Change at School K

Three teachers from School K attended the IP Language ePlay MakerSpace: IPL05, IPL07 and IPL17, and were subsequently interviewed. IPL05 and IPL07 self-diagnosed their pedagogic approach at the time as aligned with Quadrant A on the TCF, while IPL17 self-diagnosed her position as in Quadrant D. All three set the goal to teach using Quadrant C-type

transformative pedagogies. The formative evaluation of these three teachers’ participation, indicated that both IPL07 and IPL17 scored 2/3, while IPL05 scored 3/3. The different aspects of creativity measured in the artifacts they shared, were averaged to indicate the average creativity measured in each artifacts’ creation. The results of this are displayed in the accompanying graph (see Figure 14). Whereas IPL05 indicates more or less consistent scores, both IPL07 and IPL17’s creativity measures increased between Days 1 and 3 of the ePlay MakerSpace, with IPL17 showing the most significant increase.

178

The teachers at School K, in particular IPL05 and IPL17, effected change in different ways following the ePlay MakerSpace (IPL07 did not contribute during the interview). IPL05 found the tablets in the strong-room, and started using these in her class. She reportedly tried using the tablets with learners, wanting them to look up word meanings using an online tool, Word Me. However, the Wi-Fi would not support the number of devices due to bandwidth constraints, and so planned to swap time with the principal and let her learners look up words in the computer lab. She also showed learners how to use the app using her projector and laptop, which they then tried at home. In conversation with learners, she came to realize that despite her assumptions, many had access to mobile devices such as tablets, as indicated in her comments:

◊

179

39 learners there was about 12 (IPL17: yes) that put their hands up, that said but they do have tablets.

◊

◊

IPL05 consequently wanted to invite learners in the weeks after the interview, to bring their devices to school as part of a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) initiative.

IPL17 also reported using the school’s tablets. However, during the interview, she did not know what to call these and initially referred to the tablets as small computers, which I took to be notebooks but which it was established, were tablets. She used the Futurekids content to let learners find pictures of earthquakes and paste these into a MS Word document. Both IPL05 and IPL17 noted the frustration they experienced when trying to get learners to access the G/Drive or to use Edmodo, as learners required email addresses to access these. The learners at the school generally do not have email accounts, and since learners are not old enough to open their own Gmail accounts, they need to ask parents to open accounts for them. However, the literacy level and technological knowledge among parents, they noted, results in parents being unable to support them in this task. (This correlated with the teachers’ comments from School Z as well.)

IPL05 and IPL07 tentatively started using devices and in the process, experienced different challenges to this. IPL05 generated a novel solution to the challenge of device and internet access by inviting learners to bring their devices from home initiating a BYOD initiative. IPL07 implement novel pedagogic practices by letting learners work on the tablets to support curriculum delivery, which had not occurred in the school since the start of the year. Her actions can potentially be more closely aligned with innovation than creativity if applying Bateson and Martin’s (2013) definition. She innovated novel forms of behaviour

180

and ideas to obtain a practical benefit in the form of improved learning, which was then adopted by other teachers (following the IP Mathematics ePlay MakerSpace in October 2016). In both instances, tentative change had been affected in both creative and innovative ways, increasing their use of devices but without significantly changing their pedagogic orientation. Despite the lack of evidence for pedagogic change, the changes teachers implemented are changes they feel comfortable with and at the pace they feel they can manged.

The different examples of change described at School F, K and A, indicate that teachers planned and managed transformative ET integration and subsequent changes processes in an autonomous, self-directed manner. At School F, IPL15 planned and managed

transformative ET integration by designing learning to specifically target Quadrant C-type transformative pedagogies. School A’s teachers collaboratively created greater curriculum- based learning linkages between the work they did in class and what learners did in the computer lab, and also innovated systems to move to Quadrant D from Quadrant A in their pedagogic approaches. Teachers at School K chose to start substituting paper-based

activities with tablet-based activities, moving higher in Quadrant A and towards Quadrant D. They also inspired other teachers at their schools to attend the ICT Integration courses, and adopt similar pedagogic approaches. These examples indicate that teachers planned and managed transformative ET integration according to the local needs and priorities, and effected change to their teaching and learning practices, as indicated by their movement on the TCF. The results indicate that teachers’ dispositions were transformed in varying ways, and their continued feedback, indicates that this change has been sustained.