Critical Educational Technologies: An Analysis and perceptions of technology based learning

in an FE college

Michelle Grainger

A dissertation submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Technology Enhanced Learning

THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD

June 2016

Abstract

Critical Educational Technologies: An Analysis and perceptions of

technology based learning in an FE college

Michelle Grainger July 2016

Digital technologies are claimed to revolutionise education. Their use is increasingly embraced by educational institutions and considered by many to be a benefit to students’ learning. While many academics enthuse of the virtues of educational technologies with justifications of learner-centred and problem solving theory, there are others who question educational technology as a neutral tool to be used at the discretion of the user. This study considers those theories suggesting that instead of being neutral, educational technologies are value laden and situated within ideology.

The study, using literature and theory from those authors who wish to problematize educational technologies, analyses qualitative interview data from further education tutors in a small scale phenomenological research project. The aim is to critically question the uses and perceptions of technology in practice, and to consider the underpinning ideologies behind such uses.

The research analysis suggests that the participating tutors claim to view technology as mainly neutral and are overall positive about its use. However, they each demonstrated an awareness of the drives of marketization and neoliberalism in the form of evermore increasing everyday use of technology. Furthermore, they perceive technology to be a necessary requirement to ensure students have the sufficient ICT skills required for their future employment and the growing needs of the information society.

These findings appear to reflect the current literature that argues technology has been normalised in its uses, and encounters little resistance or questioning in its pervasiveness. Therefore this study presents suggestions that educational technology is raised from its perceptions as a tool and instead is brought to the attention of tutors and students as a subject which can be discussed and debated. Those deliberations, it is suggested, can then counteract and contradict the present uncritical assumption of educational technology as inherently positive and transformatory.

i

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr Elizabeth Bennett for her support during this journey. Also to Cheryl Reynolds for providing inspiration and energy, Sally Humphries and Jo Goodison for a good grounding, colleagues who took part in my research and those peers who were along with me for this journey.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract..................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................ii

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... iii

Glossary...................................................................................................................................v

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT....................................................................1

Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

Context.................................................................................................................................2

Rationale..............................................................................................................................3

Aims......................................................................................................................................4

Summary..............................................................................................................................5

Chapter Two: LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................6

Introduction...........................................................................................................................6

Fish that fail to see the water................................................................................................6

Technology Enhanced Ideologies........................................................................................8

Adopting a critical theory of educational technologies.......................................................11

Conclusion of the Literature Review...................................................................................13

Chapter Three: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................15

Introduction.........................................................................................................................15

Research Aims...................................................................................................................15

Research Strategy..............................................................................................................16

iii

Sampling.............................................................................................................................19

Ethical Issues.....................................................................................................................19

Conduct of the Research....................................................................................................20

Pilot.....................................................................................................................................21

Research Analysis Methods...............................................................................................22

Chapter Four: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS..............................................................................24

Introduction.........................................................................................................................24

Evaluation of findings.........................................................................................................30

Chapter Five: CONCLUSION.................................................................................................33

Discussion..........................................................................................................................33

Implications of the study.....................................................................................................34

Personal and Professional Development...........................................................................35

Dissemination.....................................................................................................................36

Evaluation...........................................................................................................................37

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................38

APPENDICES........................................................................................................................42

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule.........................................................................................42

Appendix 2: Example of transcribed data...........................................................................43

Appendix 3: Examples of Data Analysis.............................................................................49

iv

Glossary

EPD Employability and Personal Development

FE Further Education

HE Higher Education

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

FB Facebook

PHSE Personal health and social education

v

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Introduction

The introduction of digital tools in education has led to agreement amongst many authors

that learning could be enhanced by the increased potential of communal, social and

constructive opportunities that such environments can encourage (Beetham and Sharpe,

2007: Haythornewaite and Andrew, 2011). Homes and Gardner (2006) theorise that e-

learning promotes these opportunities in ways that learners can influence their own and

others’ future learning by leaving an imprint on their institutional course. This is illustrated in

their analogy likened to a river that enriches its plain, adding nutrients to the soil as it flows

through. In a similar analogy however with a different interpretation, Shirky (2008) observes

that rather than a river flowing, we are instead being forced down the rapids to a route that is

predominantly determined by those technologies, with little control over the spread and even

less, the direction. This study aims to explore these two conflicting interpretations of the

power of educational technology. It sets out to investigate the force that is educational

technology, examine the spread and depth of its tentacles which pervade our education

system, and consider the underlying ideologies that drive it. The study will question what

Selwyn (2014) calls the lack of current criticality surrounding educational technologies and

examine views from those who suggest the hegemony of technology has little to do with

educational transformation (Amory, 2006) but has now become our accepted way of being

(Beer, 2009).

In asking those questions, the study will explore the possible reasons behind those drives for

technology in an analysis of recent literature. This will be combined with an empirical

research study that uses a phenomenological approach to consider reasons behind the use

of educational technologies. The study, using qualitative methods, analyses the views of a

1

sample of educators and their interactions with those technologies, and the regarded

benefits to student learning.

This introductory chapter will provide a rationale for the study as well as the context and

setting of the research. It will discuss and reason the aims of the investigation and how these

have been shaped by both theory and practice.

Context

This study and research project investigates, critically, the use of technologies in education,

to analyse how they are used and what actually takes place in those learning episodes.

Drawing on authors who suggest that educational technology should be made sense of in a

practical and social way (Selwyn, 2010), that acknowledges and explicates ideological

positions (Amory, 2006), the study will consider how technologies are currently used by

educators or the ‘here and now’ of those technologies; to investigate, describe and discuss

the emergent phenomena of digital use (Cavanagh, 2007:7).

The research project is based within a Further Education (FE) college in a large town in the

South Yorkshire region which is classed as an area within 16% of the most deprived areas in

England, and as having poor outcomes for many people living there (RJSNA, 2016). There

is a high proportion of people in the town employed within lower skilled occupations

compared to national statistics and there is a significantly lower level proportion of those

employed within the most higher skilled jobs.

The college has been the main provider of technical and vocational education in the town

since the 1930s, and with the merger of other colleges has expanded considerably over

recent years. The main emphasis of the college is to provide for the local community’s

educational needs and has a wide range of vocational, technical and art related subjects to

2

offer, as well as various higher educational courses including Foundation, Degree and Post

Graduate qualifications.

The author of this paper is a tutor of the college working within the Education, Business and

Computing department.

Rationale

Everywhere technology goes, centralized, hierarchical social structures follow. In this context, the issue of domination through technology has come to the fore in many domains. Feenberg (2000:240)

The use of technology in education continues to be encouraged (for example see Prensky,

2001; Beetham, 2011) from differing points of view, with various actors, each having their

own interests and stakes in educational technologies. The opportunities that those

technologies are said to offer to education and students’ learning are of such benefit that

there are concerns that technologies are not fully embraced in all institutions (Hall, 2011).

Feenberg (2000) argues that this unquestioned positioning of technology by society as

transformatory could lead to the reinforcement of neoliberalism in education. Particularly

when considered that technology is said to be of value to the new knowledge economy and

that society should prepare itself to meet the demands of globalisation by adapting,

multitasking, and developing creativity (Robinson, 2011). This reasoning and the

connections with the everyday use of technology could be considered as contributing to the

values of individualism, neoliberalism and the reinforcing of a capitalist society (Selwyn,

2014).

Indeed, instead of a critical stance towards technology, the uncontested claims of

revolutionising education remain and so justify the increase of the technological economy in

education. Such claims view technology as a tool that can be utilised by society at its

3

disposal and at the discretion of the user; the technology is seen as neutral (Kruger-Ross,

2014) and guided by the users’ actions. However, there are arguments that educational

technologies cannot be considered neutral as they are value-laden and situated within

ideology (Bowers, 2000; Amory, 2010). Selwyn (2014) also discusses the digitalisation of

education contributing to its marketization; where technology is used to encourage the

efficiency and profitability, and to promote the privatisation of education. It is suggested, by a

number of key thinkers and writers (Johnson, 1999; Bowers, 2000; Selwyn, 2014), that some

of these considerations should be explored further, and form a critical analysis. These

writers urge educators to question and analyse the nature of educational technologies and

their uses in practice, from an alternative and counterhegemonic viewpoint.

Therefore, this research study will consider those possible links between technology,

education and ideology and pursue the questions that those critical thinkers suggest should

be asked of how these forms of digital technologies are becoming increasingly used in

education. These questions will examine how technology is currently utilised in a particular

educational institution, and debate the dominance and possible consequences of this use. It

is hoped that by investigating, critically, the current use of educational technologies, this will

inform the practice of the college in terms of the use of those technologies, including any

benefits and possible disadvantages, and also contribute to the wider on-going discussion

and critical examination of educational technologies.

Aims

The purpose of this paper is to consider educational technologies and their use from a

critical viewpoint and so to examine current literature and debate surrounding the ideological

functions of educational technologies with a regard to the dominance and reasons for their

uses. The paper therefore aims:

To analyse the ideological assumptions, analysed in the literature review, suggested

to be underpinning the use of educational technologies in an FE context

4

To identify how educational technologies are used pedagogically, and are perceived

by educators

To draw on current debates and discourse surrounding educational technologies to

theorise the data gathered from the study

These aims will be used to analyse the literature review and also as a framework for the

research project and data collection analysis.

