Driving Forces for ICT in Learning
Chapter 1.6
Driving Forces for ICT in Learning
Alfons ten Brummelhuis,
Kennisnet Ict op school Foundation,
The Netherlands
Els Kuiper,
Dept. of Theory and Research of Education, VU University Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Abstract: Educational change has some reason for taking place. Those reasons are driving forces. Based on a conceptual framework representing the key elements of learning process, this chapter discusses four driving forces for the use of ICT in learning: the teacher, the learner, the learning content and the learning materials. A learning process is seen as the result of both structural conditions (of content and materials) and individual characteristics (of teacher and learner). We argue that the dominance of each driving force can be seen as an instructional paradigm for learning. In order to illustrate the mutual influence and dependence of the driving forces, we elaborate an example of the way driving forces interact. In a final section, we discuss some major implications derived from the various paradigms of ICT in learning and the controversies teachers face when integrating ICT in classroom practice: technology push versus educational pull, and the necessity of leadership and personal entrepreneurship.
Keywords:driving forces, educational change, technology push, instructional paradigm, educational pull
1. Introduction
Information and communication technology (ICT) has a prominent place in students’ lives. In western societies, students grow up in an information society, using all sorts of ICT applications. Blogs, social networking sites, and interactive games have created new modes of interaction and expression. Intensive use of ICT is fully integrated in their daily lives. The rise of this so-called ‘digital generation’ poses serious questions for teachers with regard to the use of ICT in education and ways to stay connected with their pupils. In order to build a bridge between the educational system and the digital generation, most schools have invested in the availability of an ICT infrastructure. As a result most teachers in western societies have computer facilities at their disposal for their lessons (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999; Kozma, 2003; Balanskat, Blamire & Kekela, 2006).
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the availability of an adequate ICT infrastructure, while necessary, is not in itself a sufficient condition for effective use of ICT in education. At many schools, teachers are struggling with the question how to use ICT for instructional purposes. In this chapter, various driving forces and contrasting issues on using ICT in education for teaching and learning are discussed on the basis of a conceptual framework.
2. Conceptual Framework
For a good understanding of the role and potential of ICT for learning, it is necessary to identify the key elements or driving forces underlying a learning process. Driving forces are responsible for changes in the arrangement of a learning process. Four key elements determine the learning process: the teacher, the student as a learner, the learning content and the learning materials (Plomp, Ten Brummelhuis & Rapmund, 1996; Voogt & Odenthal, 1997). Figure 1 presents the key elements of the learning process and the influencing components. The horizontal dimension represents the relation between the actors in the learning process: the teacher and the learner. The vertical dimension represents the learning infrastructure, consisting of content in terms of what has to be learned and learning materials, including ICT infrastructure. The learning process takes place at the cross section of these dimensions, as a result of the interplay between the four driving forces: teacher, learner, content and materials. The level of school organization and management, represented by the outer boxes, provides the context or environment of the learning process. The figure illustrates the view that a learning process is the result of both structural conditions derived from the school environment and the learning infrastructure, and the individual characteristics of the actors and their interaction.
Figure 1: Driving forces of ICT in the learning process
(Plomp, Brummelhuis & Rapmund, 1996; Voogt & Odenthal, 1997)
The arrangement of the learning processes can be approached from different angles. If the main driving force is learning content, complementary attention has to be paid to learning infrastructure, learner characteristics and the role of the teacher. By the same token, the choice of learning infrastructure, the learner characteristics or the role of the teacher may also be the main driving force. We argue that the dominance of one of the driving forces is not neutral in relation to the ultimate arrangement and results of the learning process. The dominance of a driving force can be seen as an instructional paradigm for learning. Within this context, an instructional paradigm is defined as a set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them (derived from American Heritage Dictionary). When inconsistencies arise within a given paradigm or when an instructional paradigm no longer meets the demands of society, other driving forces may gain in importance in order to create new arrangements that solve the unsolvable problems of the old paradigm. A substantial change can therefore be called a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1970) and implies new assumptions, views, expectations and standards of practice for the arrangement of learning processes.
In the next section, we first elaborate on the four separate components or driving forces that influence the learning processes at classroom level, focusing on the actors (teacher and learner) and factors (content and infrastructure) which mediate learning processes involving ICT. However, all four driving forces work together to affect the ultimate arrangement of these learning processes. This implies that finding a balance between the driving forces is important for learning to take place. In Section 3, therefore, we will focus on some examples of conflicting issues that can be found in educational practice and that illustrate the consequences of taking one particular driving force as starting point.
2.1 ICT Infrastructure as Driving Force
If a learning process is driven by capabilities of technology without any specific need from the perspective of the teacher, the learner or the learning content, it refers to technology push. Technology push starts with the acquisition of ict-materials and then appropriate applications are sought that fit into a learning process. If a learning process is not driven by technology but led by the demand or need of the teacher, the learner or learning content it refers to ‘educational pull’. The concepts technology push and educational pull refer to two well-known positions connected with the relation between technology and education: the belief which regards technology as a catalyst for educational change versus the belief that technology has to follow educational needs.
