Initiative (1996–98). The focus on new technology was strengthened by new Labour Governments (1997–2010) British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 191–201 doi:10.1111/bjet.12033 © 2013 British Educational Research Association (Selwyn, 2008). A National Grid for Learning (NGFL), in its first phase (1998–99), provided funds for hardware, software and Internet connectivity, and this was followed by a raft of further projects and funding schemes. Continuing professional development (CPD) in ICT was undertaken by nearly all eligible teachers within New Opportunities Fund (NoF) training, and a Building Schools for the Future programme was set up in 2005 to help local authorities and schools invest in new buildings with appropriate computer infrastructure. A key organising document in respect to the use of ICT was the Harnessing Technology initiative (Department for Education and Skills, 2005a) which outlined the case for ICT in teaching and learning and set broad targets in order to reach “e-maturity.” During all phases of the introduction of ICT, government agencies have been created to mediate between policy and schools: MESU, NCET and Becta respectively. However, much of the proactive support and direction concerning the use of new technology has been reduced by an incoming (2010) coalition government: Becta has been shut down and a more laissez faire approach to educational policy, at least in respect to technology, has been offered, even if ministers have at times continued to make pronouncements in favour of the use of ICT (eg, Gove, 2012). Why has ICT been promoted? Leaving aside the contribution of technology to management and administration, there has been a largely consistent rationale behind initiatives to promote ICT. In particular, there has been an assumption that ICT can have a positive impact on standards, can provide more vocational relevance in the curriculum and can be a catalyst for curriculum reform (see eg, Hawkridge, 1990; Reynolds, Treharne & Tripp, 2003). All three are briefly described next. The belief that ICT can impact on standards Becta has produced varying evidence for the impact of ICT on standards (eg, Cox et al, 2003; Harrison et al, 2006), with Underwood (2009) more confident in arguing that ICT led to Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic • The rationale for using ICT in school has been based on its contribution to raising educational standards, its vocational/social significance and its potential as a catalyst for curriculum reform. • In practice, each of these goals is problematic. Impact on standards is difficult to assess; ICT provides an illusion of curriculum reform, but not the substance. • Teachers frequently find the use of ICT worthwhile and there are compelling accounts of classroom practice which do not always tally with the “official” rationale for using ICT. What this paper adds • The contribution of ICT is presented in its historical context. • The use of ICT is seen as negotiated by teachers in their classrooms. • An understanding of teaching as workplace activity is offered. • A balanced stance on the use of ICT is provided, one which steers clear of both optimistic and pessimistic rhetoric. Implications for practice and/or policy • Policy makers need a more measured and adaptive stance when promoting ICT. • School leaders need to connect teachers’ personal goals with wider strategic concerns. • Teachers need sustained, critical support to develop their use of ICT. 192 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 © 2013 British Educational Research Association noticeable and important learning gains in national curriculum subjects and across sectors. These gains were linked to the use of particular technologies (such as interactive whiteboards [IWBs], learning platforms and broadband) and to particular affordances such as opportunities to support pupil-led research in the classroom, project-based learning, the development and sharing of lessons and learning resources, and enriched delivery through the use of IWBs. Evidence of impact has been periodically taken up by ministers. A policy document (Department for Education and Skills, 2005b) prefaced by Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education at the time, suggested that the use of ICT could make an impact on assessment outcomes equivalent in some subjects to half a grade at General Certificate of Secondary Education level (the general academic qualification mostly taken by pupils at 16 years old). It was also claimed that achievement at key stage 2 (children aged from 7 to 11) was higher in schools with good ICT resources than schools with poor ICT resources, controlling for other relevant variables. These claims should be seen in context. An incoming labour government had been influenced by two reports (McKinsey & Company, 1997; Stevenson, 1997) which argued that there was enough evidence to support a “step change” in the role of computers in school. By the mid-2000s, ministers felt able to claim that their policies had provided evidence that ICT “worked”; it was time to close the argument and focus much more on how ICT worked and support schools in making it work. Vocational/economic relevance The second key concern, again particularly for policy makers, has been the economic/social relevance of new technology and its apparent contribution to the learning society and to general vocational