Primary School Teachers’ Perception on the role of ICT in Collaboration in England/ İngiltere'de İlkokul Öğretmenlerinin Bilgi İletişim Teknolojilerinin (BİT) İşbirliğindeki Rolüne İlişkin Algısı

Öz

Teknoloji, gündelik hayatın ve her yerde olduğu gibi eğitimin bir parçası olarak kabul edilmektedir. Günlük hayat adeta teknoloji ile bütünleşmiştir. Birçok alanda ve özellikle eğitimde, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin önemi hakkında olumlu bir bakış açısı olmakla birlikte, BİT, değişim adına pedagojik uygulamaların geliştirilmesi için önemli bir araç olarak görülmektedir. Bu araştırmada teknolojinin sınıftaki günlük kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen algıları, sınıfın içsel bir bileşeni olarak teknolojiyi içeren teorik, pedagojik ve pratik bir eğitim uygulaması anlayışı oluşturmak için araştırılmıştır. Mevcut çalışma, öğretmenler ve öğrenciler arasındaki iş birliğine katkıda bulunmak için öğretmenlerin günlük sınıf uygulamalarında teknoloji kullanımını anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. İngiltere'de ilkokul öğretmenleri ile 12 görüşme yapılmıştır. Katılımcı öğretmenler Güney ve Kuzey Londra'da bulunan beş farklı okulda ve Batı Londra'daki bir okulda çalışmaktadır. Araştırmanın bulguları, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin etkileşimi ve iş birliğini desteklediğini göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin destekleyici pedagojik özellikleri ile birbirlerinden öğrenebileceği belirlenmiştir. Diğer yandan, mevcut iş birliğinin sadece posterler ve slaytlar oluşturmakla sınırlı olduğu, ayrıca özel eğitim gereksinimleri olan ve olmayan öğrenciler arasında sınırlı sayıda iş birliği uygulamaları gerçekleştiği anlaşılmıştır. Sonuçta tipik olarak problem çözme becerilerinin ve üst bilişsel becerilerin gelişimini destekleyen bir iş birliğinin sınıflarda olmadığı keşfedilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kapsayıcı eğitim
• BİT
• iş birliği
• İngiltere

Primary School Teachers’ Perception on the role of ICT in Collaboration in England/ İngiltere'de İlkokul Öğretmenlerinin Bilgi İletişim Teknolojilerinin (BİT) İşbirliğindeki Rolüne İlişkin Algısı

Abstract

Technology is ubiquitous and taken-for-granted part of everyday life and education that has become intrinsic in daily life. In many areas, especially education, information and communication technologies (ICT) are seen as being a significant agent for change and improving pedagogical practices, as there has been positive discourse around their value. Teachers’ accounts of everyday classroom use of technology are being explored to build a theoretical, pedagogical, and practical understanding of educational practice that involves technology as an intrinsic component of the classroom. As technology continues to evolve, educational praxis and pedagogy change alongside it. It is therefore important to explore what the role of technology is, as reported by practitioners in mainstream schools within an intensive and particularly challenging urban context. The current study aims to understand teachers’ use of technology in their daily classroom practices to contribute to collaboration between teachers and pupils. Twelve interviews were conducted with primary school teachers in England. The participating teachers came from five different schools based in South and North London, and one school in West London. The findings of the current study showed ICT supports interaction and collaboration; thus, pupils can learn from each other with the supportive pedagogical features of ICT. However, collaboration is limited to creating posters and slides, and also there is limited practices of collaboration between pupils with and without special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), so collaboration that supports problem-solving skills and the development of metacognitive skills was reported as typically absent.

Keywords

• ICT
• collaboration
• inclusive
• education
• England

Kaynakça

1. Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4
2. Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: The Salamanca statement: 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 671–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622800
3. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700307
4. Armstrong, F. & Tsokova, D. (2019). Introduction. In Action Research for Inclusive Education (1st ed., pp. 1–4). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351048361-1
5. Avramidis, Strogilos, V., Aroni, K., & Kantaraki, C. T. (2017). Using sociometric techniques to assess the social impacts of inclusion: Some methodological considerations. Educational Research Review, 20, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.004
6. Beauchamp, G. (2012). ICT in the primary school: From pedagogy to practice. Routledge.
7. Blömeke, S., Olsen, R. V., & Suhl, U. (2016). Relation of student achievement to the quality of their teachers and instructional quality. Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes, 2, 21-50. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41252-8
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

9. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Qualitative Interviewing. OUP USA.
10. Dafoulas, G., & Shokri, A. (2016). Investigating the educational value of social learning networks: A quantitative analysis. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2016-0034
11. Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801
12. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The Interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed (pp. 695–727). Sage Publications Ltd.
13. Froggatt, K. A. (2001). The analysis of qualitative data: processes and pitfalls. Palliative Medicine, 15(5), 433-438. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921601680419492
14. Garrote, A., Felder, F., Krähenmann, H., Schnepel, S., Dessemontet, R.S., & Moser Opitz, E. (2020). Social acceptance in inclusive classrooms: the role of teacher attitudes toward inclusion and classroom management. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.582873
15. Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880701511099
16. Henninger, W., Gupta, S., & Vinh, M. (2014). How do children benefit from inclusion? first steps to preschool inclusion: how to jumpstart your programwide plan. First steps to preschool inclusion: How to jumpstart your programwide plan, 33-57.
17. Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12101
18. Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12779
19. Jarvela, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., Koivuniemi, M., & Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1
20. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Routledge.
21. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
22. Kumar, R. (1999). Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners 3rd Ed. SAGE Publications.
23. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
24. Loreman, T., Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers' attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teacher. International Journal of Special Education, (21), 80-93.
25. Luckin, R. (2018). Machine learning and human intelligence: the future of education for the 21st century / Rosemary Luckin. UCL Institute of Education Press.
26. Magnússon, G. (2019). An amalgam of ideals – images of inclusion in the Salamanca Statement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 677–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622805
27. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching 2nd Ed. SAGE Publications.
28. Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to provide ‘dialogic space’ for children’s collaborative activity? Language and Education, 24(5), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003642460
29. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice. SAGE.
30. Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real World Research. John Wiley & Sons.
31. Schwab, S. (2018). Attitudes Towards Inclusive Schooling: A Study on Students', Teachers' and Parents' Attitudes. Waxmann Verlag.
32. Strogilos. (2012). The cultural understanding of inclusion and its development within a centralised system. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(12), 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.557447
33. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9053-z
34. Tay, H. Y. (2016). Longitudinal study on impact of iPad use on teaching and learning. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1127308. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1127308
35. Warwick, P., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2011). Promoting teacher and school development through co‐enquiry: Developing interactive whiteboard use in a ‘dialogic classroom’. Teachers and Teaching, 17(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.554704