Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [TOBB Ekonomi Ve Teknoloji]On: 21 December 2014, At: 16:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Teachers and Teaching: theory andpracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Veteran teachers and technology:change fatigue and knowledgeinsecurity influence practiceJoanne Orlandoa
a School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Sydney,AustraliaPublished online: 14 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Joanne Orlando (2014) Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigueand knowledge insecurity influence practice, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20:4,427-439, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2014.881644
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.881644
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledgeinsecurity influence practice
Joanne Orlando*
School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
(Received 22 November 2012; final version received 12 June 2013)
In recent years, a significant problem that has manifested in the quest to capitaliseon the pedagogical potential of technology in schools is that veteran teachers areunwilling to integrate these resources into their practices. Given that veteranteachers comprise up to 40% of teachers, their lack of use is important. Thispaper aims to shed light on the issue of detachment by presenting empiricallybased findings of a five-year, grounded theory examination of the technologypractices of a small group of veteran teachers. Data included classroom observa-tions, teacher interviews and document analysis of teacher and school planningdocumentation, student focus groups, interviews with teaching colleagues andkey school technology personnel observation. Analysis included the applicationof the teachers’ data to a framework of dilemmas teachers encounter whenexpected to change their practice. In using this process, change fatigue andknowledge insecurity (brought about by cultural and political changes to theircontexts) were prominent factors which contributed to the teachers’ lack of tech-nology use. Identifying their challenges opened scrutiny to the myriad of factorsthey drew on when making decisions about how and whether to use technologyin their practice. The longitudinal analysis of the data showed that as these dilem-mas alleviated, the teachers became more committed to educational technology.The findings inform how we can move forward from the issue of veteran teach-ers’ lack of use of technology to how to support this group in the development oftheir practices. In particular, the need for a re-imagining of professional learningto one which focuses on reshaping cultural and political aspects of technologypractices. This includes changes to the management of technology-related policychanges as well as facilitating learning communities that promote a valuing andsharing of relevant knowledge amongst teachers and students.
Keywords: veteran teachers; change; technology; longitudinal
Capitalising on the pedagogical potential of technology in schools is only possible ifall teachers are committed to developing meaningful practices with these resources.Veteran teachers are those who have been teaching for 20 years or more and com-prise 25% of primary teachers and 30% of secondary teachers internationally; insome countries the average jumps to 40% (OECD, 2005). Given their dominantpresence in schools, understanding their issue of detachment is important.
A central finding in the small, international body of literature on veteran teachersis that this group detach themselves from technology. They do not see technology aspart of their content responsibilities (Plair, 2008) and in comparison to novice
*Email: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2014Vol. 20, No. 4, 427–439, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.881644
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
teachers, they have significantly lower commitment to technology integration(Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Pavlou & Vryonides, 2009) and limit opportunities forchanging their daily teaching practices or trying new technologies in their class-rooms (Inan & Lowther, 2010). On a superficial level, such findings may be inter-preted as refusal of technology. However other studies, which indicate theinadequacy of veteran teachers in integrating technology into their practices, suggestthat lack of knowledge may be the reason for their detachment. For example, incomparison to novice teachers veteran teachers have less computer proficiency andconfidence to integrate technology (Bingimals, 2009).
While such studies importantly signal there is an issue with veteran teachers,these studies are not able to offer in-depth explanations for how or why this groupappear to be so problematic. Veteran teachers are accomplished, often expert teach-ers who have spent many years developing their subject matter, pedagogical anddidactical knowledge (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt, 1999). Their high-level capac-ity for learning prompts asking why they may have a problem developing theirknowledge of technology. Disinterest also seems to be uncharacteristic of this group,given that many are committed to their practice, often holding positions of responsi-bility in their school (Day & Gu, 2009). Veteran teachers are not noted for a lack ofcapacity, knowledge or commitment in any other aspect of their role, which suggestsdeeper issues are at the core of their lack of use.
