Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach

Rodica Ailincai; Zehra Gabillon

doi:10.29333/ejmste/93380

Full Text (PDF)

Rodica Ailincai ¹, Zehra Gabillon ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Université de la Polynésie Française, EASTCO EA 4241, Faa’a, Tahiti, FRENCH POLYNESIA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This research work describes the first work-package of an exploratory study, which examined a group of elementary school teachers’ beliefs (representations) about digital technology in the French Polynesian context. The major objective of the study was to provide teacher education programmes with research-based information about the primary school teachers’ beliefs and practices about digital technology. The study based its theoretical assumptions about teacher beliefs on the social representations theory and its research design on the grounded theory. The data were collected via interviews using theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation methods. Interviewing and analysis procedures were implemented concurrently through the systematic use of coding and iterative analysis processes. Research results indicated that internal factors such as interest in technology, teachers’ DT skills and external factors such as support from administrators and technical maintenance played key roles in shaping teachers’ DT practices.

Keywords

digital technology in education
grounded theory
social representations theory
teacher beliefs
teacher education

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2018, Volume 14, Issue 10, Article No: em1595

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

Publication date: 12 Jul 2018

Article Views: 2992

Article Downloads: 3725

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Technology Integration and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among Preservice Teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670.
Abric, J. C. (1993). Central system, peripheral system: their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representations. Papers on social representations, 2, 75-78. Retrieved on 25 June, 2017 from http://www.psr.jku.at/PSR1993/PSR1993.htm.
Abric, J. C. (1994). Pratiques sociales et représentations [Social practices and representations]. Paris: PUF.
Aoudé, P. (2007). Formation initiale aux TIC des futurs professeurs d’école: entre représentation et évaluation [Initial ICT training for future school teachers: between representation and evaluation]. Revue électronique EpiNet (online journal), 100. Retrieved on 18 June, 2017 from http://www.epi.asso.fr/revue/articles/a0712a.htm.
Arnold, S. R., Padilla, M. J., & Tunhikorn, B. (2009). The development of pre-service science teachers’ professional knowledge in utilizing ICT to support professional lives. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75261.
Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: the grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x.
Baron, G.-L., & Bruillard, E. (1996). L’informatique et ses usagers dans l’éducation [IT and its users in education]. Paris: PUF.
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00096.
Becker, J. A., & Stamp, G. H. (2005). Impression management in chat rooms: A grounded theory model. Communication studies, 56(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970500181264.
Becker, P. H. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health Research 3(2), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300207.
Berney, J., & Pochon, L.-O. (2000). L’internet à l’école: analyse du discours à travers la presse [Internet at school: discourse analysis through the press]. Neuchâtel: IRDP.
Béziat, J. (2012). Former aux TICE: entre compétences techniques et modèles pédagogiques. [Training in ICT: between technical skills and pedagogical models]. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire / International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 9(1-2), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu.2012.207.
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1–2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802157972.
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (1996). Grounded theory. In J.A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-49). London: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J.A. Holstein, A.B. Marvasti, & K.D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 347-365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christidou, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2004). Constructing social representations of science and technology: the role of metaphors in the press and the popular scientific magazines. Public Understanding of Science, 13(4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044108.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593.
Cros, F. (1997). L’innovation en éducation et en formation [Innovation in education and training]. Revue française de pédagogie, 118, 127-156. Retrieved on 10 May, 2017 from http://www.persee.fr/doc/rfp_0556-7807_1997_num_118_1_1181.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813.
Deaux, K., & Philogène, G. (Eds.). (2001). Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Doise, W., Clémence, A., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, W. (1992). Représentations sociales et analyse des données [Social representations and data analysis]. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Durkheim, É. (1898). Représentations individuelles et représentations collectives [Individual representations and collective representations]. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, tome VI. Retrieved on 20 April, 2017 from http://sbisrvntweb.uqac.ca/archivage/13894689.pdf.
Duveen, G. (Ed.). (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Felder, D. (1989). L’informythique ou l’évolution des idées reçues sur l’ordinateur à l’école. [Computer science and the evolution of ideas about the computer at school]. Genève: Service de la recherche sociologique.
