VET PRACTITIONERS: DECISION-MAKING IN THE INTEGRATION OF ONLINE TECHNOLOGY INTO TEACHING Ian Robertson RMIT University [email protected] Paper presented at the Emerging Futures – Recent, Responsive & Relevant Research, AVETRA 2005, 8th National Conference, 13-15 April, Sheraton Brisbane Hotel ABSTRACT Drawing on the notions of the pedagogic device (Bernstein, 1996, 2000) this paper uses the results of semi-structured interviews with seven TAFE teachers to develop a model that represents how these practitioners have made decisions about the integration of online technology into their teaching practice. The decision-making model shows that the specific instructional practices that teachers use when integrating online technology into their practice are the result of a dynamic interplay between official and pedagogic influences. Official influences establish legitimised pedagogic possibilities from which non-radical teachers draw specific instructional practices. Where official influences do not overwhelm the pedagogic influence, teachers are active agents in the selection of specific instructional practices. This selection is operationalised through three strategies and three principles such that the teacher’s specific instructional practices are consistent with their personal practical theories (Marland, 1997). Where official influence overwhelms the pedagogic influence, teacher agency is restricted. Examples of the application of the model are provided. INTRODUCTION There are a number of terms, such as values and beliefs that are used to describe teacher’s deep-seated notions of what constitutes good practice. These are often used interchangeably within a single publication and there is a lack of definitional clarity (Chan, 2001; Pajares, 1992). Despite these shortcomings, it is generally accepted that teachers' knowledge, beliefs and goals are critically important determinants of what teachers do and why they do it (Combs, 1982; Schoenfeld, 1998) and how they respond to the implementation of innovation (Errington, 2001, 2004; John, 2002). In this research I have chosen to use the construct of Personal Practical Theories (Marland, 1997) where ‘teachers values and beliefs permeate the other elements and provide a framework within which the other elements are set’ (Marland, 1997). Given that personal practical theories are intensely practical, individual, context-specific, and partly

1

implicit, teachers have difficulty in explicating these theories (Marland, 1997). Therefore I needed an approach that would explicate these implicit ideas. Metaphors have been identified as a useful method for research into teaching (Bullough, 1991; Kember, 1997; Marland, 1997; McShane, 2002; Munby, 1986; Sumision, 2002). Towards the end of interviews, each participant was requested to identify a metaphor that best described their preferred teaching practice. In each case I gave the example of a primary school teacher using the metaphor of the ‘forester’ trying to make all the trees in the forest the biggest and best trees that they could be. Without further prompts the research participants had little difficulty in identifying a metaphor for their practice. The research used naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the workplaces of participants and concrete evidence in the form of web-pages was collected. Participants were purposively selected for the contribution that they could make to the research. During the research, provisional findings and interpretations were checked with the research participants for further refinement. Through inductive analysis, propositional grounded theory was developed. This theory was validated, refined and further developed through member checks as the research progressed. The trustworthiness of the research has been enhanced through prolonged engagement with the research topic and the research participants, triangulation through multiple data sources, member checks, peer review through conference papers (Robertson, 2001, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c) and leaving an audit trail. Seven TAFE teachers were interviewed (Lim, Jenny, John, Susan, Sally, Sharon, Scott). Six use online technology to support on-campus, face-to-face teaching (Lim, Jenny, John, Sally, Susan, Scott) and three use online technology to support off-campus teaching (Lim, Sharon, Scott). Therefore, two teachers use online technology to support both on-campus and off-campus teaching (Lim, Scott) and one teacher uses online technology exclusively for off-campus teaching (Sharon). One teacher uses online technology to support a course that is offered to full-time, on-campus students where there is a single face-to-face induction session (Sally). Thematic analysis of the teachers’ interviews and evidence from web-pages have led me to conclude that there is no evidence of inconsistency between the teachers’ self-declared metaphors and their teaching principles as derived from the interview transcripts. After providing a brief introduction to the research participants, this paper presents a model that was derived from the research data and which represents how these teachers make decisions about the integration of online technology into their practice. The model reveals the tension that can occur between official and pedagogic influences in this process. Using examples from three research participants, the paper will show that the proposed decision-making model is able to represent and explain the dynamics of practices where there is congruence and incongruence between preferred and implemented teaching practices in on-campus and off-campus teaching.

