Who are these guys!? Professional identities of pedagogical technologists in schools

WHO ARE THESE GUYS!? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGISTS IN SCHOOLS 1

Who are these guys!? Professional identities of pedagogical technologists in schools

David J. Woo

A research proposal for the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge


Purpose of the Study

Pedagogical technologists are full-time coordinators of pedagogy and technology in schools.

They are not teachers in a traditional sense nor do they focus predominantly on supporting the

technical aspects of teaching with information technology (IT). Their primary duty is supporting

the pedagogical aspects of teaching with and through IT and helping teachers and other school

stakeholders use technology to best support student learning, taking into account technological,

pedagogical, content knowledge. These pedagogical technologists are often drivers of school

change through technology.

The purpose of this study is to explore the pedagogical technologist role. This study

is particularly concerned with the identities of pedagogical technologists in schools. This

study constructs pedagogical technologist identities by taking into account individual and

organizational factors. This study will develop some general principles about pedagogical

technologist identities in schools. This study addresses the main research question: What are the

identities of the pedagogical technologist in primary schools in Asia?

The plural form of identity is used in the research question to account for insider and

outsider perspectives, because the way a pedagogical technologist views himself in a school

may not be the same way by which others in the school view the pedagogical technologist. In

addition, the plural form of identity accounts for the possibility of different identities emerging

from the several cases which this study will develop.

Background Information

A body of literature has been developed on how new technology changes teaching and learning

and more generally, schools. Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) technological, pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK) framework has drawn attention to how the interaction between a person’s


knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content affect how a person integrates technology

into teaching and learning. Subsequent literature has extended the TPACK framework (Angeli

& Valanides, 2009; Lee & Tsai, 2010) and applied it for the improvement of teaching and

learning (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Schmidt et al., 2009). Additionally, the literature is replete with

frameworks (Davis, 2008) by which to categorize the integration of a school’s information

technology (IT) into its curriculum, which, broadly speaking, encompasses what is being or

should be taught in schools, as well as why and how it is being taught (Law & Plomp, 2003).

The literature has established different stages or degrees to which a school’s core technology

of teaching and learning is affected by new technologies. The literature (Zhao & Frank, 2003;

Davis, 2008; Law et al., 2011; Microsoft Partners in Learning, 2011) has also presented ways

to understand the interaction between actors in the technology in teaching and learning change

process. In particular, the ecological metaphor (Zhao & Frank, 2003) has been an influential way

to understand technology use and pedagogical innovation in education in terms of its species.

New technologies’ in teaching and learning affect school roles. A body of literature

has emerged on the new and changing school roles which facilitate technology integration in

teaching and learning in education. In the United Kingdom (UK) higher education context, a

body of literature (Oliver, 2002; Lisewski & Joyce, 2003; Ellaway et al., 2006; Davis & Fill,

2007) has emerged on the learning technologist role. In a similar way, literature that describes

the IT coordinator role in mainstream primary and secondary schools around the world (Law

et al., 2008; Davis, 2008) and, even, in the Hong Kong context (Law, 2000; Woodhead, 2009;

Harbutt, 2011), has emerged. Findings from these studies suggest that these school roles are

highly contextualized and influenced by individual and organizational factors.


Motivation for the Study

I study pedagogical technologists in schools because I am curious about the pedagogical

technologist phenomenon at the individual and organizational levels. Although I had been a

teacher for eight years and an IT coordinator for five of those years, and although I had been

a heavy user of Web 2.0 technology in my teaching and learning for the past several years,

I had not come across the pedagogical technologist role until 2011. At the 21st Century

Learning Conference Hong Kong, I met several pedagogical technologists: their role and their

personalities fascinated me because of their unfamiliarity. Likewise, their schools fascinated me

because the ways by which they operated did not resemble at all any school that I had worked

at in my career. From what I could gather at the conference, these pedagogical technologists’

schools had subsidized the conference fee not only for the pedagogical technologists but also

for other stakeholders such as teachers and principals. These schools were in the main scattered

across Asia and allowed these stakeholders to attend a conference in Hong Kong, on weekdays

no less. From these facts and from my previous study at the Master’s level of organizational

learning and change agency, I concluded that these schools were unique organizations capable of

supporting these unique, change agency roles. I want to investigate further these select people in

these select schools.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant for education practitioners and researchers. Many people do not

know about the pedagogical technologist. This is because the pedagogical technologist role is

emergent. This is also because the pedagogical technologist is rare. Most schools do not employ

one because most schools lack a suitable ecology to sustain one. As a result, there is a literature


gap on the pedagogical technologist. Nonetheless, the pedagogical technologist role in schools

is significant because it signals a shift in how teaching through IT is supported in schools, and

more generally, changes to the specific ways that schools think about IT in education. The

pedagogical technologist may signal the future for many schools: the more schools mature in

their IT use, the more pedagogical technologist role will be needed.

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on the pedagogical technologist, and

specifically, the pedagogical technologist’s identities in schools. In practical terms, participants

in this research can reflect on their and others’ professional identities. The readership can

reflect on their personal and professional identities in comparison with those described in this

study. In addition, this study’s findings on pedagogical technologist identities may influence

schools’ policies and practices concerning the pedagogical technologist. In the UK, this study

may have greater significance since the demise of the British Educational Communications and

Technology Agency (BECTA) has created a gap in research and reports to influence educational

technology policy and practice.