A key idea embedded in this paper is that observable teaching is the representationof an inter-related mesh of contextual and individualised variables a teacherconstantly encounters, problematises and interprets as part of their practice (Connelly& Clandinin, 1999). An important variable for veteran teachers is the unrelentingmessage from educational authorities that teachers’ well-established practices are nolonger good enough. Given the ubiquitous place of technology in society, govern-ments and the community are placing enormous pressure on education departments tomake learning in schools more technologised. Consequently, the burden on veteranteachers to change their knowledge and practices is unrelenting.
Technology has also contributed to shifts in the culture of school teachingand learning. The notion that technology is part of youth culture and that olderpeople struggle with their use is a consistent social message. This devaluing ofthe knowledge of older individuals is exacerbated by children’s enthusiasm forusing technology and the extensive technology capacities they develop outsidethe school environment. For older teachers, this means that many of theirstudents are likely to know more about technology than they ever will.
Another important dilemma for teachers is conceptualising the implications oftechnology for learning. This is a particularly pertinent issue for veteran teachersgiven that their initial teacher education occurred many years before technology wasintroduced into schools and they have developed their practices over a long periodof time prior to the introduction of technology.
These examples alone suggest that what may be interpreted as resistance byveteran teachers to using technology may instead be the outcome of workingthrough complex underlying issues. Their response to technology-related changesthese teachers engage with will reflect the knowledge they have developed from themany policy and social reforms, school leaders and successions student cohorts(Day & Gu, 2009), how they understand the process of learning (Orlando, 2013),their professional aspirations which have shaped over an extended period, the ageingprocess and unanticipated personal circumstances.
428 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
This paper aims to shed light on the issue of veteran teachers in their uses oftechnology by presenting empirically based findings of the challenges they deal withand how this manifests in their practice. Data analysis involved the application ofthe participant teachers’ data to Windschitls’ (2002) framework of dilemmas. Thisframework presents four categories of dilemmas teachers encounter when expectedto change their practices: (1) cultural dilemmas emerge between teachers and stu-dents during the radical reorientation of classroom roles and expectations necessaryto accommodate a new or modified ethos; (2) political dilemmas are associated withstruggle from various stakeholders in school communities when institutional normsare questioned and routines of privilege and authority are disturbed; (3) pedagogicaldilemmas for teachers arise from the more complex approaches to designing curricu-lum and fashioning learning experiences the change in context demands and;(4) conceptual dilemmas are rooted in teachers’ attempts to understand thephilosophical, psychological and epistemological underpinnings of the change incontext.
In using this analytic procedure teachers’ processes of change, change fatigueand knowledge insecurity (brought about by cultural and political changes) wereprominent factors, which contributed to the teachers’ lack of technology use. Identi-fying their challenges opened scrutiny to the myriad of factors that they drew onwhen making decisions about how and whether to use technology in their practice(Wallace & Loughran, 2011). The longitudinal analysis of the data showed that asthese dilemmas alleviated, the teachers became more committed to educational tech-nology. The findings this paper presents inform how we can move this issue forwardand importantly support this group in the development of meaningful technologypractices. In particular, it identifies the need for professional learning to focus oncultural and political aspects of technology teaching practices.
Methodology
The paper draws on a five-year, grounded theory examination of the technologypractices of a small group of veteran teachers who had each been teaching for 20years or more.
An in-depth study was constructed around four participants facilitated addressingthe gap in the literature for subjective understandings of their technology practicesand made it possible to research their distinct concerns and practices across a widerange of dimensions, in-depth, over a period of time.
Grounded theory facilitated staying close to the data and opened up new ways ofunderstanding the teachers’ technology practices. Grounded theory methods wereselected for data collection, coding to inform subsequent data collection and analy-sis, and using theory to build the categories of concepts developed in coding. Thistype of use is reflective of more recent interpretations of grounded theory whichfacilitates and recognises a free use of the approach, rather than strict adherence toguidelines (Charmaz, 2006).