2

AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS All of the research participants were required to have integrated online technology into their practice in a significant way. That is, online technology was used in a systematic rather than an ad-hoc or by exception approach. Throughout this research online technology has been defined as the use of computers that are linked to either an intranet or the Internet. This definition does not include stand-alone computers or other electronic devices. In selecting the research participants I made no assumption about the level of integration of online technology into teaching practice or the functionalities used. Participants might use one or more functionalities. They might elect to use online technology in the classroom or with learners at a distance. The teaching might use online technology as an adjunct to conventional face-to-face or distance teaching or be completely reliant on the use of online technology. This definition is similar to that used by Cashion and Palmieri (2002). All participants are experienced TAFE teachers who have integrated online technology into their practice without coercion. The voluntary nature of their uptake of online technology indicates that they have a positive disposition towards the use of technology. However, none could be described as evangelical in their promotion of online technology. They are cautious of claims that online technology can be used to replace face-to-face teaching. Beyond these similarities there is wide variation in their vocational discipline and use of online technology. Four of the practitioners are employed at metropolitan colleges (Lim, Jenny, John, Susan) and three at regional colleges (Sally, Sharon, Scott). They teach in the vocational disciplines of English as a Second Language (Lim), Business (Jenny, John), Hospitality and Tourism (Sally), Health and Community Care (Susan), Interior Design (Scott) and professional development programs in the use of online technology for TAFE teachers (Sharon). They teach in Certificate III, IV and V programs. INTRODUCING THE MODEL Based on the information presented by the research participants, a model that represents how teachers make decisions about the integration of online technology in their practice is presented (Figure 1). The model draws heavily on the notion of the pedagogic device (Bernstein, 1996, 2000) It provides an example of how the pedagogic device operates at the macro and micro levels when TAFE teachers make decisions about the implementation of online technology in their practice. The official field is represented by the outer sphere of official influences. The pedagogic field is represented by the inner sphere of pedagogic influences. The broken line between the spheres and the curved arrows are representative of the dynamic nature of the relationship between official and pedagogic influences. The model is dynamic and in flux, official and pedagogic influences constantly interact.

3

Official influences that emerged from the interviews with the TAFE teachers include national, state, regional or local and organisational policy. In some cases, there are also external regulatory agencies that are central to the endorsement of curriculum and practices and the normative practices associated with particular vocational disciplines. Together, these official influences legitimise particular approaches to education. With the exception of radical pedagogies, teachers select their specific instructional practices from the officially legitimised pool of pedagogic possibilities. The selection and implementation of their specific practices is determined through teacher’s personal practical theories (Marland, 1997). These are mediated through a ‘lens of disposition’ which is informed by the individual’s background and personal experiences. Personal practical theories embed values and beliefs that are resistant to change (Pajares, 1992). Disposition is less resistant to change and can be influenced by experience (Errington, 2004; Schoenfeld, 1998). If one has positive experience with online technology then one’s disposition to its use for teaching may become more positive. If one’s experience with online technology is negative, then one’s disposition may become more negative. The role of disposition and its relationship with one’s values and beliefs are critical in the model of decision-making. Individuals may become more or less disposed to the use of online technology. As a consequence, teacher’s specific instructional practices may change in response to feedback from experience.

Figure 1: Model of TAFE teacher decision-making

4

The research participants use three strategies in negotiating the introduction of online technology into their teaching practice. 1. Selective adoption of different aspects of online technology. 2. Selective application of online technology to teaching and assessment practices. 3. A variable level of integration of online technology into practice. These strategies are demonstrated by the following practices. Beyond the use email for individual communication and Internet searches embedded into their online materials, the online functionalities used by the teachers are variable. Three use group emails (Susan, Sally, Sharon) and two use a bulletin board function (Lim, Sharon). Three use online technology as a repository for word-processed documents or presentation documents (John, Susan, Scott). Three use online technology for linked web-pages that are designed on a software platform (Lim, Jenny, Sally). In one case (Sharon) there are no online materials, the practitioner exclusively uses communications functionalities to support professional development of TAFE teachers. The course content develops as a result of the communications process. Four participants use online technology for both teaching and assessment (Lim, John, Sally, Sharon). Two use online technology primarily for teaching (Jenny, Scott) and one uses online technology primarily to support her assessment practices (Susan). With the exception of one participant where the use of online technology by students is optional (John), the practice of all participants requires that students use online technology in order to be able to complete their program. In the absence of overwhelming official influences, these strategies are operationalised by three principles. These principles operate in a manner that is consistent with the teacher’s personal practical theories and mediated through their disposition to the use of online technology and its functionalities. 1. Aspects of online technology may be adopted, applied and integrated if they are supportive of the teacher’s preferred practice. 2. Aspects of online technology may be adopted, applied and integrated if they do not have a negative impact on the teacher’s preferred teaching practice. 3. Aspects of online technology will not be adopted, applied or integrated if they have a negative influence on the teacher’s preferred teaching practice. The application of strategies and principles results in the specific instructional practices derived from the legitimised pedagogic pool. Based on feedback from the teacher’s experience with online technology, disposition to the use of online technology may change. In response, the teacher modifies their specific instructional practices through the (re)application of the strategies and principles.