preparation. This comment by Kenneth Baker, Minister for Information Technology in 1981, is typical: I want to ensure that the kids of today are trained with the skills that gave their fathers and grandfathers jobs. It’s like generals fighting the battles of yesteryear . . . and that is the reason why we’ve pushed ahead with computers into schools. I want youngsters, boys and girls leaving school at sixteen, to actually be able to operate a computer (cited Wellington, 1989, page xv). This was echoed 16 years later by Tony Blair (Prime Minister at the time) in introducing the NGFL, arguing that “children cannot be effective in tomorrow’s world if they are trained in yesterday’s skills and that international competitiveness depended on up to date teaching and training” (DfEE, 1997). More recently in 2012, Michael Gove, the coalition Secretary of State for Education, similarly found that “Our school system has not prepared children for this new world. Millions have left school over the past decade without even the basics they need for a decent job. And the current curriculum cannot prepare British students to work at the very forefront of technological change” (Gove, 2012). While there is an agreement of the importance of the vocational agenda, varying implications for practice have been drawn. The early introduction of computers in schools was more focused on awareness raising, implying a deficit model of children’s understanding of ICT. In recent years, it has been more usual to point to young people’s extensive interest and participation with new technology out of school (eg, Department for Education and Skills, 2005b) and almost a sense that teachers themselves are at a deficit and holding learners back from something they have a strong disposition to use (Gove, 2012). There has been some further ambiguity in what being “able to use a computer” may imply. At times, this has meant programming a computer, something that has come back into fashion under the coalition government, but it might also mean being able to use the computer for creativity and other worthwhile purposes within the wider curriculum. Hence, the vocational agenda has led to both promotion of ICT as a subject and as a cross-curricular skill, though there has not always been a coherent relationship between the two. A catalyst for curriculum reform The vocational rationale fuels a more general belief that through the use of technology, what is being taught and learnt in school can be kept up to date, creating some level of correspondence Introducing ICT into schools in England 193 © 2013 British Educational Research Association between schools and the societies they serve. Higgins & Moseley (2001, p. 204) describe two possible uses of ICT: the first, “retrospective” to accommodate an existing curriculum, and the second, forward looking and leading to radical changes in teaching and learning. The latter has tended to capture the imagination of teacher educators supporting the introduction of ICT into education (Hammond, 2011). Educators, while recognising the limitations of programmed instruction and often lukewarm on IWBs, have often seen technology as enabling a paradigm shift in teaching and learning. ICT has become associated with collaborative and authentic learning as well as a more pragmatic relationship to knowledge (Dillon, 2004) and a less “sacred” view of the curriculum (John, 2005; Kennewell, 2004; Scrimshaw, 2004; and Twining et al, 2006) have all argued in broadly similar ways for an association between ICT and a “constructivist, student-centred” approach to teaching and learning. More recently, the use of ICT has been incorporated into a concept of personalisation in which pupils have more autonomy and ownership (Underwood et al, 2009), an idea that has had some, albeit cautious, backing by progressively minded Ministers (Miliband, 2004). A more radical take on curriculum reform is provided by Facer (2011), who, in reviewing the Government-supported “Beyond Current Horizons” programme, envisaged a democratic type of educational provision, taking due account of young people’s changing sense of identity and digital working practices. A distorted view of technology in the curriculum While young people’s use of ICT has been periodically a cause for concern, even panic, in the popular press, its promotion in school has been largely accepted by policy makers, teacher educators and indeed, by teachers (eg, Infogroup/ORC International, 2010) and parents (eg, Marsh et al, 2005). However, the nature and consequences of the introduction have been disputed particularly by commentators offering a sociological/social science critique (see eg, Buckingham, 2007; Moran-Ellis & Cooper, 2000; Robins & Webster, 1999; Selwyn, 1999, 2008, 2011; and Selwyn & Gorard, 2003). One conclusion to be drawn from these varied sources is that policy and practice in the use of technology have been “distorted.” In particular, the use of ICT has been unquestioned, policy has focused on adoption rather than pedagogy, and beliefs about ICT are characterised by determinism, for example, a belief that children will find the use of computers inherently interesting or introducing ICT will necessarily lead to curriculum reform. ICT policy has tended to focus on the provision of new hardware, and an attempt to keep up with changing technological capabilities, rather than pedagogic understanding, with the