Theory technology and education Cristina Costa Michael Hammond

Theory, technology and education Cristina Costa Michael Hammond Sarah Younie

What we are doing today Introduction the idea of theorising / theory state of theory in educational technology why theory? limits on theory theorising v theory Case studies on using theory Valsiner Bourdieu…. . A special issue on theory and theorising

Introduction What is theory / theorising State of theory in education and technology Why theory? Limits on theory?

What is Theory? Abend (2008) exploring the meaning of a particular social phenomenon; the study of key thinkers; and how to look at, grasp, and represent the world. Krause (2016) six associations applying existing concepts to new observations; linking a new fact or observation to an existential issue or a historical trend; and developing new concepts in dialogue with observations and previous concepts. In addition theory can be normative and it can have a meta dimension. Core to theorising is explanation (Martindale, 1960) based on abstracting key issues and how things fit together

What is Theory (cont. )? Theory on a spectrum with dimensions including: prescriptive - descriptive agency - structure top down - bottom up sensitising – predictive parsimony - fidelity local (substantive) – formal small – grand

Why Theory? Practical (‘nothing so practical as a good theory’) generalisable / transferable / ‘appliable’ Ways of seeing / unsettling a view of the world Natural step in research / interesting in its own right Creates the conversation in the discipline and between disciplines Higher order thinking (Vygotsky)

Theorising as Distinct from Theory (Swedberg) Swedberg (2012) suggests: Theorising is distinctive to theory. Theorising is the process about discovery rather than justification; justifying comes later. Theorising is a personal undertaking, which draws on one’s own resources and on one’s own ideas and experiences Theorising can take many different forms but is more intuitive, less procedural Critical in theorising is observation by which Swedberg means concentrating on a phenomenon, ‘staying with it; and trying to understand it’

Steps in the Process Observe and choose something interesting; Name and formulate the central concept; Build at the central concept; Complete the tentative theory and provide an explanation. (Swedberg 2012 : 17).

Theorising in Education and Technology? The state of theorising in respect to education and technology Often thought to be poor (Underwood 2004) Models that show associations misread as predictive (Valsiner, 1998) Re-presents frameworks such as ANT, AT, Co. P rather than re-imagines them Reinvents sensitising as predictive If you look for it you will find it…. . Susceptible to fads of all kinds (Vygotsky, Co. P) Case studies which fail to theorise (see notes by Twinning, 2017) Excessive optimism as a framework (e. g. online discussion) Evaluation dominating over theorisation (Becta tradition) Disassociation of pedagogical belief from research practice Small scale (e. g. Underwood, 2004) and neglects broader sociological theory (e. g. Selwyn, 2011).

But Is It Really So Bad? Professional, practical focus has strengths Descriptive and evaluative studies have their place Small scale appropriate for new initiatives Why sociological theory? Theory games absent from the field

Challenges in Theorising Understand the tradition and the strength / weaknesses of that tradition Creatively rework ‘theoretical ideas’ Triangulate frameworks Go wide (interdisciplinary and globalisation) Be imaginative (Swedberg) Are theories for life?

You and Theory What does theory mean for you? Where have you acquired your views of theory? What do you see as strengths / weaknesses about theorising in education research? In technology research? What contribution is made by social science research in general or more specifically media / sociological studies?

Break

Case: Theorising the take-up of ICT: Can Valsiner's three zones framework make a contribution? the take-up of mathematical software and generic ICT tools by lecturers in higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. how do we understand the gap between the opportunities afforded by ICT and the take-up of ICT, which in HE, as in the school sector, has not been on the scale that is often anticipated?

Background ‘Take up’ studies often draw on positivist approach…. cause and effect explanation and traditional notions of validity e. g. teachers’ beliefs (e. g Hermans et al, 2008) or orientation to professional development (e. g. Drent & Meelissen, 2008) constructivist beliefs (Sang et al, 2010; So et al, 2012). Theorising in an interpretive tradition includes Olson (1988, Levin & Wadmany, 2005; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002)

The Search for Factors Many examples of a tight or loose factors approach Cox et al. , (1999), Gaffney, (2010), Hammond, et al. (2011), Mumtaz (2000), Scrimshaw (2004) Drent & Meelissen (2008) and Hermans et al. (2008). Useful but limited

Theoretical Lens Complexity theory (e. g. Morrison, 2005; Phelps, Graham & Watts, 2011), Community of practice (e. g. Hung, Chee, Hedberg & Thiam Seng (2005), Johannesen and Habib (2010) Activity theory (e. g. Demiraslan & Usluel, 2008; Lim & Hang, 2003).