5

CONGRUENCE AND INCONGRUENCE. ON-CAMPUS AND OFFCAMPUS TEACHING WITH ONLINE TECHNOLOGY To demonstrate the application of the decision-making model this section of the paper provides further detail on the practices of three of the research participants (Lim, Sharon, John). These examples report practice where there is evidence of congruence and incongruence between preferred and implemented practice when online technology is used to support on-campus and off-campus teaching. Lim is a case example where there is congruence between preferred and implemented practice in using online technology to support on-campus teaching but incongruence in the case of off-campus teaching. Sharon is a case example where there is congruence between preferred and implemented practice using online technology to support off-campus teaching. John is a case example where there is both congruence and incongruence between preferred and implemented practices using online technology to support on-campus, face-to-face teaching. Lim: Congruence in On-campus, Face-To-Face Teaching Lim identifies the self-declared metaphor of ‘Being a Friend’ to represent her preferred teaching practice. This metaphor has a strong sense of nurturing. She aspires to promoting social interaction, meeting the personal needs of individuals, catering for differing learning styles, reduction, repetition and scaling. Lim’s online resources show evidence of the use of multiple learning activities and the use of audio in her online resources. The overall design is inviting, there is a personal welcome message and Lim’s photograph. The language is designed to be clear and simple, the use of graphics and color to make the web pages attractive. There is significant evidence of reduction and opportunities for repetition in the online resources. There is also evidence of scaling, exercises become more difficult as they progress and, the level of support such as examples or hints, reduces. There is no evidence of design for social interaction or of meeting the personal needs of learners in her use of online technology. Lim uses online technology for teaching and assessment, and the use of the technology is central to her teaching practice. She has chosen not to use the communication functionalities of online technology to support her on-campus teaching in a systematic way. However, her description of classroom practice shows that she encourages peer group activity and support. Using the decision-making model as a descriptive framework, it is possible to assert that the official influences do not limit the legitimised pedagogic pool in a way that suppresses Lim’s pedagogic intentions in any significant way. At a macro level, Lim’s preferred teaching principles of catering for differing learning styles, reduction, repetition and scaling are congruent with the normative practices of English as a Second Language. The prescribed curriculum defines outcomes that allow the teacher flexibility in design to meet specific learner’s needs. The level of organisational support in terms of 6

facilities and resources is not seen as a barrier to implementation. Over time she has become more confident with the use of the technology and believes that online technology is useful in assisting her students to learn. At a micro level, Lim is able to negotiate the integration of online technology into her on-campus course. Her specific instructional practices show confluence between Lim’s preferred and implemented teaching practices where online technology is used to support on-campus, face-to-face teaching in English as a Second Language. Lim: Incongruence in Off-Campus Teaching Lim teaches off-campus learners in the Occupational Preparatory Program which prepares adult learners for the Police Force Entry Examination. With the exception of a single induction session, the learners study off-campus. To the extent that learners can complete the program in any sequence that they like, and can determine the pace that suits them, the use of online technology provides for flexibility. Examination of her online materials reveals evidence of catering for differing learning styles, reduction, repetition and scaling. However, there is a complete absence of evidence to support Lim’s desire to promote social interaction or to meet the personal needs of individuals. When this dissonance is pointed out Lim suggests that the age, employment status and instrumental nature of the course limits the demand for social interaction. Where learners require assistance it can be requested. However, there is no systematic use of communications beyond the submission of assignments for marking. She suggests that the curriculum hours allocated to this program do not provide adequate resources to allow for more comprehensive support. In contrast to Lim’s on-campus practice there is incongruence between preferred and implemented practice in her use of online technology to support off-campus teaching. There is no evidence of meeting personal needs of learners or social interaction in her use of online technology and this absence cannot be easily compensated for in an offcampus course where there is no systematic use of communication functionalities. At a macro level, the perceived lack of organisational support (funding and curriculum hours) has limited the legitimised pedagogic pool in a way that suppresses the possibility of social interaction. The lack of funding has limited the pedagogic possibilities associated with human intervention and amplified the pedagogic possibilities of automation that are possible with the use of online technology. The official influences have suppressed Lim’s capacity to fully operationalise her personal practical theories through the application of the three strategies and three principles described in the decision-making model. Whilst teacher’s values and beliefs as resistant to change, particularly in adulthood, active and dominant beliefs can vary according to the circumstance (Pajares, 1992; Schoenfeld, 1998). At a micro level, it is possible to propose that, given the circumstances of limited organisational support, Lim’s use of online technology represents her positive disposition towards the use of online technology, and, a lifting of

