Facilitating Innovation with Technology: Key Actors in Educational Ecosystems
Xiaoqing Gu,Charles Crook,Mike Spector
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12786
IF: 6.6
2019-01-01
British Journal of Educational Technology
Abstract:British Journal of Educational TechnologyVolume 50, Issue 3 p. 1118-1124 EditorialFree Access Facilitating innovation with technology: Key actors in educational ecosystems Xiaoqing Gu, Corresponding Author xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cn orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-5133 Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University, 3663 Zhongshan Rd. North, Shanghai, 200062 China Email: xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this authorCharles Crook, School of education, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UKSearch for more papers by this authorMike Spector, Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, 3940 N. Elm Street, Denton, TX, 76207 USASearch for more papers by this author Xiaoqing Gu, Corresponding Author xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cn orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-5133 Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University, 3663 Zhongshan Rd. North, Shanghai, 200062 China Email: xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this authorCharles Crook, School of education, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UKSearch for more papers by this authorMike Spector, Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, 3940 N. Elm Street, Denton, TX, 76207 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 April 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12786Citations: 5AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The frontispiece to Cuban’s (1986) book “Teachers and Machines” depicts a geography lesson being conducted in a 1930s aeroplane. The picture is engaging because it reminds us how easily a new technology can be thought to have a place in educational practice. Yet, Cuban argues, teachers have typically been reluctant to embrace these apparent opportunities. Sometimes, perhaps, we must be thankful: powered flight did not come to figure as a significant curriculum experience. However, the picture is also a warning that where new technologies are adopted, their role can turn out merely to consolidate existing practice rather than transform it: the airborne geography teacher is shown pointing to a display board, while rows of pupil/passengers passively look on. Cuban’s thesis supposes that this pattern will be the fate of all new “machines” appropriated into education. But that was 1986. Commentators today might argue that, as an attractive and empowering technology, the digital computer is something very different from powered flight, movies, radio, television, slide projectors and so on. This is because the modern computer does not appear to be such a singular thing. The device that digitally records student performance in a drama class may be the same device that presents geology students with an earthquake simulation or offers history students an e-portfolio. Accordingly, when agendas are constructed for “teachers and (digital) machines,” the versatility of this technology may set higher expectations for both its uptake and its potential for transformative impact. When such expectations are then made topics of research, attention will focus on how schools and universities respond to the opportunities residing in their digital infrastructure: ie, the various ways that they realise the generic potential of digital devices, networking and shared software. Most of the papers assembled in this Special Issue of BJET describe work in contexts where such “opportunities-of-infrastructure” should have existed. In other words, they report on sites of teaching and learning that are sometimes termed adequately “e-mature.” The concern of this research will then be with how readily—and in what manner—a given application of the technology available is actually embraced. There is some urgency on these issues and, therefore, on the questions raised in the papers that follow. In developed economies, educational investment in digital infrastructure has been considerable. It is important to determine whether this investment has been effective, or whether it should be directed differently—eg, towards real estate, human capital, or other forms of resource supporting the cognitive, emotional and personal growth of students. So far, studies of how system-wide digital infrastructures shape educational outcomes have produced discouraging results. The OECD (2016) reviewed outcomes from a number of “natural experiments” whereby the performance of schools with policies of greater versus lesser digital resource investment were compared. They conclude: “The majority of these studies find that such policies result in greater computer use in treated schools, but few studies find positive effects on education outcomes, even when the new resources did not displace other investments” (p. 83). In the present Special Issue, MacFarlane (2019) cites other research reviews that reach similarly sobering conclusions. Moreover, her view is that any response to calls for more effective use of digital technology must require still greater expenditure on digital resource—particularly in terms of ensuring ubiquitous device access but also in terms of teacher preparation. Educational policymakers must therefore contemplate yet further digital investment in pursuit of its promised potential. The nature of that potential is not only a matter of improved student outcomes on standard tests of educational progress. MacFarlane’s paper reminds us of other expectations arising from pressure to cultivate a more “digital education.” These expectations concern a responsibility to prepare young people for adjustment to a fast-changing society—“a society where digital technology means that personal interactions and expressions of identity are entirely different from those experienced by their teachers and parents.” Accordingly, MacFarlane explains how the case for effective engagement with new technology extends beyond the traditional ambition to improve scores on tests of learning gain. There is also hope that a digital education will help young people develop competencies matched to a culture and economy that is itself increasingly shaped by new technology. For most commentators, while “twenty-first century skills” are in some part about knowledge building capability, they are also about political intelligence coupled with interpersonal and expressive confidence. Yet whether these qualities are best fostered by a school’s Computer Science department—rather than, for instance, its departments of Drama or Social Studies—is an unsettled matter. The macro-layer of a technology adoption ecosystem Exactly how schools best prepare young people for twenty-first-century society is a matter taken up by Larke (2019). Her study effectively illustrates the need to regard teachers’ adoption of new technology