This paper reports on findings drawn from two studies involving these four par-ticipant teachers. The first data collected as part of a longer government-fundedstudy and the second as a close-up in-depth additional two-year study involvingthese participants. Thematised data, which were continuously and iterativelyanalysed over time, facilitated rich and complex findings.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 429
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
The first study was a three-year qualitative study funded by the AustralianResearch Council, tracking 40 teachers in seven case study schools across Sydney,Australia and focused on the impact technology was having on: pedagogicalpractices, student learning and schools’ organisation of resources. Findings showedschools were struggling with how to be systematic with the major change of inte-grating technology into learning. The selected schools were known to have goodteachers and practices but most often observed were malfunctions of equipment, tea-cher frustrations and lack of resources. There was an over-emphasis on hardwareand inadequate attention to student inequalities (Hayes et al. 2005; Hayes, 2007).
The schools in the first study were comprehensive, co-ed, government primaryand secondary schools, in low- and mid-SES locations that were known by localeducational departments to be making concerted effort to develop technology prac-tices. The 40 teachers were diverse in their technology experiences, teachingapproaches, years teaching, ages and gender. Principals invited teachers to partici-pate at varying points throughout the study. Three week-long data collection periodsoccurred annually. Data included classroom observations, teacher interviews,analysis of planning documentation, student focus groups and interviews with keyschool technology personnel.
Of the 40 teachers in the original study, five had a data-set that spanned the threeyears of the study and were available to participate in this present study. On thisbasis, I continued to examine the practices of those teachers in even greater depthover a further two years. The teachers varied in their enthusiasm and approaches toteaching with technology. Four of the five had been teaching for 20 years or moreand it is their practices this paper focuses on. They included: two primary schoolteachers with 25- and 26-years experience at the onset of the study; a primary schoolcomputing teacher with 27-years teaching experience, a secondary school Englishteacher with 20-years experience and; a secondary school technology teacher withseven-years experience. All four teachers were female. Pseudonyms are used for theteachers throughout the paper.
Data collection and analysis was an iterative and layered process (Orlando,2009). It began with building a rich historical picture of the teachers’ technologypractices for the period of the first study against which their practices could becompared, and change could be traced. Line-by-line reading of data facilitated thedevelopment of three themes: practices, context and identity. A matrix was createdto document teachers’ coded data longitudinally. What stood out at this stage wasthat the participants’ technology practices were distinct and influenced by the estab-lished meanings and ways of working around pedagogy, curriculum and assessmentpractices (Kemmis, 2009).
The second layer of analysis involved the collection of new data to expand thelongitudinal component of the study to five years. Further qualitative data werecollected (as per the first study). There was continuous shifting between coded dataand new data collection, analysis and coding, to trace and examine change in theparticipants’ technology practices (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). Keyword analysisof the data was informed by the questions and themes developed in the first layer ofanalysis. This method also generated further data and facilitated the refinement ofthemes developed in the first layer of analysis.
The third layer of analysis focused on gaining greater depth of data by providingthe opportunity for each participant to retrospectively talk about their technologypractice over the five years of data collection. This layer contributed to the collection
430 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
of more data, particularly personal biographical details that teachers referred toexplain changes in their practice.
In the final layer, theory was selected to locate and address gaps in the anal-ysis. Windschitl’s framework of dilemmas was applied to the data. Standpointsfrom professional practice theory, particularly from authors theorising practice interms of teaching, for example Kemmis (2009) and Green (2009) were alsoselected because they centred on the core concern of the study and assisted indeepening the analysis.
Findings: veteran teachers’ lack of use of technology is more than pedagogicaldilemmas
This study found the integration of technology in schools alerted the veteranteachers to important gaps in their own professional knowledge. The cultural andpolitical dilemmas that manifested dominated the teachers’ technology practices.
Windschitl’s (2002) framework of analysis showed that the most commondilemma for teachers was cultural. Lack of knowledge was a cultural dilemmafor all the veteran teachers within their classrooms as the teachers experiencedmany of their students had greater knowledge of technology than they did. Thiswas an important issue because most participants conceptualised teachers to havemore knowledge than students. Students having more knowledge than they didwere a new issue as it countered the established-teacher–student roles theyshaped their practices by Green (2009). It challenged their conceptualisation ofschool hierarchy and the teachers interpreted this situation as loss of status intheir own classrooms.