7

the belief that this form of teaching delivery is superior to the less interactive print based model. Sharon: Congruence in Off-Campus Teaching Sharon uses the self-declared metaphor of ‘The Communicator’ to describe her preferred teaching practice. She stresses the importance of ‘keeping contact’ with students, providing a variety of teaching styles to appeal to the different needs of students and flexibility. Sharon uses online technology to support off-campus teaching in a professional development program for TAFE teachers. The course is designed to teach TAFE teachers how to use online technology for online facilitation. Therefore, online technology is both the medium and the topic of the professional development program. In contrast to the other case examples, the curriculum is not centrally mandated. The evidence shows that there is congruence between Sharon’s preferred and implemented teaching practices in using online technology to support this off-campus professional development program. Using the decision-making model as a descriptive framework, it is possible to assert that official influences legitimise a pedagogic pool that supports Sharon’s personal practical theories. At a macro level, Sharon’s preferred teaching principles of communication, catering for differing learning styles and flexibility are supported by a curriculum that allows the teacher flexibility in design to meet specific learner’s needs. The level of organisational support in terms of facilities and resources is not seen as a barrier to implementation. At a micro level, Sharon is able to operationalise the three strategies and three principles to negotiate the integration of online technology so that her specific instructional practices are congruent with her personal practical theories. The design of this course is content light and communication rich. The online component involves Internet searches, individual email, discussion boards and chat facilities. There is an almost total absence of learning resources as they are normally conceived. Discussion board topics are released on a scheduled basis, the initial posting is designed to prompt responses from the participants who then engage in conversation. In this way, knowledge is developed as a joint endeavour through the communication between participants and facilitators of the program. At the completion of the scheduled discussion period the facilitator will endeavour to consolidate the participants postings and bring the discussion to a close. John: Congruence and Incongruence in On-campus, Face-To-Face Teaching John works in an organisation that has a mandated teaching approach of a lecturetutorial model. Lectures are designed for the transmission of theory, tutorials for application and interaction. John aspires to the teaching principles of learning through discussion and meeting the needs of individual learners. He uses the metaphor of 8

‘Mission Control’ seeing his role as a conduit for the flow of information with filtering when necessary and breaking complex ideas into bite-sized chunks. John uses online technology as a repository for notes, presentations and quizzes. Student use of online technology is entirely optional and not a requirement of his programs. He does not use communications capacities on a regular basis. In the case of tutorials, John does not use online technology to support his teaching on a regular basis. His description of his teaching approach is consistent with his preferred teaching principles. He engages in discussion and interaction. He uses a variety of teaching approaches to meet the needs of individual learners and to maintain enthusiasm. At a macro level, the model of decision-making shows that the organisational policy of lectures-tutorials has a significant influence on the legitimised pedagogic pool. In lectures, John uses online technology as a means to access presentations, there is a lack of evidence of discussion and interaction or meeting the needs of individual learners. The official influence of organisational policy has limited John’s ability to fully operationalise the three strategies and three principles in his lecture teaching. In tutorials, John does not use online technology on a regular basis. This is partly the result of organisational policy that limits access to computer laboratories for classes such as John’s. He is not overly concerned about this unavailability as his preference is to limit the use of online technology in his face-to-face tutorials. In the case of tutorials, official influences do not restrict the pedagogic pool such that there is a compromise to John’s personal practical theories which preference discussion and meeting the needs of individual learners. TEACHER AGENCY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE TECHNOLOGY The case examples presented show that the model of decision-making is useful in representing and explaining the pedagogic practices of three teachers who have integrated online technology into their practice. These teachers can be described as examples where there is congruence between preferred and implemented practices in on-campus (Lim, John) and off-campus (Sharon) teaching, and, incongruence between preferred and implemented practices in on-campus (John) and off-campus (Lim) practices. The case examples selected demonstrate that confluence between preferred and implemented practices in one mode of delivery does not guarantee confluence in another mode. For example, in Lim’s cases there is confluence in her on-campus practice and incongruence in her off-campus practice. In John’s case there is congruence in his on-campus tutorial teaching but incongruence in his on-campus lecturing.

