7.2.1 What factors influenced NQTs’ ability to integrate technology into their pedagogical practice?
In order to explore the factors that influenced NQTs’ ability to integrate technology into their pedagogical practice, concepts from the TPACK and UTAUT2 models, which formed the conceptual framework, were invoked to help organise, interpret and analyse the data. The TPACK model was found to be limited because it did not include social factors that could influence a teacher’s use of technology. The researcher adopted the UTAUT2 model instead. By using both education (TPACK) and consumer (UTAUT2) study models to frame the collection and analysis of the data, the researcher gained a comprehensive insight into factors that influenced the use of technology in the classroom.
The factors that affected the ability of NQTs to integrate technology can be classified into two broad themes, enabling and disabling factors.
Enabling Factors
The enabling factors that influenced NQTs’ ability to integrate technology included family, learner and colleague support; the availability and accessibility of technology; past experiences of deploying technology; the value of technology for teaching and learning, and the CAPS document.
Although it is yet to be reported in the national or international literature, the issue of family support as an enabling factor emerged in this study. One older teacher at a no-fee-paying school was assisted by her son, who encouraged his mother to use their family laptop at school because the school had limited resources. Since the son was being trained as a teacher, he could assist his mother to develop technology materials for her teaching. The teacher felt empowered to use technology because she had support from home that helped build up her confidence.
Learners supported their teachers in setting up technological equipment in the classroom, which saved instructional time. More proficient learners assisted in developing their peers’ technological skills, which relieved some of the burden shouldered by the teachers. Teachers often worked collaboratively with colleagues and shared technological course materials, and this served to facilitate and encourage the imaginative, confident deployment of technology. The availability and accessibility of technology, particularly in fee-paying schools, are important enabling factors identified in this study. These factors created an environment in which two of the teachers observed were able to blend technology, pedagogy and content knowledge in the way required for effective teaching with technology. During their lessons, these teachers used a social-constructivist approach, setting technology-based projects which encouraged their learners to work in groups and construct new knowledge. The teachers and learners had no time restrictions on their use of technology in the laboratories. Such activities required learners to take responsibility for their own learning. This finding confirms that some NQTs involved in this study are in fact making innovative use of technology for teaching and learning. This occurred in schools where teachers had an abundance of technological resources to support their teaching and learning. In schools where teachers had limited access to technology, they used their own personal equipment, which became an enabling factor.
Having stress-free access to a variety of technological equipment, including computer software and hardware, is a vital factor enabling teachers’ effective, innovative and creative deployment of technology in the classroom. When technology was freely available in schools NQTs frequently made use of it. Two of the six teachers observed, who taught in fee-paying schools, had considerable support of this kind from their schools. The schools’ management provided ‘facilitating conditions’ by making resources available. Teachers had access to their own laptops bought by the school, which they could take home to prepare lessons. Easy access to computer laboratories, with all the technology set up, and reliable technical support to maintain the computers, facilitated, and increased, teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. Regular hands-on professional development training allowed these teachers to explore the use of different pedagogies.
Past experience of using technology constituted another enabling factor. Many of the teachers mentioned that their past experience, in the form of workshops during their pre-service training at university, helped them become more confident and competent in the use of technology. Projects that required them to use technology, working with their mentor teachers during their Teaching Practice, and their experience in previous jobs all made it easier for teachers to integrate new and more advanced forms of technology into their professional practice. Some of these teachers were not pressured by the schools but used technology because of its benefits and as a result of previous experience of using it.
The nature of a particular subject area was a significant factor encouraging NQTs to use technology in their teaching. Most of the lessons observed by the researcher were EFAL lessons (the majority of teachers taught learners whose first language was either Afrikaans or isiXhosa). Using video clips in English lessons enhanced learners’ understanding of difficult concepts. Technology in this instance comprised an enabling factor because it added value to the teaching.
Another enabling factor in the use of technology was that teachers could employ technology to prepare PowerPoint lessons at home: instructional time was saved and teachers had more time to engage with learners during their lessons. Teachers saved their PowerPoint lessons on flash drives or computers, which made it easier for them to re-use the materials when teaching the same lesson to other grades. Teachers could update their notes and increase the font size to accommodate visually impaired learners. Technology in this instance proved invaluable when used in the classroom.
A significant factor identified in this study was the age of teachers. The six teachers observed in this study comprised both ‘digital immigrants’ and ‘digital natives’ due to their ages, yet they all used technology in their lessons; with varying degrees of effectiveness. The easier the technology, the more teachers will use it.