The cultural dilemma extended to their loss of status in the school staff. As tech-nology became the dominant focus of school policy changes, all veteran teachersexperienced those teachers on staff (often younger and less-experienced teachers)who had technology expertise received more privileged status within the school thanthey did. This view was equally evident in the data of the teachers in primaryschools and those in secondary schools. One primary school teacher experienced thisto be at the expense of teachers such as herself, without technology expertise, whowere expected to take on extra duties to compensate. Similarly, one secondaryschool teacher experienced administrative staff with technology expertise to be givenmore say in school teaching and learning policies than teachers without technologyexpertise. The teachers described feeling a loss of status because while they hadsubstantial pedagogy experience and knowledge, they did not have technologyexpertise now highly valued in school.
The second most common dilemmas for veteran teachers were political. Veteranteachers experienced technology as a political dilemma because it posed a threat tofulfilling their role as they understood it; which was to teach the mandated curricu-lum. This was the situation for Fran, the English secondary teacher, and also for thetwo primary school classroom teachers, particular in subjects areas they stated thatthey prioritised which included English and mathematics. These three teachers statedschool assessment processes relied on working through an excessive amount ofcurriculum content. Significant to the teachers was that technology was not neededto fulfill syllabus outcomes.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 431
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Even though I teach with technology I still need to rely heavily on traditional teachingaspects (to cover syllabus content) … Getting through (syllabus) content is first(primary school teacher).
The teachers stressed their responsibility to student learning and that spending timeintegrating technology meant they had less time to adequately address important cur-riculum work. This sentiment was not the situation for Lisa, the computer primaryschool teacher, as she did not have a syllabus to guide her teaching but insteaddeveloped her own plane for teaching.
Another political dilemma the teachers engaged with related to the educationalauthority’s reform process for technology in schools. The teachers stated that theyhad worked through many policy reforms; each time received little support andstressed the frustration of repeating this again. The teachers in primary and secondaryschools experienced the reform process in similar ways. They describing it as disem-powering, stating they knew what worked in the classroom, were not consulted inchange processes, yet were required to invest many hours making imposed planswork. The teachers referred to disengagement from top-down and unsupportivechange processes and were protective of continuing to place time into something theydid not have ownership over.
Technology posed a pedagogical dilemma for the teachers as they experiencedan incompatibility between the organisation of knowledge in the curriculum with theorganisation of knowledge on the Internet. The Internet makes available informationin a non-sequential, asynchronous and self-directed format. In contrast, the partici-pants perceived that the curriculum conceptualised knowledge in sequential, time-directed and teacher-directed ways. The curriculum for primary and secondaryschools are presented in the same format. This contradiction was problematic to allteachers because the Internet made it difficult for them contain the students’ learningto lessons planned and it also necessitated teaching content outside the discipline.
A conceptual dilemma for the veteran teachers was grasping what technologyactually means for learning and teaching. This dilemma was exacerbated because theteachers considered technology was put into schools without a workable understand-ing by the educational authority, Department of Education (DET), of meaningfulpedagogical practice. They stated that with other reforms they could draw on theirestablished knowledge base; however, a primary and secondary school teacherconsidered that they had limited knowledge to draw on in technology reform. Asecond primary school teacher commented that it brought her down to feel like abeginning teacher again.
When compared longitudinally, teachers differed in the types of dilemmas theyengaged with over the years. The following table lists each type of dilemma in theleft column and each year of the study horizontally across the top of the table. Thenumber of teachers demonstrating each type of dilemma each year of the study isthen presented. Tabulating the data in this form highlights the types of dilemmamost prominently demonstrated by the participant teachers and how this developedover time.
Table 1 demonstrates three important findings regarding the dilemmas theveteran teachers dealt with in their technology practices. The table shows thatregardless of their subject area or school context, they initially experienced a peda-gogical dilemma with the integration of technology in schools. They questionedhow they should change their day-to-day classroom routines however this became
432 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
less important to them over time, only resurfacing for some teachers in the finalyears of the study. This is because cultural and political dilemmas became moreimportant to them. Also political dilemmas associated with technology practices sus-tained for most teachers during the study. Cultural dilemmas were more prominentthan any other type of dilemma and the teachers demonstrated consistent engage-ment with them over the period of the study.