as something that is configured in the wider ecosystem of education. Larke’s research describes teachers becoming uncomfortable pursuing new educational practices with technology: practices that were designed to give young people confidence for participating in an increasingly digital world. Some researchers would approach understanding such a situation by exploring issues of teacher attitude, while neglecting how the context in which a practitioner is embedded serves to shape such attitudes and shape the teaching practices adopted. A deeper understanding of the unease felt by Larke’s teachers may be found “further back” from any trait profiles of individual actors. It may be found in a “macro layer” of influence: one that overarches the more micro-layer of teacher psychometrics or classroom interactions. In Larke’s case study, the significant macro-layer observation that she reports resides in the tensions generated when policy for a computing curriculum was formulated at (England) government level. It would surely be wise to orchestrate such high-level planning with full input from the broad community of interest in such a project. However, some stakeholders turned out to have a stronger voice than others. In this case, representatives of certain professional groupings appear to have disproportionally influenced the structure of the ICT/computing curriculum by promoting a strategy that reflected their own disciplinary interests. But also, it seems, through a strategy that then was not easily adopted by teachers. Successful appropriation of new technologies is necessarily shaped by those strategy and curricular prescriptions devised at the macro-level of policymaking. These prescriptions may inspire adoption by teachers or, as Larke demonstrates, they may inspire avoidance. While much of what is prescribed originates from government departments, this cannot be the only form of high-level influence on the shape of classroom practice. There are other agents of influence: these may act directly on practitioners, but they may also act indirectly—through the various routes whereby they gain the attention of educational politicians. A rarely researched area of potential influence is within the sector that designs and promotes digital hardware and software for education. Although the sector includes the work of not-for-profit individuals and organisations, most provision is through commercial activity. Li, Wang and Gu (2019) outline the scale and structure of this industry for China, indicating the range of services they cover and how priorities are perceived internally. However, there is still much to be learned about the processes and principles guiding how these industries operate to specify products, to create appetites or to influence policy. A second agent of overarching influence on technology implementation is the academic research community. In times that stress the importance of evidence-based practice, it must be hoped that findings from educational research projects will be mobilised to influence the design and implementation of new technologies. Building from evidence should be a natural practice within the commercial sector of resource provision; although, again, little is known about how far the industry conducts its own research or refers to the research of others in order to design or promote products. Neither do we understand clearly how educational politicians orient towards research findings when framing policy. An important dynamic in this macro layer of influence concerns how research findings serve to directly influence teachers. Crook and Gu’s (2019) investigation of a teacher discussion forum suggests that direct reference to research findings is rare within practitioner discourse. However, the term “research” can cover a wide variety of publication sources. Many teachers report informally on their own practice in a critical and reflective way—in blogs, discussion boards and other outlets. This may be legitimately regarded as “research.” Yet there is much still to be learned as to how far these personal records influence the adoption and innovation patterns of others. Practitioner reports do enjoy certain advantages of authenticity and speed of circulation when compared with traditional academic research, although the latter can claim authority from peer review and a depth that comes from its integration with bodies of theory. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that teachers will have close contact with academic research and theory within their own preservice, in-service and postgraduate education. Crook and Gu therefore consider the scale and direction of technology-related research, as conducted in academic Schools of Education. They illustrate a certain breadth of research topic, as manifest in two national contexts. Yet they argue that reported projects rarely consider how practices with technology are integrated across “layers” of the educational ecosystem—layers that are illustrated in the current Special Issue. Moreover, the scale of technology-related research within Educational Studies is found to be more modest than would be expected from either the pervasive presence of technology in young people’s lives or from the strong imperative for its adoption in education. The implication being that the scale of its influence on teachers’ own education is similarly modest. Academic Schools of Education are sites of evolving research and theory and teachers will be variously inspired by their immersion in the life of such places. But that immersion is not a passive encounter. Within this community are teacher educators: individuals who engage with “teacher students” in an active relationship within which educational practice may be explored. Tondeur et al. (2019) describe an approach for defining the perspective of these educators towards technology. Rather than modelling this relationship in terms of the influence of discrete attitudinal variables, Tondeur and colleagues strive for a more holistic account of individual differences among teacher educators. By mapping “ICT profiles” they are able to distinguish differences that correlate with the support that those teachers provide. As these authors acknowledge, such findings open up a challenge to understand another niche in the ecosystem: namely, the possible strategies adopted by the educators of teacher educators. The meso-layer The macro-layer discussed above can be thought of as “enfolding” the institutional levels of educational practice—ie, the schools and colleges within which technology may be appropriated for teaching and learning. Within this layer, another dynamic will exist. One whereby policy and strategy gets defined and supported at a more “local” level of organisation. There are various agents of influence who can be significant at this level. One role that is not considered in the present Special Issue is that of educational technicians: those who develop and maintain a digital infrastructure of resources. This is a responsibility whose influence on innovation practice is worthy