The underlying assumption of ‘technoloy push’ is the expectation that the availability of ICT materials is a powerful driving force for implementing ICT in education. During the past decade this approach was dominant in many countries with regard to the introduction of ICT in education (Plomp, Anderson, Law & Quale, 2003). As a result many schools have invested in ICT infrastructure and in ICT materials and superimposed them on traditional materials and teaching methods, without changing existing educational practices. In addition, many countries have established national or regional portals that offer content for teaching and learning. The assumption is that providing rich sources of digital information will enhance the transfer of knowledge (Digital Media Project [DMP], 2006). Easy access to vast quantities of educational content is seen as an enabler for schools to implement new pedagogical methods for teaching and learning. The availability of an ICT infrastructure is expected to boost the use of ICT and the transformation of learning processes within schools. An illustrative list of national or regional portals can be found for example at or Advocates of technology as a driving force also mention that digital content is easier to find, to access, to manipulate, to remix and to disseminate (DMP, 2006). It is also argued that digital content and the corresponding digital distribution methods permit students:
-convenient access to learning materials;
-quicker turnaround for time-sensitive work;
-use of hypertext to allow access to more detailed information;
-incorporation of audio or (archived) video clips;
-collaborative discussion of work on an ongoing basis (e.g. submitting responses, linking to other resources).
Furthermore, according the Digital Media Project (DMP, 2006) it is expected that ‘open’ forms of digital learning allow efficient creation and distribution of varied educational content. Open forms of learning will allow everyone to become teacher as well as student, as illustrated by the rise of Wikipedia. It is a development which, according to this view, will reduce the involvement of traditional institutions such as schools. However, it also presents problems in terms of monitoring the quality of content, protecting the copyright system that acknowledges the creator of an original work and striking a manageable balance between supply of digital content and actual use (DMP, 2006).
The availability of an ICT infrastructure is seen as the foundation for what is variously referred to as digital learning, ubiquitous learning and life-long learning. Technology provides the opportunity to learn beyond the formal institutions of schools and to involve everyone, at any time, and at any place with Internet access. According to this view, technology expands opportunities for learning by bringing real-world problems into the classroom and providing possibilities for building local and global communities that include teachers, students, parents and experts (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000).
The dominant approach of stimulating ICT infrastructure in the past decade is reflected in many studies that have tried to measure ICT integration into education in terms of infrastructure and access, such as availability of computer hardware, the pupil-computer ratio, the average number of computers per school and levels of connectivity and bandwidth (Balanskat et al. 2006).
The results of policy programmes aiming at improving the ICT infrastructure show the risks of technology push: technological applications that do not meet the pedagogical needs of either teachers or learners and that do not fit within the school organization (Brummelhuis, 2006). Furthermore, ICT in education is mainly used as a replacement within existing practices in teaching and learning. The contribution that the provision of ICT materials to schools and teachers has made to the implementation of innovative practices seems to be limited (Kozma, 2003). The creative potential of ICT usage and the use of ICT for communication with and between pupils is still in its infancy (Balanskat et al., 2006). More and more evaluation studies on the impact of ICT on learning reveal that the benefits of ICT cannot only remain technology driven but should be in balance with other preconditions such as the pedagogical beliefs and skills of teachers (Balanskat & Blamire, 2007; Machin, 2006; Kennisnet Ict op School, 2006; Harrison et al., 2002; E-learning Nordic, 2006). The dominant approach of integrating ICT in education through the large-scale acquisition of ICT materials and ICT infrastructure raises the question ‘Are computers in schools worth the investment?’ (Cuban, 2001).
2.2 Content as Driving Force
This driving force takes learning content as the dominant feature of the learning process. From this perspective, setting clear targets and instructional goals for student learning is the starting point in the design of the learning process, which is arranged according to the following key questions (Atkin, Black & Coffey, 2001):
-What do you want to learn?
-Where are you now?
-How can you get there?
-How do we test what you have learned?
In this orientation, the main purpose of the learning process is to introduce students to learning content such as subject matter disciplines. The content and level of knowledge is predefined and students have to meet these learning goals or quality standards. For teachers this approach implies the understanding of learning continua in order to monitor and support the learning process on the basis of assessments. This driving force was important in traditional forms of schooling that treat learning goals as a fixed commodity. Knowledge has to be delivered by teachers and for that purpose the teacher makes use of supporting materials. The curriculum is laid out in a fixed sequence and every student goes through the same schedule, which is planned beforehand. In order to obtain feedback about student progress, the teacher makes use of standardized tests and assessment. This is an assessment-centred learning design and learning is seen as arriving at an understanding of a predefined body of general knowledge.