The next section presents a case study of the dilemmas one teacher engagedwithin her practices with technology over five years. This teacher was selectedbecause her dilemmas are primarily political and cultural, which is representative ofall the teachers in this study. A detailed, in-depth understanding one teacher’s prac-tices with technology over a five-year period of time is rarely presented in the litera-ture, often because this type of data is not available in this field of research(Underwood, 2004) or in research in education in general (Thomson, Plumridge, &Holland, 2003). As stated earlier, a central focus of this research was examiningcomplexity of change in teachers’ practices with technology. The value of presentingthe story of one teacher here is that it facilitates the opportunity to examine the intri-cacies of the dilemmas she engaged with, that is the stakeholders involved in thedilemmas, the inter-relationships between this teacher and the different stakeholders,not only with each other, but also with the varying contexts within which her tech-nology practices were situated. These contexts included the local (home, school and
Table 1. Type of dilemma comparison for individual teachers over time.
Category ofchange Study year 1 Study year 2 Study year 3 Study year 4 Study year 5
Cultural 4 3 5 5 5Political 2 2 3 3 3Pedagogical 4 0 0 0 2Conceptual 3 0 0 0 1
Table 2. One teacher’s engagement with dilemmas over five years.
Vanessa’sdilemmas Study year 1 Study year 2 Study year 3 Study year 4 Study year 5
Pedagogical Developingowntechnologypractices
Developingowntechnologypractices
Political Top-downpolicy change
(1) Top-downpolicy change
(1) Top-down policychange
(1) Top-down policychange
(2) Supportingprincipal
(2)Supportingprincipal
(2)Supportingprincipal
Cultural Supportingteachingteam
Supportingteachingteam
Conceptual Meaningfulpedagogywithtechnology
Meaningfulpedagogywithtechnology
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 433
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
education departmental authorities) but also wider issues of the contemporary policyclimate for innovations in education. As well as revealing nuances of the dilemmasthe account that follows allows the opportunity to see how the teacher engaged withthe different stakeholders and how her different types of engagements impactedupon the development of her technology practices. In order to emphasise thiscomplexity, the method adopted in writing up the research is to present a series ofmulti-faceted dilemmas in this teacher’s experiences with technology over the fiveyears (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 1997).
One teacher’s engagement with dilemmas over five years
The following table describes the dilemmas of one primary school teacher, Vanessa,who had been teaching for 26 years at the beginning of the study. The table listseach type of dilemma in the left column and each year of the study horizontallyacross the top of the table. The dilemmas Vanessa engaged with each year of thestudy are then presented.
As can be seen, Vanessa consistently engaged with two political dilemmasduring the five years. She interpreted these two dilemmas to counter one another.The first dilemma was associated with the top-down approach DET consistentlyused to initiate new projects into schools. Vanessa explained the pattern as: ‘DEThave a good idea, teachers worked hard to implement it for them yet were neversupported in or acknowledged for their efforts’. She experienced the same processfor technology-related reform. The quotes below indicate her disempowerment andfrustration of the process. In the first interview with Vanessa, the first questionasked of her was ‘what are some important things happening in the schools withtechnology?’ Her reply was:
You know the department sends along a couple of computers per classroom and sayswe’ve done our bit. And it’s left to schools to buy software and do the trainingand development …, Robert [the principal] has a vision with technology, so I’mcomfortable with that. (interview data)
Similarly about 18 months later, in the first question in the interview Vanessa wasasked about highlights and issues since the last interview.