Methodology

This study is exploratory and adopts a qualitative approach to make meaning and understanding

(Merriam, 2009) of pedagogical technologists and, specifically, their identities in schools. More

specifically, this study adopts a multiple case study approach because the research phenomenon

of pedagogical technologist identities is highly contextualized. Besides, this research aims for

analytical generalization (Yin, 2003) about pedagogical technologist identities and not statistical

generalization about all pedagogical technologists and their identities. For those reasons, each

case can be considered a separate experiment.

The primary unit of analysis for each case would be the pedagogical technologist and


the sub-units would be identities. The research participants for this study are pedagogical

technologists and other stakeholders in primary schools in Asia. This author has access to

them and they comprise a purposeful, snowball sample, because the pedagogical technologists

can recommend others in the school and other technologists in other schools for the sample.

Nonetheless, there will be a focus on balance and variety (Stake 1995; 2010) in the cases. Data

would be collected through interviews by video chat and email as this author would be in the

UK for data collection. This study proposes three cases, each case comprising data from one

pedagogical technologist and at least three other people in the technologist’s school. One of

the other people will be the pedagogical technologist’s school head or an assistant school head.

Another will be a teacher. Each research participant would be interviewed at least once, with the

possibility of a follow-up interview.

Interview questions would be developed on the theoretical propositions for the

construction of professional identities. Data will be analyzed by pattern matching within those

same theoretical propositions (Yin, 2003). For each case, this study would examine such factors

on professional identity construction as the pedagogical technologist’s professional history, the

pedagogical technologist’s and others’ attitudes toward the profession, and the greater context of

the pedagogical technologist’s ecology in terms of scope and specific job activities and practices,

as well as school policies which influenced the creation of the pedagogical technologist role,

and the school background. This exploration of features also includes critical incidents which

influence or indicate pedagogical technologist identity. Key concepts will be identified and

tabulated in the discourse. Patterns which lead to specific identities can be found. Shared

patterns between cases can be considered a theoretical replication across cases (Yin, 2003).


Personal Statement

Finally, I learned about the MPhil program at the University of Cambridge from the University

of Hong Kong (HKU), which, through the HKU-Cambridge Hughes Hall Scholarships, sponsors

annually several HKU students to study at Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge. I am good

friends with a past HKU-Cambridge Hughes Hall Scholarship winner, Terence Wang, who

studied in the Faculty of Education at Cambridge, who had a fruitful experience, and who

recommended I apply. I reviewed the MPhil strands, contacted a possible supervisor within

the Faculty of Education for my MPhil study and have selected this individual strand for this

research proposal.


References

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the

conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.

doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding blended learning in a university's teaching culture:

Experiences and reflections. [10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00756.x]. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 38(5), 817-828.

Davis, N. (2008). How May Teacher Learning Be Promoted for Educational Renewal with IT?

In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in

Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20, pp. 507-519-519): Springer US.

Ellaway, R., Begg, M., Dewhurst, D., & Macleod, H. (2006). In a Glass Darkly: identity, agency

and the role of the learning technologist in shaping the learning environment. E-Learning,

3(1), 75-87.

Harbutt, D. (2011). A Report into the Use of ICT in a Primary School. Hong Kong.

Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Action:

A Case Study of a Middle School Digital Documentary Project. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200.

Law, N., University of Hong Kong. Centre for Information Technology in School and Teacher

Education., & SITES Hong Kong Study Centre. (2000). Changing classrooms & changing

schools : a study of good practices in using ICT in Hong Kong Schools. Hong Kong: CITE

Faculty of Education University of Hong Kong.

Law, N. W. Y., & Plomp, T. (2003). Curriculum and Staff Development for ICT in Education. In


T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. W. Y. Law & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national Information

and Communication Technology Policy and Practices in Education (Firs ed., pp. 15-30).

Greenwich, Conneticut: Information Age Publishing.

Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., Plomp, T., & International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use : in schools around the world :

findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Springer; Comparative Education

Research Centre the University of Hong Kong.

Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology : nurturing

leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.

Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological

pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web.

Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4

Lisewski, B., & Joyce, P. (2003). Examining the five-stage e-moderating model: designed

and emergent practice in the learning technology profession. Association for Learning

Technology Journal (ALT-J), 11(1), 55-66.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research : a guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Microsoft Partners in Learning. (2011). Innovative Teaching and Learning Research: 2011

Findings and Implications ITL Research (pp. 1-40).

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M., J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A

Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Oliver, M. (2002). What do learning technologists do? Innovations in Education & Teaching

International (2002), 39(4), 245-252. doi: 10.1080/13558000210161089


Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and

Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research : studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.

Woodhead, P. L., & University of Hong Kong. (2009). Digital natives v Swine Flu a study in

two halves : how adversity can drive change. Retrieved from http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkuto/

record/B44550212

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research : design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological

Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840. doi: 10.3102/

00028312040004807

http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkuto/record/B44550212


















Documents

Who are these guys!? Professional identities of pedagogical technologists in schools