result that “lessons from the past” are left unexplored (Rushby & Seabrook, 2008) Discussion of the contribution of ICT has been caught up in a largely aspirational and “inevitable” discourse. This can be exemplified in the context of the three assumptions about, or rationales for, the use of ICT presented earlier. ICT cannot make a measurable impact on standards Many are prepared to accept that ICT can have an impact on aspects of teaching and learning, for example, helping to make the curriculum more accessible through the use of multimedia and interactivity (eg, Passey, Rogers, Machell & McHugh, 2004). Pupils may take pride in the more professional presentation of work created at the computer (Cox et al, 2003), and technology may be particularly welcomed by those with special needs (Higgins, 2003) or disaffected from school (Duckworth, 2005). Going further, it is not difficult to take seriously the view expressed within Harnessing Technology that technology can enhance and extend the range of learning and even make it “more exciting” (Department for Education and Skills, 2005a). For example, a recent report aimed at showcasing the use of learning platforms in schools in England provided evidence of an impact on parental involvement, encouragement for a more collaborative and learnercentred pedagogy, organisational gains across the school, and support for inclusion and opportunities for enhancing learning assessment (Jewitt, Hadjithoma-Garstka, Clark, Banaji & Selwyn, 194 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 © 2013 British Educational Research Association 2010); though whether any of these has a direct impact on assessed learning outcomes is doubtful. Even officially commissioned reporting is often ambiguous about the general impact of ICT (eg, Harrison et al, 2006; Watson, 1993) and of specific technologies, for example the IWB (Moss et al, 2007). Those looking at the evidence “from a distance” find it difficult to identify statistically significant impact (eg, Andrews et al, 2005; Higgins, 2003) and Cox & Marshall (2007) note the lack of a longitudinal perspective or cost-benefit analysis. Higgins (2003) suggests that the impact of ICT is modest compared with other interventions, even if holding to the view that ICT, if used “effectively,” can make a difference (Higgins, 2003). The lack of impact can be explained not only by practical and technical difficulties, but also by three more fundamental issues. First, technology invites difficulties as well as opportunities. For example, IWB technology can help a teacher engage young people behaviourally through the use of multimedia, but this may result in overlong presentations and a “dumbing down” of teacher explanation to a series of bullet points (see Reedy, 2008, and for a more general discussion of IWBs, see Higgins, Beauchamp & Miller, 2007). Behavioural and affective engagement, which ICT is seen as promoting, is important but it is not the same as cognitive engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Second, and, more fundamentally, the kinds of activities which technology seem to promote do not lend themselves to experimental testing and “hard” evidence of impact. This was certainly the case for learning platforms cited earlier, but raises a more general point regarding the changing nature of activity supported by ICT. For example, a key affordance of data-logging devices is that they allow learners to investigate contexts in which data are not easily captured by hand and eye; to compare automatic and manual data collection is not comparing “like with like” and would necessarily favour learners more experienced with one type of context than the other. Finally, as with all educational research, what is being measured is so complex, and the intervention “ICT” is often so difficult to define, as to offer little opportunity for establishing cause and effect. One aspect of the problem is deciding what to make of the novelty value of ICT. In fact, novelty has been explained as Hawthorne effect but, just as plausibly, as constraining the use of ICT due to the problems of early adoption. The search for impact can offer little more than what Bassey (2001) once called “fuzzy prediction” or even what the philosopher Hume called “constant conjunctions” and a disposition to impose causal relationships in contexts in which no causality can be claimed. Why vocationalism misleads The vocational agenda has misled policy makers by putting economic relevance above pedagogical thinking. It has led to an overemphasis on “office” software (a deficit model of learners’ past knowledge and experience) rather than build on home use (Selwyn, Potter & Cranmer, 2010) or the use of software developed by educators. There remains a home/school divide in terms of ICT: use in the home is more likely to be creative, communicative and game like; use in the school is focused, linear and single tasking (Eynon, 2009; Valentine, Marsh & Pattie, 2005). The problem may not lie in vocationalism as an idea. Hodkinson (1991, p. 80) once identified a progressive vocationalism concerned to promote autonomous decision making and the confidence to tackle real-world problems and this would provide a useful perspective on teaching and learning with ICT. Instead, the problem lies in a narrow form of vocationalism which has distorted both the qualification framework in England (eg, Ofsted, 2011; Wolf, 2011) and