Summary

This opening chapter has introduced and discussed some of the arguments that question

and critically consider educational technologies and, with a view to explore these arguments

further as well as the key issues that underpin education and digital technology. It is hoped

that the study will be able to provide possible answers that develop a deeper understanding

of the ways in which technologies are used in education and also allow for those issues of

conflict, power and control to be recognised by educators so that they can be informed and

enlightened in their own use of those technologies.

The theories that are discussed have been influenced by a literature review which details

and analyses the ubiquity of technology in education, and also society. It analyses how this

pervasiveness has allowed underlying ideologies to thrive, to understand more about how

those ideologies exist, and the hegemony of educational technology use that is now

considered normality. The literature review is followed by a discussion of the research

methodology used in the research project along with a consideration of the methodology and

data collection methods used, supported by theory and literature. The findings and analysis

of the research will be discussed, followed by the conclusions and recommendations. The

following chapter will detail the literature review findings and analysis.

5

Chapter Two: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This section of the paper will consider the advances of educational technologies and explore

the possible influences that guide them, as well as the suggestions of those underlying

ideologies that may be underpinning such advances. The review will begin by examining the

extent of the pervasiveness of our knowledge society and discuss those claims of the

technological revolution in how society connects, works, consumes, learns, educates and

lives. Using the literature, it will explore how the digital advance has developed with very little

consultation, resistance or concern, and almost a complete lack of political attention, and

how this has been reflected in the absorption of those technologies within education. The

review will further analyse suggestions of underpinning ideologies that drive this pervasion of

educational technologies and question the lack of apparent critical theory that surrounds it.

An analysis of this acceptance and lack of questioning combined with a progressive framing

of the use of technologies will also feature in this review, which will discuss suggestions of

the possible neoliberalistic values that these ideologies uphold.

Finally, the review will conclude with a discussion that encourages further debate to

challenge some of the more dominant ideas that surround educational technologies, and so

to test those current, popular perceptions. It will consider the questions that those authors

urge academics and educators to ask, and the issues that could be problematized within

educational research, which is what this paper aims to do.

Fish that fail to see the water

As a society, we can all too often tend to focus on what may be the obvious issues, and in

doing so we generally miss the subtle, structural changes that creep into our affairs over

time and give them little attention or significance (Federman, 2004). It is only after a longer

6

period of time that we look back and see those consequences that have occurred because

of this new innovation, idea or change and which were mostly unanticipated. Technology,

and its various formats, over recent decades has become increasingly embedded into our

everyday lives; indeed it has become so ingrained that it is now almost invisible to us and so

we have become like fish that fail to see the water (McLuan, 1966, cited in Merrin, 2005).

The ubiquity is such that the Internet is now regarded as a utility (Ruiz & Lohr, 2015) and

technology connects us within our social interactions and cultural interchanges (Beetham et

al, 2010) to an extent that we now only appear to notice our technology when it does not

work.

This profound digital advance continues to change our businesses and economy, with the

emergence of the new knowledge society (Afgan & Carvelho, 2010) and its pervasive

influence in reshaping and transforming our lives and how we react to its demands. The way

we can shop, access information and communicate were quite unimaginable only a decade

or so ago as the technological revolution affects all of us, yet the outcomes to this innovation

and change are largely unpredictable. However, as technology is associated with progress

and the allure of modernisation, society has to meet the demands of the increasingly global

economy where knowledge is the key resource (Prag Foundation for Capacity Building,

2011) in order to keep up and succeed.

There are suggestions that change is required for educational institutions and so to stay

apace of the technological rush and adapt for the requirements of alternative models of

education (Tapscott & Williams, 2010). That it is necessary for educators to prepare our

students ‘to function in the world that is unfolding’ (Siemens, 2007), and so to enable them to

be innovative, harness the technology, and respond to the demands of an unknown future

(Robinson, 2011). It is claimed that digitalization could revolutionise the way we teach, in

that the use of technologies enables practice that is conducive to more progressive forms of

constructive, collaborative learning (Jung and Latchem, 2009) where students are

encouraged to gain knowledge from problem solving tasks and community networks. Indeed

7

there are those that insist our students themselves are changing and therefore we must

adapt our teaching to methods that these digital natives require (Prensky, 2001). Therefore

our educational institutions are encouraged to embrace all things technological and

recommendations are that this use of technology use should be increased (FELTAG, 2013).

The tentacles of technology have now woven themselves so deeply into the very fabric of

education that they are now a fairly unremarkable aspect due to their familiarity and

everyday ordinariness (Selwyn, 2014). This everyday normality in which technology resides

could be akin to McLuan’s (2003) observations of society’s apparent ease of acceptance

towards new technologies:

“I call this peculiar form of self-hypnosis Narcissus narcosis, a syndrome whereby man remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in. As a result, precisely at the point where a new media-induced environment becomes all pervasive and transmogrifies our sensory balance, it also becomes invisible.” (McLuhan, 1969)

The socio- cultural concepts and implications related to e-learning are becoming increasingly

recognised among educational key thinkers and theorists (Sigman, 2008; Selwyn, 2014),

and although there may be advantages to the ubiquity of technology, despite the mass

incorporation of technology within education there is currently little concern, political attention

or resistance given to our engagement of them (Selwyn, 2010). Furthermore, digital

technology in education is associated with a whole range of stakeholders, such as

designers, marketers and educational institutions, who shape that use and each have their

own motivations and intentions (Selwyn 2014), but all have an interest in ‘supporting the

increased acceptance and use of digital technology in education’(ibid p2).

Technology Enhanced Ideologies

Despite the limited evidence of educational technologies resulting in improved achievement

for students (Saljo, 2009) they continue to exert a pressure on our interpretation of learning

with the view that technology will ultimately be of benefit. Such pressures, influenced no

8

doubt by the increasing commodification of technological services, where the corresponding

arguments are often based on short term efficiency gains, assist in necessitating technology

and therefore conceals the dominant interest and ideology. Furthermore, the positioning of

educational technologies as a social and political concern is necessary and should be

problematized, in order to highlight the hegemonic values they yield (Hall, 2011).

Understanding technologies in education as ideology is not a particularly new or novel

concept. Goodson and Mangan, in 1996, argued against the mass introduction of computers

in schools. They claimed that all justifications for doing so were primarily vocational or

practical based, and that pedagogical arguments were secondary. Their research, they

claimed, suggested that ‘educators should question whether they have simply taken the

ideology of computer literacy at face value, and whether this almost universal policy has

received the critical attention it deserves’ (Goodson and Mangan, 1996:65). This lack of

criticality towards educational technologies has continued to the extent that the use of

technology in education is mainly viewed as inherently beneficial and to be celebrated as a

capacity to improve learning (Beetham, 2011). However, there is limited research that

upholds such claims of improvements to learning from the use of digital technologies,

therefore leaving much of current educational technology theory unsubstantiated (Siemens,

2007; Selwyn, 2014). Also, while many of the advocates promoting technologies as essential

and inevitable, so often are themselves the producers of, or have financial interests invested

in those technologies (Johnson, 1999; Siemens, 2007). With such commoditized

involvements and increasing interest in the privatization of education with little resistance of

critical questioning, there are suggestions in the literature that this hegemonic pervasiveness

of educational technology should be unpacked (Selwyn, 2014) and so to address the

ideologies that work within them (Hall, 2011).

9

Progressive education approaches increasingly share the view of learning being a social,

cultural and constructive practice (Kassam et al, 2012) where the student is at the center of

their learning and knowledge is formed by meaning making and social interactions. This view

is extended by some educators of the belief that technology is able to support those

progressive methods (Holmes and Gardner, 2006) and much of the theoretical positioning of

technology in education has typically addressed such disciplines or conceptual focus (Hall,

2011). Such theoretical learning could be argued to provide the knowledge, technical and

multi-tasking skills that are said to benefit those requirements for the new knowledge

economy (Garnham, 2000), so that learners are educated to be ready for the global

knowledge society. With technology also used as a tool for independence and ‘personal

freedom’ (Lovink, 2011) and the internet increasingly utilized for personal economic

entrepreneurship, society is progressively buying into the idea of the empowered individual.

This, along with the accepted, uncritical position surrounding learning technologies is

suggested to be the active development to a neoliberal educational ideology (Hall, 2010).

The gradual marketisation and financialisation of education has also intensified in recent

years leading to increasing pressure on institutions to provide courses for more students with

a reduction in the funding they receive for those students (Canaan, 2013). Such pressures

on resources and educational labour could mean institutions considering ways to increase

efficacy and productivity of the teaching, and a possible explanation for the encouragement

of technologies could be the inclination to cut some of those costs involved (Garnham,

2000). The use of and implementation of systems more concerned with user management

than with the learning and development of people and ‘the world through human actions

supported by socially constructed tools’ (Amory, 2006:77). Furthermore, along with the

withdrawal of tuition fees for university students and the progressive increasing of those

fees, thereby respectively encouraging the commodification of education, the

reconceptualisation of education as a financial investment in a student’s future job prospects

10

(Wilby, 2009) further highlights the deepening of the process of educational neoliberalisation.

The responsibility and cost is now on the individual and education has shifted from a public,

societal good to one of a personal, individual investment – ‘a speculation in his or her

personal future’. (Canaan,2013).

This association of educational technologies with a larger social and economic agenda is

complex and multi-faceted (Selwyn, 2014), but as the framing of technologies as

transforming and inevitable continues, there is little to offer in the way of critique to stand in

its path. This belief and assumption that technology is beneficial and desirable has justified

the drive for technology in education as a corrective; that is to make up for what is deemed

to be lacking in education (Ibid). But is technology really revolutionizing education or is it

simply a case of new tools and media (Hall, 2011), and we will continue to be dazzled by the

shiny and new, while unwittingly, or willingly, succumbing to its hegemony.