of closer study. In practice, research has more often considered the way in which the senior academic management of schools act to support teachers around matters of curriculum and pedagogy. These administrative responsibilities have come to include managing the adoption of new technology as one distinctive concern. In an investigation drawing from both primary and secondary sectors, Wu, Yu, and Hu (2019) identify the central importance ascribed to school leaders by teachers themselves. In teachers’ own perception of the local ecology of practice, the actions of educational leaders are perceived as a dominant force in ICT implementation and, then, its potential outcomes for learning. This study also suggested that across the later stages of schooling there was a decreasing influence of directives from such an institutional pathway. These authors take such observations to suggest more significance for an emerging “collegiality” in middle and high schools. This is a theme also apparent in the report by Håkansson Lindqvist (2019). In observing the introduction of a 1:1 laptop initiative implemented over a 3-year period. This research finds that a significant outcome of leadership is the creation of a collaborative culture of communication and sharing within the community of teachers, although it is noted that leaders also need to develop (and perhaps model) their own competence with ICT in the course of achieving institutional change. The study of management reported by Sun and Gao (2019) is more ethnographic. It describes a large-scale intervention that focusses on technology adoption as experienced across the whole school community. An interesting feature of this initiative is how the functions of leadership become increasingly distributed with the passage of time. While vision and strategic planning may have rested initially with an Executive Vice-Principal, the management of leadership was documented as becoming gradually “stretched” over the whole school. This indicates how such roles can become more fluid as an intervention consolidates. Notwithstanding this recognition of the collegial dimension of influence, the three studies above illustrate meso-layer processes that all centre upon traditional forces arising from the actions of school leaders. The study by Stevenson, Bower, Falloon, Forbes, and Hatzigianni (2019) reminds us that institutionally sponsored support for innovation can be mediated by focused initiatives that recruit beyond school leaders alone—potentially implicating a variety of internal and external professions. Together these actors may create integrated programmes of in-service professional development that address challenges of technology adoption. Such initiatives can even be distributed over a family of schools. Moreover, Stevenson et al. find that they may then be able to report “significant increases in teacher confidence and enthusiasm.” Such outcomes are gratifying, although future studies need to monitor how far their impact is sustained and, perhaps, propagated—in order to justify the investments in support that are necessarily involved. The report by Jong (2019) is a useful example of such a research strategy. A technology-based initiative to pursue social inquiry learning is underpinned by nine 6-hour induction sessions carried out with volunteer teachers. This design therefore illustrates the meso-level process of organising in-service preparation for change. Although, again, it is conducted by agents from outside the mainstream of school leadership structures. However, second, the project design illustrates how a technology adoption intervention seeded in this manner should be followed up over a long (3-year) period—in order to demonstrate the resilience of the initiative. The micro-layer Research conducted at the “micro” level is concerned with how the immediate or proximal conditions of teaching and learning shape the form, direction and extent of technology adoption. Central to these “conditions” will be the various interactions that teachers organise with other actors from the classroom context. The existence of such relationships creates a natural continuity between investigation of many meso-level topics and the investigation of micro-level interactions. This is simply because many of the factors identified (above) as influences of a meso-level variety are factors that are enacted through the micro-level interpersonal exchanges within which the principle actors engage. For example, it was noted above that matters of institutional leadership can exert influence through the spreading of a productive collegiality among teaching staff. Yet, any research understanding of such a process must go beyond approaching collegiality as merely a variable precipitated out of questionnaire investigation: ultimately, a full understanding demands investigations at the “micro” level of mediating interpersonal exchanges. The character of interactions between teachers and fellow-staff is one approach to the fostering of innovation and one that deserves further study—whether focussing on interactions within collegial support or around management prescriptions. However, the studies in this Special Issue have focused on a different aspect of the micro-layer: namely, teachers’ relationships with parents and caregivers. Bond (2019) identifies the importance of teachers building an educational ecology that involves families more closely in the student experience. This must depend on an effective sharing between families and teachers in relation to an understanding of classroom goals. The flipped classroom was considered in this study as a strategy that might, indirectly, strengthen family awareness of young peoples’ curricular agendas in school. Bond’s study warns against optimism in this respect: observing that family engagement will not be cultivated by any such simple mediation of technology. Davis, Harris and Cunningham (2019) also considers parents and offers a more fully articulated ecological analysis of educational practice, drawing upon the example of language learning. Here, there is a useful effort to integrate the material and digital environments: one which demonstrates how a hesitant adoption of technology may be understood in terms of the dynamics that arise within them. Moving forward In the literature of educational technology, there are many reports of digital interventions that realised their goals. Yet the wider community may naturally be concerned for the “scalability” of these successes: how far they can be replicated in other contexts of practice. Elsewhere, Niederhauser et al. (2018) have reported a set of case studies which serve to illustrate the various ways in which the dimensions of scalability (Clarke & Dede, 2009) can be confronted and managed. In reviewing the narratives of their cases, they demonstrate how the implementation of new technology is found to be shaped by the various actors and professions that surround educational practice. The papers in the present Special Issue take up this challenge and report on a variety of dynamics