Dispelling the Myth of Teachers’ Consensual and Coherent Use of Technology: Discussion, Deliberation and Dispute
This is the second of two chapters that explore the influence of power and equality on teachers’ (non) use of digital technologies as part of their classroom practice. Unlike many ‘state–of-the-art’ examples evident in research and public discourse which suggest the consensual and inevitable acceptance of ‘ubiquitous’ educational technologies, this chapter explores the tensions that can and do occur when negotiating technology use. Drawing on empirical data, this chapter challenges the language and concepts inherent in terms such as joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire. In contrast, this chapter takes a critical perspective on these processes, which shape teachers’ TPACK enactment.
In contrast to processes characterised as joint, shared and mutual data and analysis presented in this chapter show how these can be thought of as discussion, deliberation and dispute. The second half of this chapter illustrates how these processes influence teachers’ (non) use of digital technologies in different ways as a result of individual identities within the community. The chapter concludes with illustrations of the way individual teacher identities can lead to inconsistent and incoherent (non) use of digital technologies in school workplaces.
- Baillie, C., Kabo, J., & Reader, J. (2012). Heterotopia: Alternative pathways to social justice. Winchester/Washington, DC: Zero Books.Google Scholar
- Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 1(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
- Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
- Hildreth, P. M., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer mediated communications and communities of practice. Paper presented at the proceedings of Ethicomp, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Fransisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Land, R. (2014). Liminality close-up. Durham: Durham University.Google Scholar
- Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199–217. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x
- Meyer, E. J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning—Ten years on. Oxford: OCSLD.Google Scholar
- Ross, J. (2011). Unmasking online reflective practices in higher education. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- Schwartzman, L. (2010). Transcending disciplinary boundaries: A proposed theoretical foundation for threshold concepts. In J. F. Meyer, R. Land, & C. Baillie (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 21–44). Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
- Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual (Vol. 101). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.Google Scholar