The lows and frustrations are basically hardware … We’re not technology trained, sowhen things go wrong we don’t have people here who can fix them … I don’t thinkit’s the school’s responsibility. If the department (DET) wants to bring in computersthen, you know, they’re so used to just throwing things at us and it’s another thing wehave to learn and budget for’. (interview data)
At this point in the study, Vanessa only used technology when she felt she wasbeing monitored and even then only used it as an add-on to her teaching. Forexample, in one lesson observed students researched the theme of rainforests withlibrary books and when finished they played a game about rainforests on thecomputer. They could also undertake further Internet research however withoutVanessa’s assistance. Vanessa was experiencing a situation in which she identifiedconflicting values and self-interest by DET and her decision to only superficially usetechnology reflected her negotiation of this conflict and her compromise (Carr,2009).
434 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
The second political dilemma Vanessa engaged with centred on thetechnology-focused changes her principal Robert introduced. Robert had beenappointed to the school eight weeks before this study began. Approximately sixmonths later, he instigated changes to shift the traditional teaching methods, whichdominated the school, to what he described as more ‘student-centred’ practice. Heexplained that he used technology to facilitate this and introduced initiatives toincrease teachers’ access to and capacities for technology integration. In the secondyear of the study, he established teaching teams to promote collaborative planningof technology practices. Robert appointed Vanessa as leader of her teaching team.As team leader, she was expected to value technology, be a capable user of it andmotivate and support other teachers in their technology practices.
Vanessa experienced these two political dilemmas to be personally stressful aswell as inspirational. She was an assistant principal at the school and understood herrole as supporting the principal’s leadership. She stated on many occasions howmuch she valued her assistant principal role and considered team leader to be anextension of it. Vanessa felt Robert supported his teachers in their technology prac-tice and respected his success in developing his previous staff’s technology practice.She compared this to the perceived lack of support from DET. This critical momentrelated to Vanessa acting in what she perceived to be a professional manner (Green,2009) and considered ‘changing’ to be the most appropriate action.
Vanessa’s decision to accept technology in her practice began a process ofengagement with dilemmas that were more directed at driving pedagogical change.As indicated in Table 1, other teachers were engaging with other dilemmas early onin the study, which suggests readiness to engage in dilemmas associated with peda-gogy. Vanessa made a concerted effort to increasingly plan for technology use anddeveloped new technology-related content and teaching strategies.
Vanessa’s leadership of her teaching team contributed to a cultural dilemmaassociated with supporting her team-colleagues to develop meaningful technologypractices. She referred to pooling the strengths of team members to plan collabora-tively and support each other’s teaching with technology. Team members explainedfeeling valued in this process and learning from their involvement in the team.Vanessa also spoke of how useful the teaching team was for her own technologypractice. A significant change for Vanessa was the value she increasingly attributedto the educational use of technology.
The presentation of Vanessa’s dilemmas over the five years shows that politicaldilemmas associated with top-down policy changes dominated her practices withtechnology. She gave priority to addressing those dilemmas. Achieving a satisfyingresolution facilitated, the opportunity for Vanessa to move forward in her technologypractices and work with other technology-related dilemmas, part of which wasdeveloping her own practices as well as that of her colleagues. Analysis of Vanessa’sdilemmas has implications more broadly for understanding the issue of veteranteachers and lack of use of technology.
Discussion
While the literature states that veteran teachers are not engaging with technology,the dilemmas they are dealing with indicate that they are. Their actions are not resis-tance, but instead are representations of complex cultural and political issues veteranteachers are dealing with as part of their technology practices.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 435
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Two behaviours resulted from the four dilemmas. The teachers had historicallyspent a substantial amount of time changing their practices and they demonstratedchange fatigue as result. Change fatigue is expressed as frustration, stress, disen-gagement and scepticism (PROSCI, 2012). It is different from resistance as a featureof individual pathology or as an ill response to the resourcing of schools withtechnology. The best illustration of change fatigue was Vanessa’s political dilemmaand putting into practice top-down policy changes that did not address her ownconcerns. Her detachment was a result of her continuing engagement with thisprocess.
The data-set showed teachers’ change fatigue across each of the different catego-ries of dilemmas. The teachers (both primary and secondary teachers) referred to aconstant need to keep up with changes to: the knowledge and needs of students,organisation of school staff, new teaching practices, new leadership priorities in theschool, new teaching spaces, and new resources. As they were veteran teachers, theyhad been working through the succession of these changes for over 20 years.