that, together, support an ecosystem perspective on innovation with technology. These reports are successful in achieving the kind of focus on actor or profession that helps us understand more of how they each “fit” into an ecosystem framework. However, there is then a danger in being drawn into explanatory accounts that are too singularly top-down or bottom-up in their approach to process. Law and Liang (2019) provide a valuable illustration of a project wherein the complexity of an educational ecosystem is protected—and then theorised. Whereas, in the present review, we have used the simple vocabulary of “macro/meso/micro,” Law and Liang adopt the more ecologically vivid terminology of “landscape, regime and niche.” Moreover, as well as integrating practices within the sociotechnical system that they describe, they also integrate across time, with research that covers an 11-year period of intervention. This example offers important points upon which to find conclusion here. It is argued that in evaluating the promise of new technology, we need to understand the contextual conditions that constrain and afford its adoption. To achieve that understanding, we must attend to interactions and relationships that span the entire reach of those educational ecosystems within which innovation is occurring. Moreover, to extract useful guidance from such observations, we should allow research to track events across meaningful periods of time. In the end, generalisation will remain difficult. An ecological perspective involves awareness of the rich variety of settings within which educational practice takes place: accordingly, research will need to confront this variety, to capture and express it. For example, from the corpus of research reported in this Special Issue, there is clearly a significant gulf between “a Chinese middle-high boarding school” (Sun & Gao, 2019) and a primary school in a culturally diverse area of New Zealand (Davis et al., 2019). Yet we should retain faith in the central place of the findings from such case studies. We should trust them to remain a source of insights that can guide strategies of practice in novel circumstances of innovation elsewhere (cf. Stenhouse, 1978; Thomas, 2016). At the same time, one persistent challenge for the educational technology community is to develop more effective modes of research dissemination of such cases towards practitioners—lest studies of the kind reported here remain locked behind firewalls and find limited reach into contexts of educational innovation. References Bond, M. (2019). Flipped learning and parent engagement in secondary schools: A South Australian case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1294– 1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12765Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353– 365. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Crook, C. K., & Gu, X. (2019). How new technology is addressed by researchers in Educational Studies: Approaches from high-performing universities in China and the UK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1173– 1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12750Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar Davis, N., Harris, L., & Cunningham, U. (2019). Professional ecologies shaping technology adoption in early childhood education with multilingual children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1320– 1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12774. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Håkansson Lindqvist, M. (2019). School leaders’ practices for innovative use of digital technologies in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1226– 1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12782Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Jong, M. (2019). Sustaining the adoption of gamified outdoor social enquiry learning in high schools through addressing teachers’ emerging concerns: A three-year study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1275– 1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12767Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Larke, L. (2019). Agentic neglect: Teachers as gatekeepers of England’s national computing curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1137– 1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12744Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Law, N., & Liang, L. (2019). Socio-technical co-evolution of an e-learning innovation network. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1340– 1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12768Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Li, X., Wang, F., & Gu, X. (2019). Understanding the roles of ICT enterprises in promoting the ICT industry ecosystem in education: Case studies from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1151– 1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12776Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Macfarlane, A. E. (2019). Devices and desires: Competing visions of a good education in the digital age. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1125– 1136. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12764Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Niederhauser, D. S., Howard, S. K., Voogt, J., Agyei, D. D., Laferriere, T., Tondeur, J., & Cox, M. J. (2018). Sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives: Research-informed practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 507– 523. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Stenhouse, L. (1978). Case study and case records: Towards a contemporary history of education. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 21– 39. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary-school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1260– 1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Sun, Y., & Gao, F. (2019). Exploring the roles of school leaders and teachers in a schoolwide adoption of flipped classroom: School dynamics and institutional cultures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1241– 1259. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12769Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Thomas, G. (2016). After the gold rush: Questioning the “gold standard” and reappraising the status of experiment and randomized controlled trials in education. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 390– 411. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Vaitonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189– 1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Wu, B., Yu, X., & Hu, Y. (2019). How does principal e-leadership affect ICT transformation across different school stages in K-12 education: Perspectives from teachers in Shanghai. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1210– 1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12766Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Citing Literature Volume50, Issue3May 2019Pages 1118-1124 ReferencesRelatedInformation