Social Contexts,Defensive Pedagogies,and the (Mis)uses of Educational Technology

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing body of research exploring the importance of the social context in shaping the use of educational technologies. It presents the results of a 3 1/2 year instrumental case study examining the power of the social context to shape, in negative ways, the use of technology in one urban elementary school. Three unsuccessful dynamics are identified that serve to block effective instructional uses of computers and these behaviors are related to what Linda McNeil described as “defensive teaching.” These unsuccessful interactions, it is argued, represent actors’ efforts to resolve the dilemma of how to get through the day without confronting the overwhelming instructional tasks teachers and students at the school face. The authors conclude by noting that the use of technology did not strongly shape the interpersonal and political dynamics involved and that similar types of defensive teaching and learning can be found in educational situations without technology.

Keywords

educational technology social context

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bromley, H., & Shutkin, D. (Eds.). (1998). Social power, science & technology, and education [Special issue]. Educational Policy, 12(5).

Brown, M. , & Edelson, D. C. (1998). Software in context: Designing for students, teachers and classroom enactment. Retrieved March 21, 2003, from http://www.letus.org/PDF/MB_DCE_ICLS_1998SoftInConte.pdf

Byrom, E. (1998). Reviewof the professional literature on the integration of technology into educational programs. Retrieved December 21, 2002, from http://www.serve.org/technology/litreview.html

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosingamongfive traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in high school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fordham, S. , & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting White.’” Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.

Garrison, M. J. (2003). Expanding the notion of social context in educational technology research: Notes from the field. Welsh Journal of Education, 12(1), 23-35.

Heafner, L. A. , Zembal Saul, C. , & Averaamidou, L. (2002, April). Supporting prospective elementary teachers in developing scientific explanations using “Progress Portfolio.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Kimble, C. (1999, May). The impact of technology on learning: Making sense of the research (Policy Brief). Aurora, CO: Mid Continent Research for Education and Learning.

10.

Kohl, H. (1998). The discipline of hope: Learning from a lifetime of teaching. New York: Simon & Schuster.

11.

Lévi Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Loh, B. , Radinsky, J. , Russell, E. , Gomez, L. M. , Reiser, B. J. ,& Edelson, D. C. (1998). The progress portfolio: Designing reflective tools for a classroom context. In Proceedings of CHI 98 (pp. 627-634). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

13.

McDermott, R. P. ,& Gospodinoff, K. (1979). Social contexts for ethnic borders and school failure. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Nonverbal behavior: Applications and cultural implications (pp. 175-195). New York: Academic Press.

14.

McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

15.

Miles, M. ,& Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Ogbu, J. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312-334.

17.

Songer, N. B. , Lee, H. ,& Kam, R. (2002). Technology rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.

18.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Thompson, J. K. , Gersick, A. , Kim, C. ,& Honey, M. (2003). Toward a sustainability framework: Lessons from the literature and the field. In N. Dickard (Ed.), The sustainability challenge: Taking edtech to the next level (pp. 27-46). Retrieved March 21, 2003, from http://www.benton.org/Library/sustainability/sus_challenge.pdf

20.

Weis, L. (1990). Working class without work: High school students in a de industrializing economy. New York: Routledge.

21.

Weis, L. , & Fine, M. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in United States schools. Albany: State University of New York.

22.

Zembal Saul, C. , & Land, S. (2002, April). Scaffolding the construction of scientific arguments by prospective teachers using inquiry empowering technologies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.