becta impact09 data reanalysed: e-maturity and ict adoption in uk schools

SIG: Learning and Instruction with Computers

Symposium: Educational technology acceptance- Explaining non-significant intention-behavior effects

An e-maturity analysis explains intention-behavior disjunctions in technology adoption in UK schools

Colin Harrison 1

Carmen Tomás 2

Charles Crook 1 1 Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham 2 Nottingham Trent University

1. Presents a reanalysis of the Becta Impact09 project * results

2. An ecological perspective leads to deeper understanding of technology adoption

3. Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity model provides additional granularity on adoption

4. Conflicting intentionality vectors are shown to create barriers to change

5. Bagozzi’s ideas on self-regulation explain some intention-behavior discrepancies.

* Crook, C., Harrison, C, Farrington-Flint, L., Tomás, C. & Underwood, J. (2010). The impact of technology: Value-added classroom practice. Final Report. Coventry: Becta.

Key points:

Harrison, Tomás and Crook - Intention-behavior disjunctions in technology adoption

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1771/1/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/reports/the_impact_of_technology.pdf

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1771/1/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/reports/the_impact_of_technology.pdf

ICT and learning: “explanatory case studies” How is ICT impacting learning?

Approach emphasizes: Ecology of learning Alternative representations of ICT for learning

Nine schools, each a national leader in ICT innovation: ICT across the curriculum personal computing learning platform/VLE

3-Phase data collection: PHASE I Deep audit of school and teacher recruitment [n=60 interviews] PHASE II Detailed teacher logs of individual lessons [n=85] PHASE III Interviews with teachers who submitted teacher logs to contrast representations of

their own teaching with those of two others [n=45]

1. The Impact 09 project


2. An ecological perspective on how the technological and pedagogical knowledge of teachers is changing the nature of learning

Updates to the learner model:- The learning environment; scaffolding- Freedom to initiate/select topics- Freedom to choose learning goals- Freedom to choose learning pathways- Freedom to select resources

Updates to the pedagogical model:- Freedom to regulate learning:- When?- How?- With whom?- For how long?

Updates to the feedback model:- Monitoring models- Volition models- Motivation models- Evaluation models- Assessment models


3. What is the anticipated ‘end-state’ of adoption?

Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity model provides additional granularity

• An ecological model captures some of the complexity of learning models, but does not necessarily provide data on causal factors

• Jean Underwood’s ‘e-maturity’ evaluations have explored the learner, teacher and system-level factors that impact adoption at an institutional level.

• We were particularly interested in Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity, which focused on the extent to which there was robust and system-wide institutional adoption of technologies for learning that linked student, home and school.


3. The need for a re-analysis:Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity model provides additional granularity on adoption

• Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity (Underwood, 2007)



• Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity (Underwood, 2007)

Where did we find this level of

• linkage e-maturity?

What intention-behavior vectors

were associated with this

level of adoption?

Could conflicting intention-

behavior vectors explain

an absence of linkage e-maturity?



Re-analysis of 35 hours of interview data from 4 schools:

Lowmoor School: full linkage e-maturity

Duke’s Wood School: teacher-level issues: uneven teacher buy-in to adoption

Birdsall School: teacher- and student-level issues: uneven teacher and student engagement with technology

Barleycroft School: system-level issues: adoption delayed by incomplete infrastructure


Full linkage e-maturity:Lowmoor School

An integrated system that brought together learning, teaching and assessment for every teacher and student across the school sets student expectations organizes student work uploads resources linking to students’ timetables monitors students’ progress strong school-home links


The scheme of work in Art for the term All the teacher’s lesson plans for the term All the resources to support each lesson Every upcoming homework Resources to support their homework Information on their progress in each subject

The students were able to see,

in class and from home:


Updates to the learner model:

“I hope you don’t mind… I’ve done the next three pieces of homework that you’ve set and I’ve also worked two or thee pages ahead. Is that alright?”



Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity (Underwood, 2007)





level of adoption?





4. Intentionality and adoption

Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity (Underwood, 2007)





level of adoption?