This continual interface with change demonstrates technology practices are justone of an inter-related mesh of contextual variables veteran teachers have encoun-tered, problematised and dealt with for many years. A sense of achievement is notgained as these changes are often not initiated or owned by the teachers. Changefatigue is a likely outcome of such an environment over a sustained period of timeand this has significant implications for the motivation, energy and time for veteranteachers for the development of their practices.
Second, the teachers developed insecurity about their knowledge. A consequenceof technology in schools was that it redefined what valued knowledge is in schoolsand challenged the teachers’ prized status as elder. They teachers initiated survival-type actions to regain their status. While there is substantial literature focusing onthe survival of beginning teachers, survival can more aptly be understood in term ofage, cohort and time (Day, 2012). Vanessa’s struggle with DET’s top-down approachto new initiatives was driven by a continued lack of acknowledgement of herknowledge in this process. While motivation to keep their teaching at its best is anongoing struggle for veteran teachers (Day, Sammons, Stobart, Kington, &Gu, 2007), this study shows that these teachers will work hard to compose teachinglives that allow them respect and dignity (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). Theiragency in rebuilding their status gives insight into their capacity to develop theirpractice in ways they considered important.
Conclusion
To enhance the pedagogical potential of technology in schools, then it is importantto work towards reassessing the issue of veteran teachers’ lack of use technology intheir practices. An important contribution this paper makes to the reassessment ofthis issue is that the veteran teachers are engaged with technology however theirengagement mainly centres on dealing with political and cultural dilemmas that havemanifested from the integration of technology in schools. Change fatigue andknowledge insecurity were a consequence of these dilemmas. It is only when theyworked through these dilemmas did their attention shift to the development of theirclassroom pedagogical practices.
This paper shows that while the practices of veteran teachers appear to remainunchanged they are engaging with technology in ways they consider necessary, that
436 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
meet their priorities of their career stage and the needs of their students. Rather thancommunicating veteran teachers are not living up to standards, a positive strategyfor future direction in this area might be for educational authorities to acknowledgethe ways veteran teachers are making gains in their technology practices.
Of importance is that as there was no professional learning support the veteranteachers could access to assist them in addressing their cultural and politicaldilemmas; consequently they developed their own strategies for dealing with thedilemmas. A reconceptualisation of professional learning that addresses the culturaland political dilemmas is needed to move forward. The dominant model of profes-sional learning available during the study focused on expanding teachers’ repertoireof classroom practices; this focus continues to be professional learning model mostavailable to teachers at all career stages (Schwille & Dembélé, 2007). However,professional learning models which aim to adjust or correct the beliefs and behav-iours of veteran teachers will not alleviate the cultural and political dilemmas thatdominate their technology practices (Fay, 1987). Instead they position teachers asill-informed and needing guidance. A consequence of such in-service training is thatthey leave teachers feeling less empowered (Flint, Kurumada, Zisook, & Fisher,2010); thus exacerbating the dilemmas the veteran teachers are already facing.
Meaningful educational change with technology requires reshaping of technol-ogy-related reform practices. This can be achieved by bringing together teachers (atvarying career stages), educational authorities and researchers to jointly create avision of technology in schools. Such a process would facilitate routine relation-ships, norms, and values to be made public and critically re-evaluated. The emergingcritiques and understandings can then evolve into more sophisticated and usefulunderstandings of technology practices. This process facilitates communicationbetween groups, ownership of change and valuing of view of all groups (PROSCI,2012) therefore assisting in addressing the political dilemmas veteran teachers aredealing with in technology-related policy changes.
A distinct change technology brings to contemporary society is the high prioritygiven to information; knowledge insecurity can be a consequence. Strong profes-sional learning communities alleviate stress and burnout among teachers, increaseteacher motivation and provide optimal learning for a knowledge society(Hargreaves, 2003; Flint et al., 2010). The teaching teams introduced at Vanessa’sschool are an example of this. Ideally members must be able to initiate technologyprojects, evolving from the support of the school leadership and the caring climateof the school itself. To alleviate knowledge insecurity regarding those younger thanthem, the learning communities should include students and teachers at all stages.An important beginning point would be to identify and value the bodies ofknowledge each member brings to the community.