Adopting a critical theory of educational technologies

As previously suggested, critical theory appears to have played a comparatively small role in

the progress of educational technology, with research primarily focused on design, practical

matters and how those technologies can transform teaching (Bennett and Oliver, 2011).

Indeed, throughout this technological revolution the voices of educators and teachers has

been rather strikingly quiet despite their implication, position and ‘burden that has been laid

on them’ (Johnson, 1999:287). Those that have approached technology from a critical

perspective had tended to be concerned with the moral and psychological effects and the

consequences for behaviour and development (Lovink, 2011). As educationalists reflect on

the changes that learning technologies have had in institutions, there are some theorists who

suggest that there is a requirement for criticality within the realms of educational

technologies. Where academics and educators can ask those questions that have not yet

been heard or received, and to examine the ‘socio cultural spaces in which technology is

11

deployed‘ (Hall, 2010:275). Suggestions are that the place of technology in education

should be addressed from a critical and political perspective. That the normalization (Selwyn,

2014) of technology could be viewed as troubling; the agreement that technology belongs in

the classroom with little resistance or questioning, should be seen as a consequence of the

‘overbearing matter –of-factness of ed tech and its accompanying ideology’ (Watters, 2015).

Perhaps there is little wonder that there is such a lack of criticality when we are constantly

informed that ‘resistance is hopeless’ (Johnson, 1999) and are urged that we need to

change our ways of teaching, observing the changing landscape to accommodate the digital

natives (Prensky, 2001).

However, questions could be asked that consider the inclusion and equality for our learners;

does the increase in educational technologies create a digital divide where those who cannot

participate are disadvantaged? Suggestions are that participation is not as much a concern

as the issue of contribution, where culture capital is increasingly seen as affected by the

class struggle and technology use has disintegrated into a ‘time wasting entertainment tool’

for some low –income users (Kassam et al, 2012:218). For those who are considered

‘digitally excluded’ (Seale and Dutton, 2012) by either access or choice, where will the

technology leave them; will they get left behind? Seale and Dutton consider the role of digital

inclusion in empowering students to make choices but that practice needs to be supportive

to promote inclusion of those students who may be marginalised.

Perhaps the way forward to address those issues of ideology and inclusion may be to take a

critical approach which could help to build a constructive relationship between educators and

those technologies so that there is improved agency of the teacher (Kruger-Ross, 2013). A

critical perspective could allow for other insights and new enquiries of how we can better use

technology in an informed and measured way, while considering the social and ideological

implications of educational technologies (Hall, 2011). We should test what those

technologies claim to make better (Johnson, 1999) and if it is found to be better at what cost

– what does it replace and what is lost? Educationalists are increasingly anticipating major

12

changes in how our educational institutions will operate, with technology supported learning

expected to play a much larger part in pedagogy (Downes, 2006). Therefore the need to

question and critically analyse educational technology use, and engage with these issues

that have been raised, is argued to be necessary to produce practical alternatives (Hall,

2011).

Conclusion of the Literature Review

This review has considered how society has readily embraced and has been transformed by

technology in such ways that it is now regarded as a necessity. Many may consider that our

work, personal and social life could function little without it. This technological transition has

now been enveloped by education with relatively little resistance, concern and political

attention. Indeed educational technologies are largely framed as positive and of benefit, as

well as being conducive to contemporary teaching methods such as constructive, problem

solving pedagogies (Jung and Latchem, 2009).

However, there are some theorists and authors in the literature who suggest that the

everyday ordinariness that technologies have now become in our lives and education could

be said to be demonstrative of the hegemonic qualities that underpin them. Because we do

not notice those technologies and are on the whole unaware of the influences and ideologies

that drive them, it is claimed that this is reinforcing of those values of individualism and

ultimately a capitalist society.

It has been discussed that those technologies have associations with various stakeholders

who help to architect their use. Often, those designers and marketers of educational

technologies have their own motivations and interests in ‘supporting the increased

acceptance and use of digital technology in education’ (Selwyn, 2014:2).

13

As well as the view that although education advocates the free flow of information, the fact

that our technological structures allow for such volume and accelerated pace that there is

surely a need to question and critique. For if not, we are in danger of ‘increasing

opportunities to distract humans from issues of true value’ (Tillberg-Webb and Strobel,

2013). Therefore, in response to those who urge caution and reflection, and for educators to

consider the drive of power and control which may be behind those technologies, educators

are encouraged to scrutinise and evaluate, to have a ‘willingness to engage with the

negative’ (Selwyn, 2014), and to

‘illuminate the ways in which educational institutions, policies and practices are

connected to the relations of exploitation and domination – and to struggles against

such relations- in the larger society’. (Apple et al, 2010).

14

Chapter Three: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter of the paper will detail and justify the overall research strategy and

methodological approach to the study. It will outline the research aims and explain how the

research methods have been selected so to explore those aims as fully as possible. This will

include relevant theory to support the methodology and data collection methods, and also

consider the strengths and limitations of these research methods in this particular study.

The chapter will also discuss the sample used for the study and how this has been selected

in order to represent authentic findings. It will include an analysis of the ethical issues

considered in the study and a reflection on the conduct and implementation of the

methodology. The chapter will conclude with an examination of the research analysis

methods that have been used in the analysis of the data.

Research Aims

The study will adopt an interpretive stance and therefore is based on a qualitative research

design which will be discussed and explored. Although the strategy will adopt the viewpoint

of emergent themes, the research has been based on a structure, or aims that it is focused

upon. The study therefore, through the research aims, intends to examine how educators

use educational technologies in their teaching and seek to understand their experiences of

this use, and they perceive educational technologies. In exploring these opinions and also

considering the literature and current debate surrounding educational technologies the study

will aim:

To analyse the ideological assumptions, highlighted in the literature review,

suggested to be underpinning the use of educational technologies in this FE context

15

To identify how educational technologies are used, pedagogically, and are perceived

by educators

To draw on current debates and discourse surrounding educational technologies to

theorise the data gathered from the study

The research aims form the framework of the research methodology and strategy, and are

used as a reference for the analysis of the research findings and subsequent conclusions.

Research Strategy

This is an exploratory study that will seek to describe the characteristics in the ways that

educators use technologies in their lessons, through the descriptions of the phenomena and

their experiences. As phenomenology is a qualitative method that is interpretative and

retrospective in nature, and aims to use detailed descriptions of personal experiences

(Conklin, 2007), it has been deemed to be a useful research strategy for this study.

Phenomenology, as a study of phenomena, can be a way to ‘see through the eyes of others’

(Denscombe, 2014:95) and to attempt to describe and explain how something is

experienced directly from a person’s viewpoint and how they make sense of it. It is involved

in the presentation of that experience to be as close to the original thinking as it can possibly

be. Therefore, phenomenology is not about an analysis of an experience, it is about the

experience itself and how it is experienced in the individual’s thoughts and words, meaning

that those perspectives are afforded credibility and respect in their ‘own right as valid’

(ibid:96). Descriptions of those experiences should be authentic, detailed and true, with

complicated and intricate aspects included; indeed any contradictory aspects for both the

researcher and of the subjects should not be edited but instead should be used to tell the

full, often messy story of those experiences. This form of presenting the subjects’ views in

such a manner that is understanding and faithful to their own interpretation, is of particular

importance to the research study, as the aim is to investigate the current views and

16

perceptions of these educators; how they are use the technology in their teaching now, and

how this has developed and been driven in their view, at this present time.

To apply the phenomenological approach authentically involves the researcher stepping out

and away from any presuppositions and prejudices they may have so that the phenomenon

can be observed as though ‘for the first time’ (Conklin, 2007:278); that they are a stranger to

the experience and not rely on their own beliefs and expectations of the subject. Indeed such

an uncluttered and uncoloured way of observing the phenomena could allow for the

researcher to view things that may previously have been hidden, or dismissed as ordinary

and irrelevant. A stranger’s viewpoint gives the researcher the perspective of a clear focus

that is solely on the phenomenon and disconnecting from ‘the natural attitude of the

everyday life’ (Gill, 2014).

However, the notion of an assumption free discovery could be problematic as Heidegger

(1988) suggests that individuals exist in an environment that is already historically and

culturally environing and that this back ground then influences how the individual

understands and contextualises their experiences. Therefore, the researcher should

continually question their own assumptions as they perform interpretations of the subjects’

accounts, and reflexively consider how those interpretations could manifest in the

descriptions of the phenomena.

Research Design Methods

As phenomenology requires an insight into experiences, in depth one to one interviews are

considered a valuable method of exploring those perspectives and thinking of the

interviewee due to the exploratory potential for data collection in a qualitative study

(Denscombe, 2014). Interviews can also, with the use of semi-structured questions, help to

gain in-depth understanding by allowing the researcher to ‘probe’ and clarify with the

interviewee (Gray, 2009). From a phenomenological approach, this method could be said to

be concerned with the meanings that are made from a person’s experience as interviewing

17

.. is a powerful way of helping people to make explicit things that have hitherto been implicit – to articulate their tacit perceptions, feelings and understandings. (Arksey and Knight, 1999:32).

The use of semi-structured interviews could also assist the phenomenological approach

as they tend to allow for the subject to expand on their responses and for the

interviewer to explore those answers further. A more unstructured approach can be

conducive to the interviewee raising issues themselves, that they see as important and

so direct the interview to those areas of significance and provide justification in their

own words (Denscombe, 2014).

