The Role of the Teacher in Primary School Web 2.0 Use

Year 2015, Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 188 - 205, 01.09.2015

Joanne Blannin

Abstract

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become ubiquitous in our society. In particular, 10-12 year old (primary school aged) children report that they increasingly rely upon ICTs for social interaction and for learning (ACMA, 2013). In spite of the large number of students reporting high ICT use, research indicates that many primary school teachers are not making effective use of online resources in the classroom. Influencing this lower level use is a lack of specifically focused research that considers the vital role of the primary school teacher in the integration of ICTs into the classroom program. To identify where research is most needed and might be most useful to support teachers to increase the use of ICTs in the classroom, this paper draws on research conducted in primary, secondary and tertiary education. It defines three core areas in which research is needed. These areas are teachers’ internal (personal) and external (socio-cultural) barriers as well as the students’ role in, and expectations of, pedagogical changes to classroom learning.

Keywords

Online learning, Self-efficacy, Teacher professional learning, Primary schooling, ICT integration, Increasing ICT use

References

• Alexander, B. & Levine, A. (2008). Web 2.0 storytelling: Emergence of a new genre. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 40-56.
• Ang, K. H., & Wang, Q. (2006). A case study of engaging primary school students in learning science by using Active Worlds. Proceedings of the first International LAMS Conference 2006: Designing the future of learning. Sydney, 6-8 December.
• Apple, M. (2010). Chapter 1: Global crises, social justice, and education. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Global Crises, Social Justice, and Education (pp. 25). London: Routledge.
• Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2013). Like, post, share: Young Australians’ experience of social media. Canberra: Newspoll.
• Australian Curriculum: Overview General Capabilities (2014). Retrieved 30 October, 2014, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/technologies/general-capabilities
• Baltzersen, R. (2010). Radical transparency: Open access as a key concept in wiki pedagogy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 791-809.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.
• Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2.
• Bandura, A., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
• Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment during Preadolescence and Adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101-1111.
• Chee, Y. S., Mehrotra, S., & Liu, Q. (2013). Effective game-based citizenship education in the age of new media. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(1), 16-28.
• Chen. (2009). Personalized E-learning system with self-regulated learning assisted mechanisms for promoting learning performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8816- 8829.
• Cheng, Y., Lou, S., Khu, S., & Shih, R. (2013). Investigating elementary school student's technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 96-110.
• Chin, W., Sum, C., & Foon, H. (2008). Exploring Singapore primary school students' perceptions of Chinese asynchronous online discussions. New Horizons in Education, 56, 1013.
• Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories - stories of teachers -school stories - stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.
• Coates, H. & Friedman, T. (2009). School connections: using ICT to engage students in learning A collaboration between Microsoft, NSW DET, dk2 and ACER: Microsoft Partners in Learning.
• Collins, R. (2010). Technology and schools : Where are we going? Teacher, 209, 44-47.
• Communications Division for Flagship Strategies Division. (2012). Towards Victoria as a learning community. Melbourne: NEALS.
• Crook, Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., . . . Sharples, M. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape–opportunities, challenges and tensions Leading Next Generation Learning. Notthingham, UK: BECTA.
• Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2014). Welcome to the school technology (eduSTAR) site. Retrieved on 30 October 2014 from http://www.edustar.vic. edu.au/
• Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2011). Experience the Digital Education Revolution: National Secondary School Computer Fund. Retrieved on 12 September 2012 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/ ComputerFund/Pages/NationalSecondarySchoolComputerFundOverview.aspx
• Digital Education Advisory Group. (2013). Beyond the classroom: A new digital education for young Australians in the 21st century. Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://deewr.gov. au/digital-education-advisory-group-report
• Dinham, S. (2008). How to get your school moving and improving (1 ed.). Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.
• Doherty, I. (2011). Evaluating the impact of educational technology professional development upon adoption of Web 2.0 tools in teaching. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 381-396.
• Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalizability and the single-case study. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage.
• Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.
• Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
• Fu, J. (2013). Complexity of ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 112-125.
• Goodhue, D. & Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236.
• Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., Clerehan, R., & Hamilton, M. (2010). Students as Web 2.0 authors: Implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105-122.
• Gregory, S. & Lloyd, I. (2010). Accepting choices: To ICT or not to ICT - Engagement. In D. Gronn & G. Romeo (Eds.), ACEC2010: Digital diversity. Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2010. Carlton, Victoria: Australian Council for Computers in Education (ACEC). Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://acec2010.acce.edu.au/proposal /476/accepting-choices-ict-or-not-ict-engagement.
• Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of rormal and informal learning environments: The impact of the read/write web. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 29-40.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
• Higgins, J., & Russel, M. (2003). USEIT: Report 6:Teachers' beliefs about technology and instruction. In K. O'Connor (Ed.). Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.
• Hramiak, A. & Boulton, H. (2013). Escalating the use of Web 2.0 technology in secondary schools in the United Kingdom: Barriers and enablers beyond teacher training. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(2), 91-100.
• Jenkinson, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of educational technology. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 273-280.
• Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., Roussinos, D., & Siorenta, A. (2013). Preparing teachers to integrate Web 2.0 in school practice: Toward a framework for Pedagogy 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 248-267.
• Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2008). Exploring the impact of learning objects in middle school mathematics and science classrooms: A formative analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(1). Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/ /article/view/174
• Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusions: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696.
• Martin, M. & Noakes, M. (2012). Fostering a web 2.0 ethos in a traditional-learning environment. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(3), 284-292.
• Marzano, R., Water, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Denver, CO: ASCD.
• McElvaney, J. (2009). Weaving a Personal Web: Using online technologies to create customised, connected and dynamic learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,35(2). Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://www.cjlt.ca index.php/cjlt/issue/view/68
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning; A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
• Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians.
• National Building Education Revolution Coordinator. (2011). Building the education revolution guidelines. Canberra.
• NBN Co Limited. (2012). NBN for home: Education case studies. Retrieved on 1 July 2013 from http://www.nbnco.com.au/nbn-for-home/education-case-studies.html
• Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
• Pow, J. & Fu, J. (2012). Developing Digital Literacy through Collaborative Inquiry Learning in the Web 2.0 Environment – An Exploration of Implementing Strategy. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 287-299.
• Project Tomorrow. (2012b). learning in the 21st century: Digital experiences and expectations of tomorrow's teachers selected national findings of the speakup 2010 survey. Washington, DC: Speak Up.
• Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
• Senge, P., McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Kleiner, A., Dutton, J., & Smith, B. (2011). Schools that Learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents and everyone who cares about education. New York: Crown Business.
• Tyagi, S. (2012). Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in higher education: A case study of universities in the National Capital Region, India. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(2), 28-43.
• White, G. (2008a). Digital learning: An Australian research agenda. Digital Learning Research, 3. Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://linkresearchlab.org/dlrn/
• White, G. (2008b). ICT Trends in education. Digital Learning Research, 2. Retrieved on 10 July 2015 from http://linkresearchlab.org/dlrn/
• Zhang, Z., & Martinovic, D. (2008). ICT in teacher education: Examining needs, expectations and attitudes. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2). Retrieved on 8 May 2015 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/498/229
• Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
• Zixiu, G. & Stevens, K. J. (2011). Factors influencing perceived usefulness of wikis for group collaborative learning by first year students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 221-242.
• Correspondence: Joanne Blannin, Doctor of Education Candidate, Melbourne Graduate School
• of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.