the more general use of ICT. Teachers who base their use of ICT on its vocational value may see the teaching, or at least the learning of ICT skills, as an end in itself (eg, Drenoyianni & Selwood, 1998). For example, the widespread reported practice of leaving children to use word processors for solely presentational purposes (eg, Mumtaz & Hammond, 2002) is not aligned to any viable Introducing ICT into schools in England 195 © 2013 British Educational Research Association view of teaching writing skills, but can be justified by the acquisition of ICT skills. The problem of distortion is long standing. The first large-scale research undertaken to examine the impact of ICT in England (Watson, 1993, p. 79) noted how some learning with ICT was viewed positively simply because a business application, an Excel spreadsheet, was being used, irrespective of the goals of the activity or the appropriateness of the software. ICT is not a catalyst for curriculum reform The research literature has provided copious evidence that ICT has not been used as frequently or as desired by the optimists (Reynolds et al, 2003), a stance endorsed by Ofsted, the government inspection service for schools, in 2004: As yet, the government’s aim for ICT to become embedded in the work of schools is a reality in only a small minority of schools. More typical is a picture in which pupils’ ICT experiences across the curriculum are sporadic and dependent on teachers; in many schools, opportunities to exploit the technology are lost on a daily basis (Ofsted, 2004). There are several reasons why adoption of ICT has been a challenge (eg, Scrimshaw, 2004). At the school level, there are often difficulties with lack of access to machines, the location of machines and access to technical support; the school ethos might not be supportive of the use of ICT and ICT policies might be underdeveloped (Condie, Munro, Seagraves & Kenesson, 2007). There may be a lack of training and pedagogical leadership or shortcomings in the training provided. At the individual level, teachers may lack confidence in using the technology. However, even if these challenges could be overcome, there is scant evidence that the widespread and indeed creative use of ICT would lead to a radically distinctive view of teaching and learning (eg, Convery, Mavers, Lewin & Somekh, 2006; Tearle, 2003) and the use of ICT remains a challenge of “fitting it in” (Cartwright & Hammond, 2007). Teachers feel the need to adapt ICT resources to local circumstances (Hennessy, Ruthven & Brindley, 2005) and new teachers may be trained and start their careers with a disposition to use ICT, but their use becomes tailored to expectations (Slaouti & Barton, 2007). This picture of accommodation is shared internationally. For example, Olson (1988, 2005) sees ICT as needing to be integrated into classroom routines or into what Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) describe as a “grammar” of schooling. The wider world of the teacher is also convincingly evoked in research on workplace learning (eg, Eraut, 2010; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2003) in which actions, including a decision whether or not to develop ICT in teaching, need to be understood within a nested set of expectations and practices within school departments, schools themselves and the educational system as a whole. Teachers can, of course, exercise agency, but are constrained by a wider ecology, albeit one which they have helped create. Discussion This paper has examined policy and practice regarding the use of ICT in England and suggested that the claims made for the implementation of ICT into school do not stand up to critical scrutiny. The introduction of ICT has been justified as having the potential to make a “significant” impact on learning outcomes, but such an impact is unlikely and methodologically implausible. A special association between ICT and a more personalised /learner-centred/socially constructivist framework for teaching and learning has also been claimed, but this is again unlikely. To borrow a term from Bijker (1997), technology is multidimensional; its use is not defined by designers or policy makers, rather it carries “affordances,” a form of negotiation between the user, the context in which the tool is being used and the properties of the technology (Hammond, 2010). Rather than promote meaningful change, the use of technology has generated “if only” narratives: if only the framework for teaching and learning could be changed (eg, Lewin, Mavers & Somekh, 2003); if only governments had acted differently (eg, Agalianos, Noss & Whitty, 2001); if only a threshold in access could be crossed (eg, Watson, 1993); or, in the US context, if only teachers could change their minds about the nature of teaching and learning (Ertmer, 2005). 