Interviews can allow for the opportunity to reflect on aspects and to provide detail of

events and opinions, which is the intention of this research in identifying how those

educators use and perceive educational technologies. However, in an interview

situation there is always the danger that the interviewer may begin to influence the

interview, either unintentionally or with intent, perhaps through their behaviour,

questioning or even due to the relationship and positioning between the researcher and

the interviewee. This could be of particular concern when the interview is conducted

quite informally, and the participants know the interviewer, as is the case of this

research study.

The use of semi-structured interviews could also lead to a questioning of the reliability

of the data due to a lack of standardised questions being asked of each participant. As

the conducted interviews were largely to allow for the participants to discuss and

describe and form their own direction, careful consideration had to be given to ensure a

full awareness of the potential of bias to ‘creep into’ any prompting or clarifying from the

researcher (Gray, 2009:376). Moreover, the researcher, in using the phenomenological

methodology, is interested in the multiple realities that unfold from the selection of

participants and to use those essences as a means to build up a clear idea of those

experiences and so by assisting the

18

…identification of the broader, essential qualities of that experience: they would be valuable as means towards an end, but would constitute an end in themselves as far as research is concerned. Denscombe, 2014:97)

Sampling

The research sample consists of interviews with ten educators from the case study

organisation. Due to constraints of time, logistics and staffing timetables it has not been

possible to have a representative sample from the many differing areas of the college,

therefore the sample has only included educators from the departments of business,

education, sports, public services and computing. However, as this is a relatively small scale

sample study it is not always helpful to use random or even representative sampling, as the

study has to be significant for the chosen group, making this purposive sampling (Smith and

Osborn, 2003). Therefore the study does not claim to be generalizable for the whole college,

nor even those departments listed; instead it is a sample of the opinions of ten very different

educators within the college, who use technology in their lessons, and have provided varying

views of the subject of educational technologies.

Indeed the sample is always determined by who is prepared to participate in it, and in this

case several members of staff volunteered from the chosen departments. Those who were

able to be interviewed did so at a convenient time for them, which was planned and

scheduled many weeks in advance, to allow for researcher preparation and also any

possibility the participants may need to reschedule. Consideration was given to ensure that

the participants did not take up any more of their time than necessary as, quite

understandably, some of the volunteers may have had concerns over the length of time the

interviews would take.

Ethical Issues

Denzin and Lincoln (2013) state that ethics in research dictate safeguards should be in place

to protect participant’s identities and the study location. Personal information and identities

must remain confidential and secure and that no harm or embarrassment should occur as a

result of research practice.

19

All of those taking part in this study have been given details about the research project and

how the data and the information would be used in the final Dissertation. They were also

informed that participation was entirely voluntary and that they should feel no pressure to

take part. In the interests of confidentiality all participants have been given pseudonyms

which are used consistently through the data analysis, together with the name of the

organisation remaining anonymous. Each participant was given a consent form to agree and

sign prior to the interviews which explained that the nature of the study, confidentiality and

voluntary aspects, and that they could withdraw at any time. The participants were also

assured that as well as confidentiality with names throughout the project, steps would also

be taken to ensure that no detriment would occur to them through the process or findings of

the research (BERA, 2011). Furthermore, care has been taken to make certain that none of

the participants could be identified by any of the research findings when these have been

analysed and presented.

Conduct of the Research

As this has been a qualitative study with the use of semi and unstructured interviews it has

been important to ensure that any concerns over validity and reliability are addressed, as

well as maintaining an ethical conduct throughout the research process. Some of the more

traditional methods of triangulation and checking of data by others have not been used in

this study; there is no attempt to generalise the data for a larger population, the data and

interpretation is to inform current discourse. However, it is important that academic rigour

has been followed and that each stage is justified and those researcher-participant

relationships within it (Holliday, 2007). Moreover, Gray (2009) suggests that rigour can be

achieved by the researcher maintaining a level of trustworthiness throughout the research,

and that this can be achieved by the use of audit trails to confirm the relationships between

data and interpretation as well as establishing credibility in the accuracy of those

interpretations. By ensuring that the data is as authentic to the voices of the participants as

possible and interpreted as those participants have perceived the experience, each interview

20

has been transcribed and checked by the researcher, therefore reinforcing the aim of

accuracy and validity.

The use of phenomenology in this research study has allowed for detailed commentary and

information from the participants. As there is the possibility of researcher influence during the

interview process and therefore the potential to lead the participant to a conclusion that may

not be entirely independent, it is recommended that the interviewer be reflexive throughout

the research process and continuously challenge those personal assumptions (Mruck and

Breuer, 2003). This process can allow the researcher to explicitly examine how those

personal beliefs can enter into the research, and acknowledges that, instead of neutrality,

the researcher is an active participant (Hsiung, 2008). Reflexivity conceptualises the

qualitative research process as interactive and challenging of a directed researcher-led

approach and can be used to ‘interrogate the constitutive role of the researcher in research

design, data collection, analysis, and knowledge production.’ (ibid:4).

As well as using a reflexive approach during throughout the interviews, this has also been

considered when transcribing the transcripts where I have critically examined my position,

reflected on my conduct and analysed areas where dialogue could have been influenced.

This on-going checking and questioning is aimed to ensure participant responses are true to

the participant’s intended opinion as possible and to avoid the personal influence of my own

paradigm affecting those participants, so to create data that is as original as it could be.

Pilot

An initial pilot study was conducted where two tutors were interviewed using an unstructured

approach. This approach was hoped to create a relaxed and open environment where the

participants could be free in their views and allow for in-depth exploration on the issues to be

addressed. The outcomes of these interviews were at first considered disappointing in that

the data was considered to lack a richness, and although the participants were able to talk

freely about the subject, they did not initially appear to yield any relevant findings.

21

Consequently, further interviews were conducted in a more semi-structured manner with the

use of an interview schedule, however this was not rigidly stuck to and the participants were

still allowed the freedom to offer additional views that were not necessarily part of the

schedule.

Research Analysis Methods

Gray (2009) states that analysis is the formalisation of breaking the research data down into

smaller parts and so to interpret, process and gain new insights into the data. The analysis

enables connections to be made between those parts which can then be described as our

findings. In this particular research study the approach of thematic analysis has been

considered to analyse the data as it has a primary focus on identifying patterns of meaning

among the data in which to address the research aims through the coding of words and

phrases. Thematic analysis is also suited to the analysis of questions that relate to a

person’s experience, views or perceptions (Boyatzis, 1998) and can be used to identify the

development of emergent themes from research data. This type of analysis of data is

particularly appropriate in areas of qualitative research as it can be used to categorise data

from a broad reading to the discovery of patterns and themes. It can be a way for the

researcher to be near and appreciate more about the content of their data (Thomas and

Harden, 2008).

Smith and Osborne (2003) argue that meaning is central in the analysis of

phenomenological data and instead of measuring the frequency of meanings the aim should

be instead to understand their intricacies. They suggest the researcher engages in an

‘interpretive relationship’ with the transcripts (ibid:66) and so to learn, accurately interpret

and establish those meanings. This approach of interpretive phenomenological analysis is

similar to thematic analysis, however differs in the analysis and coding methods (Smith, J. et

al, 2009) and involves reading the transcripts of interviews and considering significant and

22

interesting points. These are then noted, and can include contradictions, similarities and

amplifications as the script is continued through. These notes are then translated into

themes which are connected to other transcripts and clusters of those themes begin to

emerge. This approach of interpretive phenomenological analysis in analysing data can

produce an organising framework for the analysis which will be used to write and discuss the

themes.

23

Chapter Four: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter will provide the description and analysis of the data collected from the ten semi

structured interviews with educators in the college. The analysis will feature excerpts,

descriptions and explanations from the data and have been organised into themes guided by

the research aims and the literature review. The chapter will conclude with an evaluation of

the findings and the methods used throughout the study.

The technology bandwagon

The participants spoke positively about the use of technology and believed it was generally a

benefit to learning. However, there were degrees in the positivity among the tutors and it was

apparent that some appeared to consider the way they used technology more than others.

This could have been due to the specialism of the tutor; for example the Computing tutors

interviewed were enthusiastic about its use, believing it to be ‘awesome’ and a necessity for

the ‘digital natives’ (Daniel and Tony, Computing tutors). Similarly, the theme of being

necessary was echoed by others who felt that the technology improved efficiency, could give

a student an employability edge and for the tutor to ‘keep up and develop and grow’ (Anisa,

Teacher Education).

There was some consensus among the tutors that the technology could be used to

encourage constructive and problem solving ways of learning, as well as social media type

technologies being conducive to social, community leaning (see also Carr et al, 2006).

Although some of the tutors appeared to link the technology to pedagogy, most did not

express thoughts on the types of teaching and learning they believed the technology could

enhance, and instead appeared to refer their positivity to the belief that it presented ‘more

choice’ , ‘keeps the teaching fresh’ and is accessible ’24,7’. Such was this faith in the

24

technology itself that some felt it should be encouraged even if the student was less

enthusiastic or had problems in using it:

‘I want them to be less dependent on me and to help each other. I would try to force them to do it and get them using it. They are dragging their feet with Twitter but I’m trying to get them to follow Nikki Morgan…and to follow each other.’

