More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers' integration of laptops in secondary teaching

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship of subject areas to teachers’ technology integration. Educational technology research has often identified “culture clashes” to explain differences in technology use between subject areas. These clashes are frequently attributed to core features, values and beliefs held in the subject area cultures, but there has been little research analyzing the relationship between subject areas and integration. Using a validated path model as a conceptual framework, this paper presents an analysis of the relationship between three subject areas (English, Mathematics, Science) and known factors of teacher beliefs and readiness to use technology in teaching, which directly impact on secondary-level teachers’ technology integration, over three years. Findings show that time and subject areas are both associated with teachers’ readiness, but only subject areas are associated with teachers’ beliefs. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. Introduction The relationship between teachers’ practice, adoption of technology and effective integration is not clearly understood, particularly differences between subject areas. Research has repeatedly identified a need to investigate subject areas as an influencing factor in teachers’ use and integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the classroom (see Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010). Using key factors identified in Inan and Lowther’s (2010) model of teachers’ technology integration, this paper aims to explore possible relationships between subject areas and secondary-level teachers’ technology integration through a large-scale Australian one-to-one laptop initiative. “Each subject in the secondary school is a separate microcosm, a micro-world with varying values and traditions” (Goodson & Mangan, 1995, p. 615). The inclusion of subject areas, as a variable in teachers’ technology integration, presents a complex mixture of cultural conventions and personal beliefs. A more nuanced understanding of differences in technology integration between subject areas is necessary if teachers are to appropriately and effectively integrate technology in their practice and achieve specific learning outcomes. To explore possible differences in technology integration among subject areas, the paper first addresses key factors of teachers’ technology integration. This is followed by an examination of teachers’ beliefs about technology and readiness to integrate technology in their subject areas, through analysis of teacher questionnaire data collected over three years as part of a one-to-one British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 46 No 2 2015 360–369 doi:10.1111/bjet.12139 © 2014 British Educational Research Association laptop program. Results were aggregated across subject areas, presenting group trends rather than individual change, as individual teachers were not tracked from year to year. Findings suggest possible relationships between subject areas and key factors of technology integration, as well as different trajectories of technology integration in the subject areas over time. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for teacher change, the possibility of technology integration “matching” or “clashing” with subjects areas and future research to explore how differences in teachers’ use of technology may affect student learning. Background Increased access to ICTs, including participation in one-to-one laptop programs, has resulted in more use of ICTs, but it has not resulted in significant changes in teaching practice (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Therefore, the actual affordances of ICTs, such as new and different ways to experience learning, collaborate and engage in the classroom, are not often made available to students. In the secondary classroom, expected learning outcomes are, predictably, guided by the curriculum and conventions of teachers’ subject area. For changes in teachers’ practice to occur, they must hold the belief that technology integration supports these learning outcomes. Subject areas and technology integration Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami and Schmid (2011) recently conducted a second order meta-analysis of educational technology research over the last 40 years. Their work included a systematic analysis of 25 meta-analyses, totaling 1055 individual studies, including a wide range Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic • Technology integration does have an effect on students learning outcomes and achievement. • Teachers’ selection and combination of technologies in teaching and learning is influenced by their readiness and beliefs. • Some subject areas are more likely to integrate technology in teaching and learning than others, but this phenomenon is not well understood. • Values and beliefs of subject areas are unlikely to be influenced by institutional initiatives to change teaching practice. What this paper adds • Confirmation that subject areas do have an effect on technology integration. • Shows that subject areas contribute to the variance of teacher’ beliefs about technology integration independent of the amount of time in a technology-related initiative. • Demonstration that subject areas are not homogenous and they have unique trajectories over time in a technology-related initiative. Implications for practice and/or policy • Subject area beliefs about technology integration are likely to influence frequency of use, suggesting possible “matches” and “clashes” between technology and teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. • To support effective practice, ICTs should be “matched” with subject area values and beliefs, as well as learning outcomes and teachers’ practice. • Matches and clashes are likely to be influenced by underlying relations to educational knowledge embodied through teachers’ beliefs about practice, as well as curriculum and assessment. Subject area beliefs and technology integration 361 © 2014 British Educational Research Association of ICTs, all school grade levels and postsecondary, as well as most subject areas. Findings showed that, on average, students engaging in learning with technology performed 12% higher than students in a traditional classroom, but this result was highly variable because of surrounding factors. The authors concluded that elements of teaching specific to