196 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 © 2013 British Educational Research Association A key organising principle for those promoting the use of technology, both in England and more globally (eg, Looi, 2001; Mastrangelo & Loncarevic, 2004 and Plomp, Anderson & Law, 2009; Smeets, 2005), has been that schooling should move towards a degree of correspondence with the wider world. Correspondence, of course, is not a new idea. For example, structural Marxists (see Livingstone, 1995), influential in the later part of the 20th century, argued that over time, educational systems became more aligned with the needs and interests of the capitalist state, both in terms of the skills they promote and the conformity they encourage. Old-style Marxist correspondence provided both an explanation for the development of schools and a critique of educational practice. In contrast, this more recent notion of technological correspondence turns the assumptions of structural Marxism on their head. The problem with schooling is that it is too divorced from the wider world, not too close to it, and correspondence, if properly understood, is to be encouraged as it might lead to a more critical, creative and technologically rich curriculum better suited to working practices in the postmodern economy (Hargreaves, 1994, 2003). However, there are at least two major problems with this notion of technological correspondence. First, much less benign technological futures are, and have always been, on offer (eg, Peters, 2001) in which unemployment, along with deskilling and intensification at work, are seen as increasingly the norm. Curriculum reformers are offering correspondence with an idealised social reality rather than social reality as it is. Second, policy makers and schools themselves tend to hold out against correspondence. In particular, schools “enjoy” a relative autonomy and seek to balance a range of, at times, contradictory goals and practices. Education is and remains a contested concept, the aims of which are difficult to pin down (Desjardins, 2008). Schools have what Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2003) describe as “secret stories” which make them resistant to official discourses about teaching, and when teachers talk about their work, they offer their own interpretations of their goals and the ways in which they evaluate learners and learning (eg, Alexander, 2010). The problem, then, with the rationale given for the introduction of ICT, is that it has oversimplified a complex issue. This fits into a wider narrative (eg, Ball, 1990) in which educational policies present an idealised picture in order to capture support for change. However, in the case of new technology, this idealised picture has set the bar for evaluating the contribution of ICT impossibly high. A more realistic appraisal of the contribution of ICT is needed. Such an appraisal would take into account that ICT is used routinely for teacher preparation and in classroom teaching, certainly in respect to the use of the IWB (eg, Infogroup/ORC International, 2010). It would note the introduction and development of a wide array of specialist technology-based courses. Furthermore, ICT remains popular among teachers, and pupils generally welcome the use of ICT and use it routinely, even if in a limited way, outside the classroom. Finally, the widespread use of social networking has created a disposition towards a wider and more interactive view of teaching and learning as exemplified in relation to learning platforms. Critics see ICT policy as something to be explained away by the malign influence of commercial providers, a false consciousness on the part of policy makers or a form of reification among educators through which technology is invested with objective qualities which are, in reality, socially constructed. However, this is to underestimate the degree to which schools have adapted technology and framed it for their own purposes: ICT may not be catalytic, but teachers frequently find its use worthwhile and there are many compelling and engaging accounts of classroom practice. Kennewell, addressing a practitioner audience, notes that “when you observe pupils using ICT, rather than traditional methods, you usually notice a higher level of motivation, a more intense engagement with the activity” (Kennewell, 2004, p. 23). This is highly important in explaining the attraction of ICT even if “engagement” is not to be taken for granted and “impact on learning” is much more complex than many commentators allow. Technology seems to have a persistent appeal and new technology generates what Latour once called a flux of possibilities that at least some educators seem ready to embrace (Latour, 2002). Introducing ICT into schools in England 197 © 2013 British Educational Research Association Discussion of technology is prone to excess and all too easily fits into an optimistic/pessimistic rhetoric as indentified by Reynolds et al (2003), and picked up by Selwyn (2011) writing in “praise of pessimism.” However, neither excessive hope nor despair is necessary: the attempt to develop the use of ICT in school has presented contradictions and challenges in which opportunities and constraints are complementary; outcomes are not easily captured; and possibilities emerge but are constrained at macro, meso and micro levels. This leads to some interesting implications for future policy and for those trying to lead change in schools. In particular, policy makers need to be more measured about their policies. Ministers should not avoid making decisions and offering rationales, but they need to be aware that all educational policies will be reinterpreted by teachers as they carry out their daily work; outcomes of policies may be disappointing, at times simply unexpected. Policy can do no more than provide the big picture; schools need to be provided with the flexibility to adapt policies and policy makers must themselves adapt to feedback. In place of pathfinder