(Anisa, Teacher Education)

Several tutors were motivated themselves to use the technology in their classes and this

may have been due to a personal interest. Indeed, one referred to ‘selling’ the digital

resources to their students so that it becomes ‘part of that behaviour and pedagogy’ (Julie,

HE). Nevertheless, not all learners were able to embrace the technology and in one case

dropped out of the course:

‘I’ve lost one student who couldn’t even log on. There’s a bottom level of someone’s capabilities and I can’t do it for them… all the course work is done on the computer. If the student can’t help themselves … She’s getting some help now. I’m also giving another student one to one support with the technology as well. As my course is more techy than perhaps other colleges. Some take a bit longer but I will help them and they can also get help from the library to help them with the ICT .. ‘

(Anisa, Teacher Education)

One tutor commented on their dismay at ‘trying to use an online forum and trying to get

students to engage in that is like losing a battle’ (Julie, HE tutor). Although another HE tutor

stated that online forums were important on blended learning courses in sustaining the

students in their learning:

‘I use Yammer……and it’s there to keep a dialogue going so to ensure there is a real community environment there that’s supportive – building that community, that’s important.’ (Amy, HE)

Another also appeared to be frustrated that technologies are not utilised more by the college:

‘they’re [the college] not even interested…the kitty is keeping us behind..’

(Anisa, Teacher Education).

25

Another tutor in discussing how her team actively shared ideas for what they felt ‘worked’

and ‘does not work’ explained that the use of technology required the tutor to ‘believe in it

yourself, so you can pass that on to the students’ (Sarah, HE Tutor).

There were suggestions that fellow colleagues could be reluctant to the introduction of new

technology and systems without sufficient training. One mentioned that teachers could be

classed as digital immigrants (see Prensky, 2001) and their students ‘are the digital natives

as they’ve grown up with it’ (Sarah, HE tutor). The ‘fear of change’ could prevent a reluctant

tutor and their enthusiasm, but that this was usually remedied through college

encouragement and that the tutors ‘would have moved towards using IT systems; ‘ it’s a

requirement’ (Daniel, Computing tutor).

It would appear that while tutors consider ways to use technology to engage students and

make lessons more interesting, most embrace the use of technology in their lessons fairly

uncritically and position them as transformatory. This unquestioning co-optional use of

technology could echo Hall’s (2011:281) concerns that these are justifications to continue to

progress with a neoliberalistic, idealised use of technology that ‘ignores the complexity of our

socio-cultural realities’.

Driven By Technology

In the analysis of tutor responses for what drives them in their use of technology the main

common theme that emerged was the view that technology is everywhere, required and a

necessity for students to develop their skills. The tutors spoke of the students expecting to

use technology because they had been brought up with it, using it at home, school and with

their peers.

‘School, that’s a big driver’ (Anisa, Teacher Education)

‘Everything is online. Everything. Everything is on a computer. You can do absolutely everything. I don’t go a day without using technology.’

(Diane, EPD)

26

‘It’s normal for my kids to engage [at school] in all sorts of software programmes’

(Daniel, IT)

Tutors stated that the effects of marketing and peer pressure meant that many students

were using technologies such as mobile phones and tablets at home and that technology

was perceived as ‘an egotistic, cool thing’ (Diane, Employability). This use of technology

from an early age was thought to place the students at times ahead of the tutors in terms of

technical knowledge, and that it was important to try to keep up with them:

‘I’m young myself and they tell me how to do things on the computer that I don’t even know how to do...these kids have all been brought up on Ipads and computers. It’s all that they know.’ (Diane, Employability)

The motivation to engage in the use of technologies to aid ICT skills in students was

prevalent as ‘us using the technology to deliver isn’t going to affect [improve] their skills’. The

opportunity of ‘keeping the teaching fresh’ and allowing for creativity and challenge appeared

to reflect some of Demps et al’s (2011) findings where educators were found to gain

personal satisfaction from using the technology in learning.

‘.if every week we taught in the same way and wheeled out another version of the powerpoint, then it becomes dull for us and we’re doing the best for our learners.’

(Julie, HE)

‘It comes from myself – an internal drive. I could do the bare minimum but I want the students to be able to thrive and gain in employment and progress….’

(Anisa, Teacher Education)

However, this personal drive was not felt by all the tutors with one of the tutors stating that

the drive was perhaps financial:

‘Maybe hours of courses, using less time at college and more could be done [taught] at home ‘ (Sajhid, FE)

27

The effect of marketing on the drive of technology use was commented on by some

participants; how technology is endorsed by the well-known can influence and the allure of

the latest product combined with accessibility to anything:

‘Videoscribe - everybody loves it so people use it; Ken Robinson… but you can’t get it free now. So yes they give you tasters and then restrict access…’ (Julie, HE)

The perspective of marketing as an almost invisible force that society is irresistible to,

seemed to be accepted by the tutors and the normality of this is almost shrugged off by

them, as the inevitability of technology was sensed throughout the interviews:

‘…because it’s being sold to people as a way of access….the whole globalisation point of view about it, that technology is our way into the world, and I think that’s the drive behind it. Because we literally have access to it at our fingertips through a mobile device we can access anything… the government are selling it to people, like get an iphone 6s because you’ve got a 12 megapixel camera to take pictures..’

(Diane, FE)

‘I think marketing’s key. When I was 12 I was climbing trees, now my daughter’s 12 and she’s got an Ipad, an Iphone, that’s down to peer pressure, marketing…I think it starts early ‘ (Daniel Computing)

Daniel also discussed the increased use in technology as ‘a natural shift’ and ‘a natural

progression’ but noted the increase in choices he felt it presented in terms of teaching and

assessment, to enhance student learning and in preparation for employment.

Interestingly, none of the tutors felt they were encouraged unreasonably by the college in the

use of technology, although a few quoted the Feltag report (FELTAG, 2013) and believed

that 10 per cent of delivery should be online, however were not fully aware that this was a

recommendation and not a directive.

What is lost

‘I think it needs to be questioned about if the technology is appropriate for the particular area. So if – on the flip side an example if you look at motor vehicle - cars are now controlled by a computer so the mechanic looks at the diagnostics and actually forgets to look under the bonnet. If they had just looked under the bonnet

28

they would have found out what was wrong…..so there’s that over dependence on technology to tell us what’s right and wrong.. (Sarah, HE)

This sense of reliance on technology was reflected by others where technology was

acknowledged to be used for everything and ‘can do absolutely anything’. However despite

how ‘amazing’ it could be some of the participants lamented how the progress of technology

could cause the loss of more traditional aspects such as handwriting, spelling skills and

books:

‘..because that’s where your history is and I think that if you’re moving too far forward sometimes you miss out on what’s got us to where we are.. ‘ (Diane, Employability)

Although the tutors voiced an awareness that technology may be used in education as a

form of organisational efficiency and data collection, this was openly received and not

perceived as a negative:

‘I can see where students are at with their progress….where their strengths are and what they’ve got to work on… I can use it as a way of communicating with the [academic] tutors ‘ (Diane, EPD)

Where criticality did become evident was in the issue of commodification and

competitiveness of education and that marketization had reduced learners to being

‘ ….pushed through education as though they’re a product…and because they’re treated in that way they want to know what they need to do to pass this course in and A – B route. Not via C that might involve them engaging in something outside of the classroom. Like an online video that a tutor prepared for them to watch in between lessons…learners want to know what they need to do to pass the course and aren’t interested in other stuff outside the classroom.. ‘

(Julie, Teacher Education)

This level of criticality was given to some questioning of resources and that learning

technologies were sometimes ‘a box to tick’ and not always thought out or considered.

29

Others reflected on an over dependence on technology, a danger of ‘being taken down a

path that you don’t recognise’, and a sense of ‘going along with it’. Some suggested there

should be a balance in the use of technology with traditional classroom methods and using

technology if it was ‘appropriate’. Although these aspects were of concern to the tutors, there

was only one who stated they had questioned the use of technologies which was in terms of

evaluating a resource. However, the increase in the use of educational technologies did not

appear to be a concern or a matter to be thought more critically about despite some

apparent misgivings:

‘Students can get lost with too much data, too much to fill in, too many systems to look at. It can all be fractured…sometimes on line it gets lost….’

(Anisa, Teacher Education)

Evaluation of findings

Phenomenological research is based on description and interpretation of those individuals’

experiences of their social reality (Gray, 2009) and therefore insists that the researcher does

not allow their current understandings and preconceptions to adulterate the findings of the

research. The resulting data should be free of the prejudices and bias of the researcher as

much as possible. In this particular study the exploration of the tutor experiences has on

occasion been problematic when trying to determine possible critical viewpoints of the use of

technology, while aiming to avoid influencing those opinions. Consequently, in accessing

those common – sense thoughts and realities, the findings in this study, although aiming to

be valid as possible, may not have unearthed the criticality of discourse it was hoped for.

Similarly, the style of interviewing employed in the study could have been too unstructured

and may have benefitted from slightly more structure, or preparation, where the respondents

could have been allowed to explore other areas, promoting more explicitness in their

responses about their understandings, or allowing for diversions that they had not previously

30

considered. Certainly the approach taken would hope to suggest data that is reliable and

true as possible to the individual’s accounts and experiences.

The seemingly lack of critical discourse from the participants suggests credence to the

unquestioning acceptance of educational technologies reflected in the literature (Arievitch,

Igor, et al.2007). Tutors were initially positive about the use of technology in general, several

stating that technology in education ‘made their lives easier’ (Daniel), was useful for

resources, and made processes efficient. However, in terms of pedagogical explanations,

few of the tutors were able to discuss how the technology was able to benefit the teaching

and learning, although tutors on part time adult and HE courses were positive about the

community and social learning that technology appeared to aid. Others felt that technology

was sometimes used ‘for the sake of it’ (Sajhid) and not entirely necessary, sometimes used

as an ‘add on’. That said, there were comments that it could provide some variety to

learners, help them engage in lessons and be useful as an interactive teaching aid. This

engagement was said to be helped by a variety of teaching methods, and not just by the use

of technology.