Some of the software programs installed on the computers in laboratories were aligned with the CAPS document and the subject areas. This encouraged the teachers to use the technology as it was perceived to be of direct benefit to learners’ understanding of the curriculum. In addition, some school manuals provided information about the CAPS curriculum and how teachers could incorporate technology in teaching particular content, saving them time to search for appropriate technology course materials.
Disabling factors
Most of the disabling factors were experienced by NQTs who taught at no-fee paying schools. These factors included learners who lacked a basic knowledge of technology; lack of funds; the challenge of having to buy and use their own laptops in the classroom; the apathy of principals; the challenges of a booking system; the time it took to find appropriate technology; their experiences during their pre-service training, and a lack of awareness of the e-Education policy. At no-fee-paying schools teachers commented that learners could not complete simple activities on the computer such as logging on or clicking on a page. This inability to master basic computer skills discouraged several teachers. Time that could have been used in the classroom to convey content knowledge of the subject was wasted on instructing pupils in the elementary points of computer literacy.
Other factors which discouraged teachers from using technology in the classroom included a lack of funds, as manifest in limited updating and upgrading of the technological equipment; the computers developing viruses which affected teachers’ personal documents stored on their own flash drives; limited or unreliable access to the Internet; computers that did not function well; limited technological support; access to the Internet restricted to administrators and principals. In two of the no-fee-paying schools, a disabling factor was that the computer laboratories were overcrowded, computers were obsolete or frequently froze, and electrical points were faulty. As a result of the lack of funds in the no-fee-paying schools, technology equipment was limited and had to be shared according to unsatisfactory timetables. This
discouraged teachers, who could not use the technology when they required it and felt that the time allocated to them was in any case too short.
In no-fee-paying schools, teachers spent large amounts of their own money purchasing technological equipment for use in their classrooms. NQTs are thus using technology for teaching and learning despite a lack of resources. Transporting personal equipment to school and back every day in crime-infested communities was a real challenge for these teachers. A further disabling factor was the lack of safety at school for storing this personal technological equipment. The fact that NQTs purchased their own equipment proves how committed teachers were to technologically driven tuition.
The teachers’ personal laptop screens were too small in a class of 40 or more learners, and this became a disabling factor. Learners had difficulty seeing, reading and hearing when a small projector was connected to a laptop. This resulted in disruptive behaviour during classes and the teachers had to spend instructional time managing learners’ behaviour.
Another disabling factor affecting teachers’ use of technology in the classroom was the apathy of principals regarding technology for teaching and learning. Many of the principals in schools were ‘digital immigrants’ and not interested in supporting their teachers’ use of technology. These principals had not received training to use technology and were indifferent about technical assistance, either to maintain the limited equipment or to assist teachers in their use of technology. In one school there was a technical assistant, but he was unreliable. He was a volunteer worker in the school and did not respond promptly to teachers’ requests for help. At another school, the principal gave the FP teachers preferential access to the limited technology because he believed that younger learners needed to be more visually stimulated. The IP teachers who were the participants in this study were discouraged from borrowing technological equipment. At another school the Science teachers were given preference to use the computer laboratory.
When teachers had to book to use the limited technology facilities available, they were discouraged from doing so. Although the arrangement gave all teachers an equal opportunity to use the technology, it did mean that teachers had to plan well in advance, and no spontaneous teaching using technology could be undertaken. When teachers did use the equipment, they were nervous that it might break and they would be held responsible for breaking it. This disconcerting consideration curtailed one particular teacher’s use of technology in her
teaching. The finding could be interpreted to mean that the appropriate ‘facilitating conditions’ were not in place at no-fee-paying schools; instead, teachers were required to expend considerable effort to use technology, which unsurprisingly discouraged them from doing so. Most teachers agreed that a lack of time to develop technology-related activities was a predominant factor in their reluctance to deploy technology. Due to their school work and the curriculum overload, many teachers resorted to downloading video clips from YouTube in their lessons. They reported that searching for appropriate technology materials online and integrating it into their teaching took time and was laborious. These teachers viewed technology integration as an ‘add-on’ to their normal teaching responsibilities.