Furthermore, it is the diverse ways of using technology in teaching and learningthat provides a fertile basis in schools for using technology in ways which contributeto innovation of teaching. Therefore, it is also important for teachers to see what isimportant to management and the process of managing. This could support thesharing of visions and promote respect for other groups and what is central to theirwork and working towards a common goal.
While this paper focuses on the practices of veteran teachers, cultural change is asignificant issue for teachers across all stages of their career. Given the historicity ofteaching, it is likely a cultural refocus regarding knowledge as a defining feature ofschool hierarchy is needed as teachers at all stages have come into the profession
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 437
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
with conceptualisations of teaching informed by traditional understandings ofteacher as the holder of knowledge.
ReferencesBeijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of professional
identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching andTeacher Education, 16, 749–764.
Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to successful integration of ICT in teaching and learningenvironment: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science andTechnology Education, 5, 235–245.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). An exploration of teachers’ skills, perceptions and practices ofICT in teaching and learning in the Ghanaian second-cycle schools. ContemporaryEducational Technology, 3, 36–49.
Carr, W. (2009). Practice without theory? A postmodern perspective on educational practice.In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 59–70).Rotterdam: Sense.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitativeanalysis. London: Sage.
Connelly, F., & Clandinin, J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. Stories of educa-tional practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Day, C. (2012). The importance of learning biography in supporting teacher development:An empirical study. In C. Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on teacherthinking. Understanding professional development (pp. 231–232). New York, NY:Routledge.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2009). Veteran teachers: Commitment, resilience and quality retention.Teachers and Teaching, 15, 441–457.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter. England:Open University Press.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Cambridge: Polity Press.Flint, A., Kurumada, K., Fisher, T., & Zisook, K. (2010). The perfect storm: Creating an alter-
native to professional development. Professional Development in Education, 37, 95–109.Green, B. (2009). Understanding and researching professional practice. In B. Green (Ed.),
Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 1–19). Rotterdam: Sense.Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Hayes, D. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers &
Education, 49, 385–395.Hayes, D., Yates, L., Blackwell, S., Anderson, S., Harriman, S., Lal, V., & Dwyer, J. (2005).
Turn it on and keep your fingers crossed. Longitudinal case studies of ICT integration ina range of NSW public schools. University of Technology, Sydney and CurriculumSupport Directorate: NSW Department of Education and Training.
Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (1997). Micro-politics in initial teacher education: Luke’sstory. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23, 119–130.
Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms:A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 137–154.
Kemmis, S. (2009). Understanding professional practice: A synoptic framework. In B. Green(Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 21–41). Rotterdam: Sense.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.Paris: Author.
Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers? Information and communicationtechnology practices: A longitudinal perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,18, 33–44.
Orlando, J. (2013). ICT mediated practice and constructivist practices: Is this still the bestplan for teachers’ uses of ICT? Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 22, 231–246.
438 J. Orlando
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Pavlou, V., & Vryonides, M. (2009). Understanding factors that influence teachers’acceptance of technology and actual computer use for teaching: The case of Greece.Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 14, 5–25.
Plair, S. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and fluency.The Clearing House, 82, 70–74.
PROSCI. (2012). Best practices in change management. Colorado: Author.Schwille, J., & Dembélém, M. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving
policy and practice. (Fundamentals of Educational Planning series, No. 84). Paris: IIEP/UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001502/150261e.pdf
Thomson, R., Plumridge, L., & Holland, J. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative research: A devel-oping methodology. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 185–187.
Wallace, J., & Loughran, J. (2011). Science teacher learning. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, &C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 295–306).New York, NY: Springer.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysisof the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Reviewof Educational Research, 72, 131–175.
Underwood. (2004). Research into information and communications technologies: Wherenow? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 135–143.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 439
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
TO
BB
Eko
nom
i Ve
Tek
nolo
ji] a
t 16:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