The positivity surrounding technology in lessons was also linked to a drive to ensure

students have the necessary ICT skills considered a main requirement for their future

employment; technology could give students the ‘employability advantage to others…’

(Anisa). This mindset appears to demonstrate a link between educational technologies and

the ideology of individualist neo-liberalism and capitalist society where

..‘education now is about employability, there is no longer learning for learning sake; what we’re here for is to produce a product that’s sellable..’ (Julie, HE)

It would appear from the data that the tutors believe there are underpinning drives in using

technology and that these begin with societal, marketization and globalisation factors early

on in a students’ life, and are then perpetuated through schooling. Once at college the tutors

either try their hardest to keep up with what they often consider are a group of digital natives,

31

or are already in front of them and are almost racing to find the latest technological tool to

showcase in their lessons. Pedagogy, teaching and learning are not apparently as much of a

consideration, instead engagement, efficiency, technology skills and accessibility could

summarise the drives behind its use for these tutors. Indeed, such is the optimism in the use

of technology that although the tutors acknowledge the drives of society, marketization

forces to ‘keep up’ they are not appeared to be of concern.

However, despite the seemingly lack of questioning and criticality with educational

technologies and the generally optimistic associations, there does appear to be some

concerns highlighted of the apparently normalisation (Selwyn, 2014) of technology.

Concerns that young children don’t have a choice in using the technology initially from an

early age, but are brought up alongside it and doomed to succumb to its exposure,

marketing forces and corporate interests that continue to impose, and a worry that certain

identities could be lost:

‘…if you don’t have someone there to encourage them and engage them – can a piece of technology do that?’ (Amy, HE).

These concerns could perhaps begin to be addressed if both tutors and students were

encouraged to consider technology critically and question the existing thinking of the

transformatory nature of technology.

32

Chapter Five: CONCLUSION

Discussion

This study has aimed to analyse, critically, the current use of technologies in education by

examining current literature and findings from empirical research. The study has found that

educational technologies have been adopted and incorporated throughout education with a

seemingly discerning lack of discussion and consultation from educators. Despite this, and

limited evidence to demonstrate benefit to learning, digital technologies have mainly been

heralded as transformatory and of necessity to the information age (Robinson, 2011). Using

an analysis and review of relevant literature, the study has considered the theory and

discourse from a range of authors who claim that this everyday use of educational

technologies should be problematized and a cause for further discussion and questioning.

Furthermore, the literature suggests that claims of requirements for digital technologies to

incorporate constructivist, problem solving methods of teaching and learning (Tapscott,1999)

are mainly unsupported by empirical evidence (Bennett, et al, 2007), and the continued drive

for those technologies are instead a forum for the perpetuation of neoliberal and capitalist

values and ideologies (Johnson, 1999; Amory, 2006; Selwyn, 2014).

Following calls by those such as Holloway (2002, cited in Selwyn, 2014:165) to ‘an invitation

to discuss’ and a ‘considered and disinterested examination of the assumptions

underpinning claims about digital natives’ (Bennett et al, 2008) this study has used empirical

research to examine the suggested hegemony of the educational technology utopia. The

research methodology of phenomenology, and subsequent qualitative interviews with tutors

in this particular FE college, have shown, in this sample, that although tutors spoke of an

increased use of technology in their lessons over recent years, they have no apparent

concerns with this. However, on further discussion with the tutors they did identify, and

expressed a full awareness of, the underpinning marketization and capitalist forces that are

33

suggest to drive their use. This seemingly lack of concern, questioning and debate of the

drives and consequences of those underpinning forces that they have acknowledged, could

be due to the hegemonic nature of technology that renders those ideologies invisible (Hall,

2011).

Moreover, any concerns realised are mostly dismissed due to the sense of inevitability

surrounding technology and an apparent apathy to resist the increase. This may be

enhanced by the belief that the use of technology can develop students’ IT skills and will

therefore prepare and increase their chances of employment. Indeed, the tutors were in

agreement that technology skills were needed for today’s society and because ‘everything

they’ve [students] got is technology’. Some tutors suggested that as younger students were

subjected to technology at an early age, using technology in lessons could be an opportunity

to engage them in the learning.

Significantly, most of the tutors did express some concerns over what could be lost in the

rush for technology and a reliance on its virtues. These concerns reflect some of Bowers’

(2000) assertions of the technological contribution leading to a loss in certain cultural values

and norms. These losses are described by the tutors as although not ideal, and most spoke

of a fondness for ‘traditions’ such as reading books, spelling and ‘paper-based’ methods, the

loss of such conventions are deemed almost inevitable and a price to pay for keeping up

with the technology race. However, it would appear that the tutors seemingly have failed to

realise their own role in passing on their implicit values to students in their socialisation of

educational technologies. Where the tutors have discussed the normalisation (Selwyn, 2014)

of those technologies and the need to ‘keep up’ with the students, they do not seem to see

that they themselves, it could be argued, are perpetuating the use and drive of those

technologies.

34

Implications of the study

The findings of this study would suggest technology is considered, by this group of tutors, a

necessary part of a student’s education. Due to employability requirements, a wider choice

of learning materials and resources and accessibility for distance learning, the study’s

participants appear to have embraced learning technologies and utilise them regularly in

their lessons. However, in embracing the technologies so broadly and unquestionably,

theoretical engagement linking to practice is less evident in this sample and so it is

suggested this could be better utilised to support student learning and also to enhance

understanding of educational technologies and their implications. Theory that includes

critical questioning of the technologies used, and so to increase an awareness of those

ideologies that although the participants demonstrated an awareness of, had apparently little

attention or concern appeared to have been given to them. Therefore it is also suggested

that the issue of educational technologies is debated and problematized more within

educational institutions and given a status of inquiry and political concern. Where educators

discuss their good practice in teaching and learning there should be room made for

awareness and critique of such technologies, in an open and free forum. These forums of

critical discussion should be inclusive, aiming to mobilize discussion and making steps to

prevent possible marginalisation of those who have critical points to raise about digital

technologies. At present, such is the enhanced agency and influence of the digital industry

throughout education, and the positivity that technologies are perceived as, that it is often

perhaps difficult to see or think of the requirement to question. Consequently those at

present who do question could appear to have little encouragement or platforms to do so. If

technology is to form a vital and necessary part of education it should also be a topic for

education and studied, critiqued and questioned as a ‘contested and controversial topic of

education practice in its own right’ (Hall et al, 2014:4).

35

Personal and Professional Development

The professional Dissertation has been considered by some students to be a tool for

personal and professional development (Lendahls,1993, cited in Chambers, 2001). I hope

that this project has allowed me to develop on skills of communication, self-management

and planning in the process of research and creating this dissertation. Perhaps also due to

the new perspectives gained from undertaking the study I also hope I have been able to

foster creativity and develop those skills required to make the writing inviting and interesting

to the reader. Indeed, the nature of reading and reflection that is involved in the dissertation

has enabled me to not only unearth my own concerns and interests, but to reflect on and

refine them in a legitimate and professional way that may allow them a level of credence.

This in turn has encouraged me to use and promote those inquiring and critical approaches

in other aspects of life, and to look at issues in society more deeply with an enhanced

awareness. While these skills are undoubtedly useful for professional development, perhaps

the linking of theory and practice that I now hope to be able to encourage with others in

looking more deeply at educational technology can be considered as professional action.

Dissemination

After acquiring these new insights it is hoped that the findings from this research study can

be disseminated and made available to colleagues and managers. However, as this study

has argued, there is limited evidence in the literature that demonstrates educational

institutions perceive any reason to question technologies and quite possibly favour them.

Consequently this study does not present a solution to a problem, but instead requests

something presently considered normal and even of benefit, to be questioned, contradicted

and deemed problematic. It invites critical inquiry within institutions and suggests this be also

offered across academic staff and discussed with students. To ensure this is successfully

disseminated would require engagement from those involved and how this subject and

findings should be presented to those stakeholders. Initially the findings will be presented to

management, then a possible action plan of further dissemination may be agreed with the

36

institution. This could potentially be to present the topic in training sessions during college

development days, and invite others to be involved with if and how this topic could be further

debated with students.

Evaluation

The objective of the study was to provide a critical analysis of educational technologies,

using literature and empirical research. It is hoped that the reader will find this analysis has

gone some way towards meeting the initial aims of the project and consider the issues

raised have been argued well enough to be recognised for further debate. Each step of the

project has been approached with appropriate guidance from literature and current research

policy, as well as guidance from the college and university, thereby maintaining a

professional stance and consideration for all participants.

Due to limited similar empirical research it is difficult to consider the results in relation to

other comparable studies; therefore it would be of interest to suggest further research to be

extended throughout the institution and reflect on those comparisons. Furthermore, as the

results suggested most participants were mainly of a positive mind-set towards technology, it

would be interesting to discuss technology use with any possible participants who held a

more critical viewpoint. However, as discussed throughout the study, open criticality on

digital technologies is perhaps problematic due to the fear of challenging their hegemonic

position and of being labelled ‘old fashioned’.

I hope to be able to develop on this criticality in a constructive way and continue to

encourage others to also consider educational technologies through such a lens. In doing so

perhaps more awareness can be raised of the political and deterministic qualities of those

technologies and possible solutions given to how they can be addressed.