In Take-up Our Key Issue was Agency Explanations need to consider the agency of social actors and the environmental or structural forces Agency and structure alternating not simultaneous perspectives on a phenomena Eraut’s (2010) If we focus on agency this suggests an infeasible degree of free will and results in romantic or condemnatory accounts. If structural then we impose regularity and stability on a context that is unpredictable, even chaotic, and we may miss emergent behaviour.

The Study Itself mixed methods study, 8 universities; semi-structured interviews (n=18) and large scale survey

The key findings A wide range of available tools were accessible There were differing perspectives on the accessibility of tools. Training in the use of tools was provided though CPD was not personalized. Lecturer autonomy was wide but contradictory. The use of ICT was underdeveloped. The use of ICT was differentiated. ICT use was channeled in particular cases. There was a widespread perception that the use of ICT had value. There was a wide perception that ICT has become easier to use. ) ICT use was promoted, but inconsistently. There were some negative perceptions about ICT use. There were constraints on ICT use There were curriculum constraints on ICT use. There were training constraints on ICT use. There were access constraints on ICT use. There were student constraints on ICT use.

These Facts did Support a Factors Approach A case in which take-up of ICT was relatively modest [5] or underdeveloped. Access [1], perception of access [2], appreciation of the value of ICT [8] and ease of use [9] were clear factors in the take-up of ICT and restrictions on access [15], training [14], curriculum [13] and general environment [12] [16] offered constraints even if ICT use was promoted [10] [7]. There were the expected ‘second order’ factors (Ertmer, 2005) so that those who saw benefit in using ICT were innovative in its use [6] and those that had doubts less likely to use ICT [11] – thus illustrating the enduring relevance of Becker (1995).

So Why Not Settle on a Factors Approach? Lecturers exercised agency: they possessed beliefs, they identified opportunities, they developed, or chose not to develop, the competence and confidence to use ICT. Agency is not a factor that ‘caused’ the use of ICT Lecturers were not seeing the same environment differently but rather they were seeing different environments Lecturers were stepping in and out of contexts which were both open (they could teach how they liked) and constrained Finally value judgements were bound up in the language of encouraging and discouraging.

We Turned to Valsiner is best known for a ‘zones framework’ the framework sees human activity as taking place within three zones: the Zone of Free Movement (ZFM), the Zone of Promoted Action (ZPA), and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). the ZFM defines possibilities: ‘what is available to the person acting in a particular environment at a given time’; a ZFM is a zone of constraint as well as opportunity. the ZPA defines what, in respect to the person's actions, is being promoted. the ZPD, borrowed from Vygotsky, defines the set of possible next states in the person's developing relationship with his or her environment. A key term in the framework is that of ‘canalisation’ to describe how activity is channelled in particular ways within the three zones.

Valsiner In our study The ZFM offered an almost excessive range of possible actions in terms of delivery of teaching but was constrained in terms of the curriculum and the possibility for reform. The ZPA was contradictory in terms of what was being promoted and in respect to mathematical software in particular. the ZPD, was highly personal – but promoted actions were not

Benefits of the 3 Zones Framework in This Study abstracts out the key facts of a case and in important ways the zones framework covers all the findings deemed to be of significance. sensitises rather than predicts sees agency as developmental, something that takes place through interaction with an environment rather than a one-off decision to use ICT or not. agency involves self-scaffolding however social interaction is needed to ‘canalise’ the use of ICT (as happened in use of statistical software). Thus patchy take-up of social media was an emergent practice in our study Enabled our findings to better connect with the wider field of professional learning.

But The use of the zones framework was not taken at the start of the research – in fact it had not even been considered. Was this good / bad / inevitable? We finished with only a local or ‘substantive’ explanation The framework lacks the sociologist’s interest in where practices come from and whose purposes they serve (cf with policy to practice framework of Ball). The zones framework is not a pedagogical one; it shows, for example, that there is a ZPD that needs to be crossed but not what lies on the other side.

To Discuss Can you think of a context in which you theorised about technology? Where / when did theory come in? What did it allow? What difficulties did theorising pose? Did you experience theorising as an ‘aha moment’ or something more gradual? The future: me and this theory…?

Special Issue on Theorising What would you like to read about / write about. . Case studies on theorising Discussion of specific theories Critique of theory Celebration of theory Theorising v theory Future challenges Going wider Something else Invited abstracts – does that sound OK?