Ferrière, S., Cottier, P., Lacroix, F., Lainé, A., & Pulido, L. (2013). Dissémination de tablettes tactiles en primaire et discours des enseignants : entre rejet et adoption [Dissemination of tactile tablets in primary schools and statements of teachers: between rejection and adoption]. STICEF, 20. Retrieved on 10 February, 2017 from http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr/num/vol2013/10-ferriere-cren/sticef_2013_NS_ferriere_10.htm.
Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 learner’s beliefs: An overview. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(2), 233-260.
Gabillon, Z. (2012). Revisiting foreign language teacher beliefs. In Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3,190-203.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1994). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. New Jersey: Adline Transaction.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, JR. (1993). The voice of the consumer. Marketing Science. 12(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.1.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05279903.
Jodelet, D. (1989). Représentations sociales: un domaine en expansion [Social representations: an expanding field]. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les représentations sociales (pp. 31-62). Paris: Presses Universitaire de France.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2001). Social representations, public life and social construction. London: LSE Research Online. Retrieved on 25 September, 2017 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2649/1/Socialrepspubliclife.pdf.
Karsenti, T., & Larose, F. (2005). L’intégration pédagogique des TIC dans le travail enseignant: recherches et pratiques[The pedagogical integration of ICT in teaching: research and practice]. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Krause, M., Pietzner, V., Dori, Y. J., & Eilks, I. (2017). Differences and developments in attitudes and self-efficacy of prospective chemistry teachers concerning the use of ICT in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4405–4417. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00935a.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European journal of social psychology, 18(3), 211-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303.
Moscovici, S. (2000a). The phenomenon of social representations. In G. Duveen (Ed.), Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (pp. 18-77). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moscovici, S. (2000b). The history and actuality of social representations. In G. Duveen (Ed.), Social representations: Explorations in social psychology (pp. 120-155). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Paillé, P. (1994). L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahiers de Recherche Sociologique, (23), 147. https://doi.org/10.7202/1002253ar.
Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2003). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales [Qualitative analysis in human and social sciences]. Paris: Armand Colin.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170741.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537.
Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Methods for large scale assessment studies on ICT in education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp.1052-1066). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Philogène, G. & Deaux, K. (2001). Introduction. In K. Deaux & G. Philogène (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp.1-7). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pilkington, R. (2008). Measuring the impact of IT on students’ learning. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1003-1018). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & education, 58(1), 449-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028.
Riel, M., & Becker, H. J. (2008). Teacher leadership with information and communication technology. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 397-417). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Rinaudo, J.-L. (2002). Des souris et des maîtres. Rapport à l’informatique des enseignants [The mouse and the teacher: Report on teachers and ICT]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103255985.
Steiner, D., & Mendelovitch, M. (2017). “I’m the same teacher”: The attitudes of science and computer literacy teachers regarding integrating ICT in instruction to advance meaningful learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1259–1282. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00670a.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Summers, M. (1990). New student teachers and computers: An investigation of experiences and feelings. Educational Review, 42(3), 261–271. Retrieved on 22 March, 2017 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0013191900420304.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2.
Voogt, J., & Knezek, G. (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1003-1018). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. Retrieved on 10 January, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232489124_An_Attribution_Theory_of_Motivation_and_Emotion.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039001165.

How to cite this article

APA

Ailincai, R., & Gabillon, Z. (2018). Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

Vancouver

Ailincai R, Gabillon Z. Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(10):em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

AMA

Ailincai R, Gabillon Z. Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(10), em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

Chicago

Ailincai, Rodica, and Zehra Gabillon. "Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 10 (2018): em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

Harvard

Ailincai, R., and Gabillon, Z. (2018). Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380

MLA

Ailincai, Rodica et al. "Analysing Teachers’ Representations of Digital Technology Using a Grounded Theory Approach". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 10, 2018, em1595. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93380