37

38

REFERENCES

Afgan, N.H. & Carvelho, M.G. (2010). The Knowledge Society: A Sustainability Paradigm. Cadmus, 1 (1), 28-41. Retrieved from http://www.cadmusjournal.org/files/pdfreprints/vol1issue1/The%20Knowledge%20Society%20A%20Sustainability%20Paradigm,%20Naim,%20Afgan.pdf.

Amory, A. (2010). Education technology and hidden ideological contradictions. Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 69-79.

Arievitch, Igor, et al. Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures. Lexington Books, 2007.

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples. London: SAGE.Bailey,

C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 152-155. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002

Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002. doi:10.1177/1461444809336551

Beetham, H. (2011). Supporting Learners in a Digital Age. JISC, 1-4. doi: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/briefingpaper/2011/JISC_SLIDA_FINAL_web.pdf.

Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.

Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: The missed opportunities in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3) doi:10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17108

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Bowers, C.A. (2010) Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, London,& New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. [Internet] Available from: www.bera.ac.uk/system/files/3/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf

Brock, A. and Rankin, C. (2011) Professionalism in Conklin, T. A. (2007). Method or madness: Phenomenology as knowledge creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275-287. doi:10.1177/1056492607306023

Canaan, J. E. (2013). “Resisting the English Neoliberalising University: What Critical Pedagogy Can Offer.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 11 (2): 16.

39

Cavanagh, A. (2007). Sociology in the age of the internet. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Chambers, P. (2001). Evaluating the impact of continuing professional development: The professional dissertation in lifelong learning. Journal of in-Service Education, 27(1), 123-142. doi:10.1080/13674580100200136

Conklin, T. A. (2007). Method or madness: Phenomenology as knowledge creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275-287. doi:10.1177/1056492607306023

Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: For small scale research projects (Fifthition. ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). The landscape of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Demps, E. L., Lincoln, Y. S., & Cifuentes, L. (2011). Conflicts over the utilities of teaching using educational technologies: An interpretive critical inquiry. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(2), 135-170. doi:10.1177/1523422311415641

Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. National Research Council Canada http://www.oecd.org/document/32/0,2340,en_2649_33723_36224352_1_1_1_1,00.html

Federman, M. (2004, July 23). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Retrieved from http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm

Feenberg, A. (1999;2012;). Questioning technology (1st ed.). GB: Routledge Ltd. doi:10.4324/9780203022313

FELTAG (2013) Paths forward to a digital future for Further Education and Skills https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320242/bis-14-841-government-response-to-recommendations-from-the-FELTAG-action-plan.pdf

Garnham, N. (2000). 'Information society' as theory or ideology: A critical perspective in technology, education and employment in the information age. Information, Communication & Society, 3(2), 139-152. doi:10.1080/13691180050123677

Gill, M. J. (2014). The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118-137. doi:10.1177/1094428113518348

Goodson, I. F., & Mangan, J. M. (1996). Computer literacy as ideology. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(1), 65-79. doi:10.1080/0142569960170105

Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world (Third ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Hall, R. (2011). Revealing the transformatory moment of learning technology: The place of critical social theory. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3) doi:10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17115

Hall, R., Humphries, P., Holmes, D., Mckeown,, S., Perrotta,, C., Breeze, J., & Rudd, T. (2014, April) Rethinking Educational Technology. Retrieved from http://blogs.brighton.ac.uk/edres/files/2014/04/Rethinking_Educational_Technology_-_Scenarios-xfhmlw.pdf.

Haythornewaite, C. & Andrews, R, (2011) E-learning theory & practice. Sage UK: London, England: SAGE Publications.

40

Heidegger, M. (1988) The basic problems of phenomenology Indianna University Press: Bloomington

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (Second ed.). London: Sage.

Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: SAGE.

Hsiung, P. (2008). Teaching reflexivity in qualitative interviewing. Teaching Sociology, 36(3), 211-226. doi:10.1177/0092055X0803600302

Johnson, H. C. (1999). Full screens and empty students: Questioning technology as an educational medium. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19(4), 286-295. doi:10.1177/027046769901900405

Jung, I., & Latchem, C. (2011). A model for e‐education: Extended teaching spaces and extended learning spaces. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 6-18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00987.x

Kater, M. H. (1991). Heidegger's confrontation with modernity: Technology, politics, and art. German History, 9(2), 254-256. doi:10.1093/gh/9.2.254

Kassam, A., Iding, M., & Hogenbirk, P. (2012). Unraveling the digital divide: Time well spent or “wasted”? Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 215-221. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9233-9

Lovink, G. (2011). Networks without a cause: A critique of social media. Cambridge: Polity.

MRUCK, Katja; BREUER, Franz. Subjectivity and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research—The FQS Issues.Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, may 2003. ISSN 1438-5627. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/696/1504

McLuhan, M., & Gordon, W. T. (2003;2013;). Understanding media: The extensions of man (Critical ed.). Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.

Merrin, W. (2005). Baudrillard and the media: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

Naughton, J. (2012). From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: What you really need to know about the internet. London: Quercus.

Prag Foundation for Capacity Building. (2011). What is Knowledge Society?. Retrieved from http://pragfoundation.net/about/.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our Minds, Learning to be Creative Chichester: Capstone Publishing

Rotherham Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (2016). JSNA. Retrieved from http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/jsna/

Ruiz, R. & Lohr, S. (2015, February 26). F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html

41

Säljö, R., (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning: The performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 53-64. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x

Seale, J., & Dutton, W. (2012). Empowering the digitally excluded: Learning initiatives for (in)visible groups. Research in Learning Technology, 20(4), 313-321. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.20214

Siemens , G. (2007). Digital natives and immigrants; A concept beyond its best before date.Retrieved from http://connectivism.ca/blog/2007/10/.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 65. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x

Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting Educational Technology: Critical Questions for Changing Times. Routledge.

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: How change happens when people come together (Updat []. ed.). London: Penguin.

Sigman, A. (2008). DOES NOT COMPUTE Screen Technology in Early Years Education. Retrieved from https://openeyecampaign.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/doesnotcompute.pdf.

Smith, J.A. and Osborne, M. (2003) Interpretive phenomenological analysis In Smith, J. A. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif;London;: SAGE.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.

Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the Net generation. Educational Leadership , 56, 5, 6-11

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. (2010) Innovating the 21st century university: It‘s Time. Educause Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp17-29.

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45-45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tillberg-Webb, H., & Strobel, J. (2013). Ideologies in the conceptualization and use of educational technology using huxley, orwell and forster to inform a humanizing framework for educational technology practice. () doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-269-3_17

Walliman, N. S. R. (2011). Your research project: Designing and planning your work (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Watters, A. (2014). The monsters of education technology: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

Wilby, P. (2009) All of us live by the logic of financialisation, New Statesmen. February, www.newstatesman.com/economy/2009/02/housing-societies-essay

42

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule

1) Can you tell me how long you’ve been teaching for?2) What subject(s) do you teach3) Do you use technology in your lessons?4) What is the technology used for?5) Is the technology used by all the students?6) What do you think the students think about using technology in lessons? 7) Do the students use technology outside of classes to do their work? 8) Do you use it outside of work for work?9) Why do you use technology in lessons?10)Do you like using technology (both outside and in lessons)11)Do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing – expand on12)Do you think it improves learning – can you give examples?13)Do you think it encourages learner-centred learning/constructivist/communal

etc 14)Are you encouraged to use technology by the

college/peers/managers/students?15)Do any students not use technology? Why is that?16)Are there any barriers to students using technology?17)Do you do anything about barriers?18)Are there alternatives if a student is unable to use technology and the rest of

the class does?19)Where do you think the drive for technology comes from?20)Why do you think there is a drive (if they do)21)What do you think about that?22)Do you think technology is normal?23)Do you ever question technology and the everydayness of it?24)Do you think there any negatives? What could they be?

43

Appendix 2: Example of transcribed data

Interview with Diane, Employability and Personal development Tutor

How long have you been teaching for?

Since last July

What do you teach

I’m a progress teacher –citizenship, PHSE subjects, employability, things like that

And do you use technology in those lessons?

We use PCs, laptops, they use these for things like if I’m doing a session about alcohol or drugs they could use software such as Socrative, or Padlett. And I’ll design a questionnaire or something on there. I’ll put them into teams and I can trak them on there. They can track this on there and their progress with each other, so they’re competing with each other.

Quizzes?

Yes and at the end it tells them what teams come out where and what they’ve got right and wrong. Then we go through the answers and talk through that. I’ll also use Padlett boards so I can ask a general question like ‘How many drugs and alcohol…go through your computers and we can talk through how many.you know about and talk through each one. They use Word, Moodle on the Portal,

What do they use Moodle for?

For me it’s employability, tracking their professional development from college to employability

How does it track them?

They put work onto Moodle, do worksheets, task like building a CV. They can upload it onto Moodle or send it to me. Then I can log it and save it. They use Moodle to access all the resources and information.

Anything else?

Not for me but for other tutors they use it for stuff – mainly resources, they can use it from home, at college, even abroad if they want to..and then they can upload work as well and it can get marked and students can see their work. It can then track to see who’s done what. I can use it to see where students are with their progress. I can use this in tutorials so I can see how they’re doing and see where their strengths are and what they need to work on. I’ve got to do academic reviews with them and that will tell me where they’re at with each task assignments, what grade they’ve got, what they’re aiming for, and I’ll be able to talk to the student and then say this is what you’ve got. So I can use it as a way of communicating with the tutors about academic progress, cos I can’t sit with each one individually and have the time to talk to them about every single student. So it’s easier to put it on there.