subject area practices were significant factors likely to impact on technology integration. They go on to state that considerably more research needs to be done in this area. In this discussion, subject areas are considered to be an area of teaching and learning distinguished by groupings of prioritized knowledge and skills, which are defined by a state or national curriculum. Some ICT tools seem to match with certain subject areas, such as the use of graphing software in Mathematics (Hennessy, Ruthven & Brindley, 2005), visualizations in Science (Webb & Cox, 2004) and language development and writing in English (Silvernail & Gritter, 2007). These tools and practices are accepted because they replicate important aspects of subject practice and core features, and values of the subject culture are not lost (Hennessy et al, 2005). In other areas, there seems to be a “culture clash” between the values and beliefs of subject subcultures and technology use (Goodson & Mangan, 1995). When examining differences between technology integration in subject areas, research has tended to focus on beliefs about pedagogies, content knowledge and teaching strategies (eg, SITES 2006, see Law, Pelgrum & Plomp, 2008). While these are essential components of teaching practice, they only reflect core features, values and underlying principles of subject areas. Components of teaching are underpinned and structured by educational knowledge (Howard & Maton, 2011). Research has not addressed the underlying principles of educational knowledge: what is being taught and learned, thus obscuring significant differences between the subject areas. Howard and Maton’s (2011) recent work on teachers’ technology integration has started to address this using social realist theory, where every practice, belief and knowledge claim is: (1) about something and (2) made by someone. Therefore, it is possible to analytically distinguish between these two relations to knowledge through the object or focus (eg, skills, content and practices) or the author or actor (eg, experience, talent or “feel”; Maton, 2014). Together, relations reveal the dominant basis for success in a social context—what one needs to know and what kind of knower one needs to be. Teachers’ beliefs about how technologies support students to be successful, as well as how important it is to use ICTs to gain necessary knowledge, reveal how technology integration relates to success in subject areas. Howard and Maton’s work has explored relations underlying teachers’ use of technology in Mathematics, which emphasizes skills and procedures, but ICT is not seen as important for success, and English, emphasizing experience and feel for language, and ICTs are believed to support learning. Similar to Goodson and Mangan (1995), they identified a likely “clash” between Mathematics and integration of ICTs, but a possible “match” in English. Their findings suggest it was possible to observe how relations to knowledge underpinning teachers’ practice affected beliefs about technology integration. This is an important conclusion. While full analysis of relations to knowledge is beyond the scope of this discussion, we begin this work by exploring the effect of subject areas on integration. A model of technology integration Inan and Lowther’s (2010) model of teachers’ technology integration provides factors through which relationships to subject areas and technology integration can be explored (see Figure 1). The three school-level variables: overall support, technical support and professional development, and two teacher-level variables: teacher readiness and teacher beliefs are included in the path model. Inan and Lowther (2010, p. 939) define teacher readiness as “teachers’ perception of their capabilities and skills required to integrate laptops into classroom instruction” and teacher beliefs as “teachers’ perception of laptops’ influence on student learning and achievement and impact 362 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 46 No 2 2015 © 2014 British Educational Research Association on classroom instruction and learning activities.” Perceptions of readiness and beliefs about laptops were measured using the Teacher Technology Questionnaire (see Lowther & Ross, 2000). The resulting model explained 55% of variance in laptop integration. Strong statistically significant direct effects were observed from teacher readiness and beliefs. The researchers suggest future studies should extend their work to include additional variables (Inan & Lowther, 2010). In the current study, the effect of subject areas on teachers’ integration of technology is explored, in relation to teacher readiness, teacher beliefs and integration. Whether the effect of subject area is also moderated across time, is also examined in this paper. Methods Subject areas and teachers’ integration were explored as part of a larger study of Australian teachers and students participating in the Digital Education Revolution initiative, in the state of New South Wales (DER-NSW). The DER was a federally funded program aiming to provide all secondary (Years 9–12) students and teachers with ICTs (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2012). Each state chose to implement the program differently. In NSW, the DER was implemented as a one-to-one laptop initiative, providing laptops for all secondary teachers and Year 9 students between 2009 and 2013. Students kept the laptops until they completed high school. The NSW Department of Education and Communities funded a state-level evaluation of the DER program from 2009 to 2013. The primary research question of this evaluation, relating to analysis presented in this paper, was “How does the DER-NSW program influence teacher pedagogy?” Data were collected over three years (2010–12) through online questionnaires and school cases studies. This design allowed for collection of broad descriptive baseline data, which guided more detailed exploration through case studies. The evaluation included all public secondary schools across the state (n = 600). Participation in the study was voluntary and there was no control group. In 2010, all secondary teachers and Year 9 students were invited to participate. In subsequent years, all teachers were invited to participate, as well as the same cohort of students. Individual questionnaire participants were not tracked from year to year. Therefore, it is not possible to identify change in individuals. Results from the five case study schools, which are part of the larger study, are not included in this paper.