4. Intentionality and adoptionWhat intention-behavior vectors were associated with ICT adoption?

Head teacher vision- coupled with determined policy: ‘ICT and learning, interactive learning, [is] happening in every curriculum area, in every classroom, in every lesson every day of the week, all the time.’ (Head teacher, Lowmoor School)A clear understanding of the need for anytime-anywhere learning: ‘If the child doesn’t learn at half past two on a Thursday, for whatever reason, they ought to have the facility to be able to revisit that lesson in their own time and at their own pace’. (Head teacher, Lowmoor School) Emphasis on self-regulation: ‘You need to be a person who can allow the power to sort of flow to the children … kids are … far more proficient in finding their own information and sorting out how they want to learn’. (Head teacher, Lowmoor School)


4. Intentionality and adoptionIntentionality-behavior vectors in other schools:Head teacher vision outsourced: ‘‘We’ve not been huge on the “anytime-anywhere learning” thing.... It doesn’t work as well as those who have an interest in promoting this would claim.’ (ICT consultant, Duke’s Wood School)Conflicting intentionality vectors: ‘It should be the students who are picking … the ICT to use’. . (Head teacher, Birdsall School)

‘Should students decide when to use laptops? I’m not convinced.’ (Deputy head teacher, in charge of school curriculum, Birdsall School)

[Moodle] is all very well and good, but …apart from me, the last person that used it was 66 days ago… (Head of department, Birdsall School) Intentionality vectors congruent, but implementation takes time: Why do children necessarily have to turn up and be in a building to learn… I don’t know. Maybe there’ll be more flexibility in terms of how the curriculum’s organized.… It could well be that mobile technologies allow students different ways of learning. (Senior manager, Barleycroft School)


5. Bagozzi’s (2007) argued for a socio-contextual paradigm shift to explain intention-behavior discrepancies.

More emphasis on understanding end-state goals: ‘‘We’ve not been huge on the “anytime-anywhere learning” thing.... It doesn’t work as well as those who have an interest in promoting this would claim.’ (ICT consultant, Duke’s Wood School)

Deeper analysis of intentionality vectors across the ecosystem: ‘It should be the students who are picking … the ICT to use’. . (Head teacher, Birdsall School)

‘Should students decide when to use laptops? I’m not convinced.’ (Deputy head teacher, in charge of school curriculum, Birdsall School)

[Moodle] is all very well and good, but …apart from me, the last person that used it was 66 days ago… (Head of department, Birdsall School)

Intentionality is determined by self-regulation: Why do children necessarily have to turn up and be in a building to learn… I don’t know. Maybe there’ll be

more flexibility in terms of how the curriculum’s organized.… It could well be that mobile technologies

allow students different ways of learning. (Senior manager, Barleycroft School)

Self-regulation is ‘transcendental’ (agency is not always explicable): The teleology of technological change operates through human and systemic causal systems, with deterministic processes that are often felt and presumed rather than agentive


1. Presents a reanalysis of the Becta Impact09 project * results

2. An ecological perspective leads to deeper understanding of technology adoption

3. Underwood’s ‘linkage’ e-maturity model provides additional granularity on adoption

4. Conflicting intentionality vectors are shown to create barriers to change

5. Bagozzi’s ideas on self-regulation explain some intention-behavior discrepancies.

*Crook, C., Harrison, C, Farrington-Flint, L., Tomás, C. & Underwood, J. (2010). The impact of technology: Value-added classroom practice. Final Report. Coventry: Becta.

Key points:


SIG: Learning and Instruction with Computers

Symposium: Educational technology acceptance- Explaining non-significant intention-behavior effects

An e-maturity analysis explains intention-behavior disjunctions in technology adoption in UK schools

Colin Harrison 1

Carmen Tomás 2

Charles Crook 1 1 Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham

2 Nottingham Trent University

Thank [email protected]

[email protected]

becta impact09 data reanalysed: e-maturity and ict adoption in uk schools

Education

level of adoption

crook intention

level of linkage ematurity

impact adoption

ematurity analysis

absence of linkage e

adoption reanalysis

intentionbehavior vectors