9

The cases confirm that, in the absence of overwhelming official influences, the three teachers are able to apply the three strategies and three principles in ways that enable them to engage in specific instructional practices that are consistent with their personal practical theories. In this situation, teachers are active agents in the integration of online technology into their practice. Where there are overwhelming official influences, these teachers have continued to be prepared to use online technology. I suggest that this preparedness to compromise their personal practical theories is primarily the result of a positive disposition to the use of online technology. In these cases, the teacher’s ability to operationalise the three strategies and three principles to engage specific instructional practices that are entirely consistent with their personal practical theories is limited to some degree. As a result, the teacher’s level of agency is restricted. Similar analysis of the practices of the four research participants not reported in this paper reinforces a conclusion that, as the balance of influence between official and pedagogic influences changes, the legitimised pedagogic pool and the specific instructional practices implemented by teachers also change. Four possible scenarios emerge. 1. In cases where official influences dominate, the impact of pedagogic influences is suppressed. As a result, the strategies and principles that are employed to determine the teaching approach adopted are dominated by official concerns. 2. In cases where pedagogic influences dominate, the impact of official influences is suppressed. As a result, the strategies and principles that are employed to determine the teaching approach adopted are dominated by pedagogic concerns. 3. In cases where there is a dynamic tension between the official concerns and the pedagogic concerns, the relative dominance of these influences will vary. 4. In cases where the concerns of the official concerns and the pedagogic concerns are confluent with the teaching approach employed will be consistent with both. CONCLUSION The decision-making model provides a framework for explaining the dynamics of power relations in respect to the integration of online technology into teaching practice. It provides a means to represent the ways in which official influences act to enable or limit the agency of TAFE teachers. At a macro level, the model is able to represent official and pedagogic influences that establish a legitimate pool of pedagogic possibilities. At a micro level the model provides a means to describe how teachers make decisions about the selection of specific instructional practices that integrate online technology into their teaching. Through the use of case examples it has been shown that the model is able to represent circumstances where there is congruence between preferred and implemented practice and where there is incongruence across a range of modes of delivery including oncampus and off-campus teaching. 10

REFERENCES Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Bullough, R. V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 42(1), 43-51. Chan, K.-w. (2001, 2-6 December). Validation of a measure of personal theories about teaching and learning. Paper presented at the AARE 2001 International Education research Conference, Perth. Combs, A. W. (1982). A personal approach to teaching : beliefs that make a difference. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Errington, E. (2001). The influence of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation in traditional university settings. In F. Lockwood & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in open and distance learning. Successful development of online and web-based learning (pp. 2737). London: Kogan Page Limited. Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in education and teaching international, 41(1), 39-47. John, J. (2002, 12-14 September). Teaching and learning with ICT: New technology, new pedagogy? Paper presented at the BERA Conference, University of Exeter, UK. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255-275. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hill, California: Sage. Marland, P. (1997). Towards more effective open and distance teaching. London: Kogan Page. McShane, K. (2002). Academic's metaphors and beliefs about university teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education. Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers. An exploratory study. Journal of curriculum studies, 18(2), 197-209. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332. Robertson, I. (2001, 24 September). Applying Bernstein's theory of pedagogy, symbolic control and identity to a study of the impact of online technology in vocational education and training as a site of cultural reproduction. Paper presented at the ERCSS Conference, Monash University. Robertson, I. (2002, 20-22 March). Theorising the impact of online technologies on TAFE teachers' practice. Paper presented at the Innovation, Internationalisation, New Technologies and VET, Melbourne. Robertson, I. (2003a, 29 November-2 December). An application of Basil Bernstein to vocational education and training policy in Australia. Paper presented at the Educational Research, Risks and Dilemmas, Auckland. Robertson, I. (2003b, 9-11 April). Implementing online in a hybrid model: a matter of principles? Paper presented at the Changing Face of VET. Reflection, Regulation and Reengineering, Sydney.

11

Robertson, I. (2004a, 17-19 March). Metaphor, online technology and recontextualisation in teaching. Paper presented at the Learner and practitioner: The heart of the matter, Canberra. Robertson, I. (2004b, December). Teachers at the interface. A model of implementation. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne. Robertson, I. (2004c, 9-10 December). VET teachers - negotiating the introduction of ICT into practice. Paper presented at the Flexible Learning Leader. 2004 Sharing Workshop, Sydney. Schoenfeld, A. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in education, 4(1), 194. Sumision, J. (2002). Becoming, being and unbecoming an early childhood educator: a phenomenological case study of teacher attrition. Teaching and teacher education, 18, 869-885.

12