projects, genuine pilots are needed (Chapman, 2002). Two initiatives related to the introduction of technology illustrate the need for adaptability very well. The first, the TVEI initiative, has been repeatedly identified as a political decision, the whim of a conservative minister of information technology (Perry, Amadeo, Fletcher & Walker, 2010). Yet, while open to dispute, some commentators saw TVEI as reinvigorating teaching because it was educator led and because it gave teachers and head teachers the flexibility to adapt the programme to local circumstances (Hazelwood et al, 1988; Hodkinson, 1991; Merson, 1992). The second, NoF training (an attempt to provide training to all teachers), was generated from a much more considered and consensual approach. In contrast to TVEI, NoF training was seen as top down and inflexible; the outcomes of NoF were a resounding disappointment (eg, Conlon, 2004; Ofsted, 2004; Perry et al, 2010). Any rationale given for the use of ICT will always be redefined within cultures of teaching. Thoseworking to develop the use of ICT in schools need not take these cultures for granted or play downlimitations of practice, but they do need to find a way of marrying teachers’ personal interestsand motivations with wider strategic goals (Holmes, Gardner & Galanouli, 2007). There is strongevidence that when ICT CPD has managed this, and when educators and school leaders haveprovided support and sustained critical feedback, teachers would be able to develop their use oftechnology in ways that appeal to learners and to their wider professional development goals (eg,Convery et al, 2006; Somekh et al, 2007). There need not be an iron curtain between home andschool use of technology (Kent & Facer, 2004). The results of these kinds of interventions arerarely a revolution in schooling, but they do provide the basis for developing more measured andadaptive policy and practice. ReferencesAgalianos, A., Noss, R. & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: the struggle over the soul of aneducational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 4, 479–500.Alexander, E. (2010). A successful child: early years practitioners’ understandings of quality. Early Years,30, 2, 107–118.Andrews, R., Dan, H., Freeman, A., McGuinn, N., Robinson, A. & Zhu, D. (2005). The effectiveness of differentICTs in the teaching and learning of English (written composition), 5–16. London: EPPI-Centre, Social ScienceResearch Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy in education. London: Routledge.Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalisation in educational research: fuzzy prediction.Oxford Review of Education, 27, 1, 5–22.Bijker, W. (1997). Bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge, UK:Polity Press.Cartwright, V. & Hammond, M. (2007). “Fitting it in”: a study exploring ICT use in a UK primary school.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 2, 390–407.198 British Journal of Educational TechnologyVol 45 No 2 2014 © 2013 British Educational Research Association Chapman, J. (2002). Systems failure: why government must learn to think differently. London: Demos.Condie, R., Munro, B., Seagraves, L. & Kenesson, S. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools—a landscape review.Coventry: Becta.Conlon, T. (2004). A failure of delivery: the United Kingdom’s New Opportunities Fund programme ofteacher training in information and communications technology. Journal of In-Service Education, 30, 1,115–140.Convery, A., Mavers, D., Lewin, C. & Somekh, B. (2006). ICT Test Bed action research reports cross-case analysisDecember 2006. Manchester: ICT Test Bed.Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T. & Rhodes, V. (2003). A review of the researchliterature relating to ICT and attainment. Coventry: Becta.Cox, M. & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: do we know what we should know? Education and InformationTechnologies, 12, 2, 59–70.Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high schoolclassrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 4, 813–834.Department for Education and Employment (1997). Connecting the learning society: national grid for learning,the government’s consultation paper. London: DfEE.Department for Education and Skills (2005a). Harnessing technology: transforming learning and children’sservices. London: DfES.Department for Education and Skills (2005b). Fulfilling the potential: transforming teaching and learningthrough ICT in schools. London: DfES.Desjardins, R. (2008). Researching the links between education and well-being. European Journal of Educa-tion, 43, 1, 23–35.Dillon, P. (2004). Trajectories and tensions in the theory of information and communication technology ineducation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 2, 138–150.Drenoyianni, H. & Selwood, I. D. (1998). Conceptions or misconceptions? Primary teachers’ perceptions anduse of computers in the classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 3, 2, 87–99.Duckworth, J. (2005). Notschool.net. Exeter: Julia Duckworth Ltd. Retrieved February 21, 2013, from http://www.notschool.net/docs/NS_Eval2005.pdfEraut, M. (2010). Knowledge, working practices and learning. In S. Billet (Ed.), Learning through practice(pp. 37–58). London: Springer.Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 4, 25–39.Eynon, R. (2009). Harnessing technology: mapping young people’s uses of technology in their own contexts—a nationally representative survey. Becta: Coventry.Facer, K. (2011). Taking the 21st century seriously: young people, education and socio-technical futures.Oxford Review of Education, 38, 1, 97–113.Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of theevidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1, 59–109.Gove, M. (2012). Michael Gove speech at the BETT Show 2012. London: Department for Education. RetrievedFebruary 25, 2013, from http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00201868/michael-gove-speech-at-the-bett-show-2012Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education?Education and Information Technologies, 15, 3, 205–217.Hammond, M. (2011). Beliefs and ICT: what can we learn from experienced educators? Technology, Pedagogyand Education, 20, 3, 289–300.Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Buckingham and New York: Open University Pressand Teachers College Press.Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E. et al (2006). The impact of information andcommunication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. Coventry: Becta.Hawkridge, D. (1990). Who needs computers in schools, and why? Computers & Education, 15, 1–3, 1–6.Hazelwood, R., Fitz-Gibbon, C. & McCabe, C. (1988). Student perception of teaching and learning styles inTVEI. Evaluation & Research in Education, 2, 2, 61–68.Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subjectteaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 2, 155–192.Higgins, S. (2003). Does ICT improve learning and teaching in schools? A professional user review of UK researchundertaken for the British Educational Research Association. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.Introducing ICT into schools in England 199 © 2013 British Educational Research Association Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G. & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards.Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 3, 213–225.Higgins, S. & Moseley, D. (2001). Teachers’ thinking about information and communications technologyand learning: beliefs and outcomes. Teacher Development, 5, 2, 191–210.Hodkinson, P. (1991). Liberal Education and the New Vocationalism: a progressive partnership? OxfordReview of Education, 17, 1, 73–88.Hodkinson, P. & Hodkinson, H. (2003). Individuals, communities of practice and the policy context: schoolteachers’ learning in their workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 25, 1, 3–21.Holmes, B., Gardner, J. & Galanouli, D. (2007). Striking the right chord and sustaining successfulprofessional development in information and communications technologies. Journal of In-Service Educa-tion, 33, 4, 389–404.Infogroup/ORC International (2010). Harnessing technology school survey: 2010. Coventry: Becta.Jewitt, C., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., Clark, W., Banaji, S. & Selwyn, S. (2010). School use of learning platformsand associated technologies. Coventry: Becta.John, P. (2005). The sacred and the profane: subject sub-culture, pedagogical practice and teachers’ percep-tions of the classroom uses of ICT. Educational Review, 57, 4, 471–490.Kennewell, S. (2004). Meeting the standards in using ICT for secondary teaching: a guide to the ITT NC. London:Routledge.Kent, N. & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people’s home and school ICT use.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 6, 440–455.Latour, B. (2002). Morality and technology, the end of the means. Theory, Culture and Society, 19, 5/6,247–260 (translated by Couze Venn).Lewin, C., Mavers, D. & Somekh, B. (2003). Broadening access to the curriculum through using technologyto link home and school: a critical analysis of reforms intended to improve students’ educational attain-ment. Curriculum Journal, 14, 1, 23–53.Livingstone, D. (1995). Searching for the missing links: neo-Marxist theories of education. British Journalof Sociology of Education, 16, 1, 53–73.Looi, C. K. (2001). Regional editorial: IT programmes and policies in the Asia-Pacific region. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 17, 1, 1–3.Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S. & Wright, K. (2005). Report of the ‘Young Children’sUse of Popular Culture, Media and New Technologies’ Study, funded by BBC Worldwide and the Esmée FairbairnFoundation. Sheffield: Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield.Mastrangelo, J.-G. & Loncarevic, M. E. (2004). UNESCO’s basic texts on the Information Society. Paris:UNESCO.McKinsey and Company (1997). The future of information technology in UK schools. London: McKinsey andCompany.Merson, M. (1992). The four ages of TVEI: a review of policy. British Journal of Education & Work, 5, 2, 5–18.Miliband, D. (2004). Personalised learning: building a new relationship with schools. London: DfES.Moran-Ellis, J. & Cooper, G. (2000). Making connections: children, technology and the national gridfor learning. Sociological Research Online, 5, 3. Retrieved February 21, 2013, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/3/moran-ellis.htmlMoss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A. & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboard,pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: an evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) ProjectLondon Challenge. London: Institute of Education, University of London/DfES.Mumtaz, S. & Hammond, M. (2002). The word processor re-visited: observations on the use of theword processor to develop literacy at key stage 2. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 3, 345–347.Ofsted (2004). ICT in schools 2004: the impact of government initiatives five years on. London: Ofsted.Ofsted (2011). ICT in schools 2008–11, an evaluation of information and communication technology education inschools in England 2008–11. London: Ofsted.Olson, J. (1988). Schoolworlds/microworlds: computers and the culture of the school. Oxford: Pergamon.Olson, J. (2005). Information technology in schools: should the product be marked hazardous? “Seminar-.Net”: International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 1, 2. Retrieved February 21, 2013,from http://seminar.net/index.php/volume-1-issue-2-2005-previousissuesmeny-109/40-information-technology-in-schools-should-the-product-be-marked-hazardousPassey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J. & McHugh, G. (2004). The motivational effect of ICT on pupils. Lancaster:Lancaster University Department of Educational Research.Perry, A., Amadeo, C., Fletcher, M. & Walker, E. (2010). Instinct or reason: how education policy is made andhow we might make it better. Reading: LSN and CfBT.200 British Journal of Educational TechnologyVol 45 No 2 2014 © 2013 British Educational Research Association Peters, M. (2001). National education policy constructions of the knowledge economy towards a critique.Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2, 1, 1–21.Plomp, T., Anderson, R. & Law, N. (2009). Cross-national information and communication technology policiesand practices in education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Reedy, G. (2008). PowerPoint, interactive whiteboards, and the visual culture of technology in schools.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17, 2, 143–162.Reynolds, D., Treharne, D. & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT—the hopes and the reality. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 34, 2, 151–167.Robins, K. & Webster, F. (1999). Times of the technoculture. London: Routledge.Rushby, N. & Seabrook, J. (2008). Understanding the past—illuminating the future. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 39, 2, 198–233.Scrimshaw, P. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Coventry:Becta.Selwyn, N. (1999). Why the computer is not dominating schools: a failure of policy or a failure of practice?Cambridge Journal of Education, 29, 1, 77–91.Selwyn, N. (2008). Realising the potential of new technology? Assessing the legacy of New Labour’s ICTagenda 1997–2007. Oxford Review of Education, 34, 6, 701–712.Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: in praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology.British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 5, 713–718.Selwyn, N. & Gorard, S. (2003). Reality bytes: examining the rhetoric of widening educational participationvia ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 2, 169–181.Selwyn, N., Potter, J. & Cranmer, S. (2010). Primary schools and ICT: learning from learner perspectives. London:Continuum.Slaouti, D. & Barton, A. (2007). Opportunities for practice and development: newly qualified teachers andthe use of information and communications technologies in teaching foreign languages in English sec-ondary school contexts. Journal of In-Service Education, 33, 4, 405–424.Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers& Education, 44, 3, 343–355.Somekh, B., Underwood, J., Convery, A., Dillon, G., Jarvis, J., Lewin, C. et al. (2007). Evaluation of the ICT TestBed project, Final Report. Coventry: Becta.Stevenson, D. (1997). Information and communication technology: an independent inquiry. London: IndependentICT in Schools Commission.Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: what makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology,34, 5, 567–583.Twining, P. (2002). ICT in schools: estimating the level of investment. MEeD8. Retrieved February 25, 2013,from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=8312Twining, P., Broadie, R., Cook, D., Ford, K., Morris, D., Twiner, A. et al (2006). Educational change and ICT: anexploration of priorities 2 & 3 of the DfES eStrategy in schools and colleges. Coventry: Becta.Underwood, J. (2009). The impact of digital technology: a review of the evidence of the impact of digital technolo-gies on formaleducation. Coventry: Becta.Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L. et al (2009). Personalising learning.Coventry: Becta.Valentine, G., Marsh, J. & Pattie, C. (2005). Children and young people’s home use of ICT for educational purposes:the impact on attainment at key stages 1–4. London: Department for Education and.Watson, D. (Ed.) (1993). The impact report—an evaluation of the impact of Information technology on children’sachievements in primary and secondary schools. London: Kings College.Wellington, J. (1989). Education for employment: the place of IT. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in education. Research inScience and Technological Education, 23, 1, 25–39.Wolf, A. (2011). Review of vocational education—the Wolf Report. London: Department for Education.Introducing ICT into schools in England 201 © 2013 British Educational Research Association