A further disabling factor mentioned by many teachers in this study was that during their pre- service training, the focus was merely on content acquisition. They stated that the time allocated for technology courses was too little: they had had only six workshops during their four years of undergraduate training. One teacher mentioned that he was sent to a no-fee-paying school for his Teaching Practice which lacked a variety of technological resources to support his teaching. Although there were some technology facilities, student-teachers were not allowed to use them. Such negative experiences during Teaching Practice did not assist in preparing these teachers to teach effectively with technology.
During the data generation process, the researcher became aware that the teachers were not aware of the e-Education policy embodying the ICT vision for the country. One school had its own policy that obliged teachers to use technology in their teaching.
In conclusion, various enabling and disabling factors were identified, which either encouraged or discouraged NQTs to use technology in their teaching. Frequency of use appeared to be linked to the issue of school funding. At no-fee schools in the lower quintiles the use of technology was curtailed by logistical factors. At affluent schools the use of technology was widespread and largely effective. If teachers at no-fee-paying schools received pedagogical support there is every likelihood that more teachers would adopt and effectively integrate technology into their teaching and learning. If the teachers are self-motivated, they will overcome physical challenges such as the lack of school resources by purchasing their own equipment and using it for curriculum delivery.
7.2.2 Why are NQTs integrating technology into their pedagogical practice?
To answer Research Question Two, two key themes emerging from the findings are discussed: the pedagogical benefits for learners when technology is used for teaching and learning, and the pedagogical benefits for teachers. These findings are linked to the TPACK model and to the constructs of ‘performance expectancy’ and ‘hedonic motivations’ in the UTAUT2 model. As far as pedagogical benefits for learners are concerned, NQTs used technology to gain learners’ attention, to make lessons exciting and fun, and to improve their understanding of difficult concepts; to involve learners in collaborative learning, using creative strategies to increase learners’ self-confidence; and to teach learners how to search for credible and authentic information using the Internet. These findings correspond to the construct of ‘performance expectancy’ in the UTAUT2 model, since NQTs used technology because of the value it added to their lessons. All these themes will be discussed in the following section.
The teachers all used video clips in their classrooms to gain their learners’ attention. Four of the six teachers in this study taught in gang-ridden areas and indicated that their learners’ attention was not always on the lessons being taught. With technology, these learners became more focussed on the lesson, even excited about it, and engaged more in class activities. The technology was also pedagogically beneficial: videos increased the learners’ ability to understand difficult, abstract concepts, complemented the teachers’ explanations, and catered for the diverse learning needs of the learners.
Two of the teachers involved their learners in collaborative, authentic activities when they taught with technology. This active-learning pedagogy was clearly beneficial: it created an environment where learners sought assistance from their techno-savvy peers in the performance of creative tasks that required group members to search for information on the Internet, and type their tasks on Microsoft Word. Teachers uploaded tasks onto online platforms. The learners working in their groups enjoyed this pedagogical approach and apparently felt motivated to learn in the flexible and non-threatening environment. This style of teaching develops the social and technological skills needed for the 21st-century workplace.
The reason why these NQTs used technology in their teaching was to develop learners’ self- confidence through involving them in innovative technological projects. For example, learners completed technology-based projects that were posted on an online platform (a blog). Learners’ projects were thus published and shared with the school community. The teachers concerned
found that this boosted leaners self-esteem, and had a ripple effect. Learners became more motivated, participated more in class and communicated better. Even the most timid learners began to take part in class activities.
With so much information on the Internet, teachers taught their learners how to search for reliable information and use trustworthy sites when completing their assignments. This information is vital for IP learners to know, as they are exposed to a wide variety of both authentic and fake or untrustworthy information on the Internet.
As far as teachers are concerned, a major benefit accruing from integrating technology into their teaching and learning was that, by using collaborative and project-based strategies, they had more time to interact and engage with all their learners. The individual needs of learners were better attended to, and extra attention was paid to groups who struggled to complete technology tasks.
Through the use of technology project-based activities, learners could upload their assessment tasks online, which made marking easier: teachers could mark at any place or time if they were connected to the Internet. Another benefit to teachers was that, when they assessed learners using formative online activities, feedback was immediate. By assessing learners in this way, teachers could at once identify the learners who were struggling to understand the concepts being taught, and provide remedial action.
To conclude the answer to the second research question, the NQTs used technology because of its benefits for both teachers and learners. Yet despite their use of technology, which engaged the interest of learners and enhanced their understanding of the curriculum, some teachers, particularly in the no-fee-paying schools, lacked the ability to integrate technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. The researcher’s acquisition and integration of TPACK Model could be used when training teachers to enable them to teach effectively with technology.