The setting of high levels of learning goals and examinations is in the general interests of the business community and the job market. Not all students are able to meet these goals, and some members of this group are turning away from school. In order to reduce drop-out rates and to make school more attractive for students, both educational policy and practice are interested in other approaches to learning which focus on meeting learners’ interests to a higher degree. ‘Teaching for understanding’ is based on a different assumption about learning and learning goals. It assumes that knowledge is a human construct and that learners must play an active part in changing their minds, making sense, connecting prior ideas with new ones, thinking actively about what they learn, and creatively applying knowledge in novel situations (Bransford et al., 2000; Wiske, Sick, & Wirsig, 2001). According to this view, the function of assessment is to provide feedback to learners with recommendations for improvement. This feedback is provided by the teacher in the role of a coach, as well as by peers and self-assessment. In this conception, the goal of learning is to construct knowledge and this process calls for a mix of suitable educational media together with the presentation of information and arrangement of practice and feedback (Merrienboer & van Kester, 2004). According to Merrienboer en van Kester, this type of complex learning calls for an instructional model consisting of four interrelated components:
-learning task: meaningful whole-task experiences that are based on real life;
-supportive information: information that is supportive to the learning and performance of problem-solving and reasoning aspects of learning;
-procedural information: information that is prerequisite to the learning and performance of routine aspects of learning;
-part-task practice: additional exercises for routine aspects of learning tasks for which a very high level of automaticity is required after the instruction.
The above components cover two different types of learning goals: deep versus surface (Biggs, 1996). Deep learning is associated with interest in the learning content and searching for meaning by the learner. This kind of learning is driven by an intrinsic motive to seek meaning and understanding. Surface learning is characterized by acquiring sufficient knowledge to complete tasks and by meeting predefined knowledge. As such, a student relies on memorization and reproduction of knowledge. This approach is often driven by an extrinsic motive to gain a certificate or to pass an exam.
2.3 The Teacher as Driving Force
The role of the teacher can be defined as creating conditions for learning. It is evident that, in this process, a teacher makes choices based on a particular set of pedagogies or his vision of teaching and learning (see also Dede, 2008 in this Handbook). This means that, within the context of the school and the social environment, the teacher is responsible for realizing the best fit between the professional qualities of the teacher himself on the one hand and learner characteristics, learning goals and learning materials on the other hand.
A key pedagogical question is to ask which learning activities are under the control of the teacher and which activities are more the responsibility of the learner. The activities of the learning process for which responsibility and control have to be divided between teacher and learner cover three main tasks: preparatory activities, instruction and regulatory activities (Simons & Zuylen, 1995). The preparatory activities cover orientation towards learning goals and learning activities, including generating interest and getting started. Instruction includes building knowledge, practising skills, reflecting, formulating conclusions and relating to what is being learned. Finally the regulatory activities refer to monitoring progress, generating feedback and evaluating results in order to improve learning.
When the teacher is mainly responsible for choice of learning activities and transmission of knowledge, this is referred to as externally regulated or teacher-centred learning. If the learner is mainly responsible for the learning activities, this is referred to as self-regulated learning or student-centred learning (Boekaerts, 1997; Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2003). The learner-centred approach is described in more detail in Section 2.4.
Research results show a strong association between the use of ICT and the pedagogical beliefs of teachers (Riel & Becker, 2008; Drent, 2005). Teachers who believe their role is to transmit an externally mandated curriculum through a highly controlled pedagogy tend to avoid computers; teachers who support collaborative learning and individual student work on topics of personal interest tend to use computers frequently (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). Findings in a study on effectiveness of reading and mathematics software show that teachers using selected software products were more likely to facilitate individual student learning rather than lead whole-class activities (Dynarski, et al., 2007). On the other hand, an interactive whiteboard can be an effective medium for teacher input to whole-class activities and an effective medium to support teacher-led group work (Smith, 2001). These results show that effective use of ICT is not related to a teacher-centred or a learner-centred approach. Teachers linked with effective use of ICT in the learning process are able to find coherence between teaching style, learning content and ICT materials (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002).
2.4The Learner as Driving Force
The basic principle of the learner as driving force in the learning process is finding a connection with student characteristics and students’ needs in learning. This means that the teacher gives primacy to the strengths and interests of learners in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Bransford et al., 2000). The learning process provides personally satisfying experiences for the learner. In this perspective, there is widespread agreement on several educational ideas. These include constructivism, authentic problem-solving and life-long learning (Bereiter, 2002). Learners are stimulated to express, experiment, make mistakes, obtain feedback and discover. In order to create challenging learning situations, the teacher needs a thorough awareness of the basic cognitive processes that influence the learning process, such as motivation, attention, information processing, comprehension and transfer (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). This paradigm moves the concept of learning beyond the rote memorization of facts to learning as a process of knowledge creation (Kozma, 2003). It envisions a learning process in which students set their own goals, plan their activities and select their learning materials. Students also monitor their levels of mastery and understand what is referred to as metacognition (Bransford et al., 2000).