So it’s quite efficient

44

Can the students access the Markbook part?

No it’s just for staff

Do students know about it and that there’s information there about them?

Yes I tell them what’s on there when I do reviews with them. So if there’s a comment there I will read it out to them. I approach it in a different way to other tutors I think. But my role’s a lot more personable.

Do you think some tutors don’t tell them what’s on there?

No I think a lot of the time for the tutors they keep it between tutors rather than sharing with the student. And so I will sit with them in reviews and see what the tutors are saying about the students, what they need to be at and do to move on. But I think that is only because I have the time to do that with them in reviews whereas the tutor doesn’t’ have that time.

What do you think the student’s feel about this monitoring of them?

Oh really? They are quite interested to read the comments. I say that they can sit and read them or I can go through them. Some of them will literary take my laptop off me and sit and read them. A lot of the time it is right what has been put on there, tutors don’t lie

But it’s somebody’s perspective?

Yes sometimes I’ll get ‘ well I didn’t do that, I was there for that lesson’ etc so I will have to check it on other systems. I think a lot of the time students will complain about something but then I can use it in a review with them and go through all their stud and get things clarified with t hem so there’s less frustration.

And what do you think about this monitoring?

I think it’s efficient in my role for doing reviews. I can get everything I need. A lot of the time tutors put opinion rather than fact onto the systems and that could go against some students. Because if someone else reads it as an outsider they could get the wrong impression. I can access other departments and see students who I’ve never met before. Your opinion is based on how many behaviour concerns they’ve got. Some people will even log behaviour as a cause for concern when it’s not a bad thing. So if you look at the statistics they might be wrong. So I think there needs to be a lot more awareness of the purpose of it. Only put on what needs to be put on. The facts, not opinions. Because otherwise students can request that iformation. I always tell them they can request that information anytime they want, so if they’re going for disciplinary ..

Do you think the other progress tutors may be as open with the students?

I think so. Our role is based in student services so I’m there for the student. Sometimes I do clash with tutors because I’m there to defend the student, help them and get them to the next step. So I will do whatever I can to support that.

Are there any other types of technology you use in lessons with the students?

45

They use their mobile phones quite a lot. I use social media, I have my own FB account with them for work. And quite often I’ll put my FB account on the board and get them all to go onto FB and ‘like’ a page I’ve seen about something that’s going on in the community, or I’ll share a page that’s about voluntary experience. Or something that the careers lounge has put on. I’ll show them it they can like it then they’ll use my FB as a way of accessing employability resources. It’s a good way. I put a job advert on it for Toys r Us. I’ve done where they’ve sat with me and applied for the job at the same time. I know other academic tutors don’t like using FB or anything like that, in this day and age social media … sometimes they do get distracted by it. I tell them to go on their phone and do something and they’ll be sat texting. But then again it’s about trusting them and giving them a time limit. You’ve got ten minutes to do this – I want proof that you’ve done it at the end. Sometimes laptops don’t work so phones are the best way to do it. And obviously they’ve all got FB on their phones.

Have you come across anyone who hasn’t got a phone or FB?

Some students don’t have phones so they log onto computers. If they haven’t got an account then I’ll share it on my work. I’ve had some Asian students they either have a fake profile as sometimes their parents don’t want them to have a social media account which is fair enough. So I’ll bring a back up – a worksheet or I’ll bring it up on my laptop and I can sit with them. There’s ways of getting around it.

Do you think they might be left out?

I’ve never had a lesson where more than one hasn’t been able to get on their phone or the internet. I’ve never really had a problem where it’s caused a barrier. I don’t know whether that’s because of the age group I’m working with where everyone has a mobile phone to connect to the wifi. So even if it’s not FB or they haven’t got an account they can get on to the wifi. There’s a way around everything with technology.

Do you think it does enhance and improve?

Yes definitely. Especially in this day and age where..I’m young myself and I know that they tell me stuff on how to do things on the computer that I don’t even know how to do. And when they show me I think it’s amazing. Other tutors tell me about new things to use as well. It’s a way of getting them all involved. These kids have all been brought up on ipads and computers. It’s all that they know. If you gave them a text book and told them to sit and write an essay for you they would probably be better at typing it. But that’s the world we live in now.

What makes you say that?

I just think that nowadays everything is online Everything. Everything is on a computer. You can do absolutely everything. I don’t think I go a day without using technology.

But does that mean you could use it exclusively? And not pick up a book or…

To be fair I do try and encourage going to the library and picking up a book..

Why?

46

Because I like the idea of books still, I’m quite old fashioned that way. They’ll [students] tell me stuff and show me things, and I’m only young, they show me for example I was on Instagram and they showed me how to use the hashtag and I said you can’t hashtag on FB. And they said they could and showed me if you hashtag and click on a word it takes you to all these different sites on FB that have that word in it. And I never knew you could do that and it’s such an amazing way of just hashtag on ‘alcohol’ and it would bring up all these different resources for you. And I never knew you could do that. And I also think you should go back to traditional ways like books because that’s where your history is and I think that if you’re moving too far forward sometimes you miss out on what’s got us to where we are.

So you think if we’re moving too quickly we might lose something?

Yeh I think a lot of my students.. I struggle to read their handwriting and I think it’s because of how they’ve been used to typing. And I think we are losing simple skills like writing and English and grammar, punctuation because Microsoft Word does it all for us. I think we’re losing our own ability to use our own language because internet and computers are doing our work for us. I think we’re becoming lazy and reliant but in the same sense it enhances it because it makes it so much easier and smoother. I can get students to write something and I’m not being asked constantly how do you spell this where would I put the comma in this. They probably wouldn’t know how to use a dictionary.

Would you teach them?

Yes I’d obviously teach them but yeh I think there’s pros and cons to it. I use technology because it’s reaches them because they’ve been brought up with it.

Why do you think they’ve been brought up with it maybe more than you?

I never had a mobile until I was about 14 and these have had them since………

So even though there’s only about a five year gap {between you and the students]

I don’t have a clue about half of the things they’re going on about.

So even in that short space it’s sort of sped up?

Definitely but I think that also the media is a lot bigger, there’s more access to it now, it’s a lot cheaper now. There’s contracts you can sign up to things and pay monthly now whereas before you had to have like a guarantor. Now you don’t. I think they’re a lot easier to access and I think parents can afford now in a way to give the children them things. I know it’s not always a good thing but they can now. And if there’s pressure from other families..I always wanted what my friends have and if they had a better phone than me I would then go to my mum and say why haven’t I got a phone that’s as good. My mum would always say no, I’m only spending so much..you need your childhood ..but my friends always had better phones. So as soon as I was 16 and working I went out and got a phone contract. I only had 30 quid a week but I got a phone.

So that was your priority to get a phone?

47

Yes it was because of my friends, also I didn’t live close them so that was the way of keeping..and I think that’s the same with a lot of these kids…they don’t drive or live near each other…and I think that’s the way they keep grounded and with each other..that’s all that they have some of them. I’ve been in safeguarding meetings before and there was a young girl that was trapped in her own house and only had her mobile phone and her FB. She was grounded and not allowed out of the house and to her that was her safety net. That was her way of keeping in touch with everyone. I think technology serves us all differently but for me it was because friends had it and I wanted it.

Do you think there’s any other drives to technology? Where does it come from?

I think that when I was in university we did a topic specifically on technology in education and we had a guest speaker come in and he was basically saying it’s because it’s being sold to people as a way of access – like he went on about the whole globalisation point of view about it, that technology is our way into the world, and I think that’s the drive behind it. Because we literally have access to it at our fingertips through a mobile device we can access anything and he was selling it, the government are selling it to people like get an iphone 6s because you’ve got a 12 megapixel camera to take pictures of your friends on holiday. And I think for even older generations that appeals to them because they can take good pictures of their grandchildren.

So do you think it’s to do with marketing?

Yes it is about wanting that fancy piece of equipment and I think people sell it to us because they know that we want …I think that England’s greedy to be honest, I think we want what’s best

Maybe not just England?

Yeh I think it is a global thing. That guy was saying…yeh it’s Westernisation, globalisation of the Western world, and I think that there’s a demand for our way everywhere in the world and I think that guy was saying in his lecture that the world is at our fingertips and why wouldn’t you want that?

Any downsides? From that some people are making a lot of money so that we can have an IPhone 6s

Like I said I think we’re losing basic skills, I think my students, even being 5 years older than them I look at them shocked because I can’t believe they don’t know how to spell a certain word or I’ve tried to read their writing and I don’t understand it because all they’ve done throughout school is type. They don’t know how to look into a dictionary and find something. They don’t know what a thesaurus is, they can’t spell to me. And I think that if we do try and use and rely on technology too much we are losing that basic skills to use English and likewise other languages…

I think technology as well is an egoistic, cool thing and I know students will come in here and they’ll slag off the computers we’re using because they want better. And I think that too often technology is focussed on the marketing side of it than what it can actually do. They just want something that looks good rather than what it’s actually intended for. So we’re using it for appearance rather than what it’s used for.

48

And there’s always the next new thing as well?

Yeh every two months you try to keep up with it and you can’t especially for families that can’t afford 5 or 6 phone contracts…

I was thinking about how it contributes to that throw away society because everything needs updating…

Yes I’ve still got three in a basket in my house. It is a waste but it’s all about appearance…

49

Appendix 3: Examples of Data Analysis

Driven by technology

50

Normalisation of technology

What is lost

51