Access to ICT: essential for teachers but not necessarily in the classroom

Mr Tim Kitchen Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School Victoria, Australia

Walking into the Faculty of Education office at the University of Melbourne, on the 25th of January 2007, was a surreal experience. In my hands were three copies of what represented the culmination of my last six years of study. The relief of that moment did not really hit me until I was back at home watching cricket on TV and it suddenly occurred to me that I wasn’t feeling guilty about not working on my thesis.

My thesis was initially based on the theory that the functionality and potential for learning provided by a virtual learning environment (VLE, otherwise referred to as a learning management system), such as Blackboard or Moodle or the new Ultranet, was enough in itself to enhance ICT (information communications technologies) integration throughout a secondary school curriculum. How’s that for a mouthful? I believed that this was the case because it was my own experience. However, my hypothesis proved to be inaccurate.

When I first discovered the power of a VLE back in 2001, I was so impressed (some would say naïve) that I thought it would be the answer to all ICT integration concerns at my school. I was looking for a topic on which to base my eventual thesis, so I decided that I would investigate the impact of the VLE on ICT integration at my school, in comparison to two other initiatives that were all fully implemented in 2003. These involved a computer for each teacher and an ICT professional development (PD) program. As it turned out, the initiative with the most impact on ICT integration was the provision of a computer for each teacher, which, looking back, now seems obvious.

Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School is a single sex, independent school in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Being a non-laptop school, like many others, it concentrated its efforts on enhancing access to the school network from students’ home computers. The school administration wanted the use of ICT at the school to be educationally led, not technologically driven. They were concerned with the potential security and health risks associated with carrying laptops to and from school. They were also anxious about the increased costs involved for parents and the recurring cost burden for the school to provide technical support and the network infrastructure for laptops. This decision led to a focus on providing good access to ICT via the computer laboratories and access to online resources and the school network from home. As a result, less access to ICT has been available to the teachers and students in the classrooms, which raises the question of whether it is possible to effectively integrate ICT when access is not readily available in the classroom.

Researchers and educationists, such as Papert (1993), Fluck (2003), Sager (2003), Reimann & Goodyear (2004), Plante & Beattie (2004) and Lloyd (2005) argue that classroom access is essential for effective ICT integration. They say that, for ICT integration to be effective, it needs to occur within the classroom, so that connections can be made between the topic being learned, the teacher and other students’ insights. They argue that ICT integration is not just about being seen to be using ICT at school, it is about providing learning environments that encourage the seamless use of technology in the classroom, if and when it helps the learning process.

To take a slightly different perspective, Trinidad, Clarkson, & Newhouse (2004) argue that ICT integration is all about enhancing the learning process, and learning is not just restricted to the classroom. Educational researchers like Conner (2005) argue that the classroom environment only accounts for 25% of learning and that most learning occurs outside of structured environments and in the comfort of a more relaxed surroundings, where there is potentially more time to play with the concepts taught, experiment with ideas and develop deeper understandings.

Furlong et al. (2000) agree with Conner (2005), concluding that children and teenagers find access to computers at home more beneficial than at school. They like time to explore and play with the concepts taught, which they do not get at school. The best learning environment for most students probably includes the classroom, the computer laboratory, the school library, the local library, the bedroom, the lounge room and anywhere the student feels comfortable and has access to appropriate resources.

By providing access to the network from home, and more recently, via the VLE, providing access to curriculum material, assessment options and communication with teachers and other students via discussion boards, instant messaging and email, Strathcona has arguably established a learning environment that is rich in ICT integration, which can be accessed wherever the internet is available.

Vuorikari (2004) argues that VLEs provide a wider variety of ways in which content can be delivered and, as a result, a greater depth in learning can be the outcome. She suggests that informal learning is actually enhanced by providing students with access to curriculum material and communication potential outside the constraints of the classroom.

The BECTA (2004) study found that VLE developers emphasised the potential learning advantages that their products offered, due to home and out-of-school hours access of curriculum materials to students. They concluded that time at home may be less constrained than in school, resulting in distinct learning advantages for students who have access to a VLE at their schools.

Providing the infrastructure and resources to encourage ICT integration is important but is not necessarily enough to initiate meaningful change. Teachers are traditionally very slow to change and many traditional teachers would probably agree with Cuban (2001), who argues that, due to the number and size of the classes that teachers are expected to teach, it is practically impossible for them to effectively integrate ICT. He suggests that computers are unreliable, as they often either do not work or are too difficult to master. He believes that teachers should not be expected to go out of their way to integrate ICT into their teaching practices.

Schools like Strathcona, with limited ICT access in the classroom and having centralised computer laboratories, can encourage ICT integration, as long as the teaching culture is such that individual students or small groups are free to leave the classroom to work in the computer laboratories when required. For this to occur relatively seamlessly, the computer laboratories need to be close to the classrooms and large enough so that, even if a whole class has booked the laboratory, there are still some computers available for individual students to use.

In an ideal learning environment, good ICT access would be available whenever and wherever the students want to learn and the teachers want to teach. However, just because Strathcona (like many schools) is not at that stage does not mean that effective ICT integration is not taking place. Not only is ICT integration occurring, it is increasing and becoming more a part of the daily work practices of the teaching staff at the school, thanks to the three ICT initiatives implemented in 2003.

I began this paper mentioning that my study was based on the false assumption that the functionality and potential for learning provided by a VLE was enough in itself to enhance ICT integration throughout a secondary school curriculum because this was my own experience. As it turns out, the initiative that had the most influence on ICT integration (according to my study) was the provision of a computer for each teacher. Access to ICT in every classroom is not essential, however access to ICT for teachers is essential for their skills and confidence to improve and, as a result, help enhance ICT integration throughout the curriculum.

References

BECTA (2004). ‘A review of the research literature on the use managed learning environments and virtual learning environments in education, and the consideration of the implications for schools in the United Kingdom’. In BECTA ICT Research. UK (online). Available at: www.becta.org.uk (October 2004).
Conner, M (2005). Informal Learning, Ageless Learner. (online) Available at: agelesslearner.com (2006 January).
Cuban, L (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fluck, A (2003). ‘Integration or transformation? A cross-national study of information and communication technology in school education’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tasmania (online). Available at: www.educ.utas.edu.au (December 2006).
Furlong, J, Ruth, J, Facer, K, Sutherland, R (2000). ‘The national grid for learning: a curriculum without walls?’ In Cambridge Journal of Education. Vol. 30, pp. 91-110.
Lloyd, M (2005). ‘Towards a definition of the integration of ICT in the classroom’. 2005 AARE Conference, November-December, Sydney. (Online available at: www.aare.edu.au (December 2006).
Papert, S (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
Plante, J, & Beattie, D (2004). Connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools. ISSN: 1704-8885. Canada (online). Available at: www.statcan.ca (December, 2006).
Reimann, P, & Goodyear, P (2003). ‘ICT and pedagogy’. Stimulus paper (online). Available at: lrnlab.edfac.usyd.edu.au (December 2006).
Sager, G (2003). Laptops in Schools – A Wonderfully Cautionary Tale. (Online) Available at: www.stager.org (December, 2006).
Trinidad, S, Newhouse, P & Clarkson, B (2005). ‘A framework for leading school change in using ICT: measuring change’. Paper presented at AARE 2005, Sydney, November-December.
Vuorikari, R (2004). Why Europe Needs Free and Open Source Software and Content in Schools. Brussels: European Schoolnet (online). Available at: www.eun.org (December 2006).