Australian Technical Teachers’ Experience of Technology Integration in Teaching

Sample

To select a sample, the relationship between the participants’ awareness and the purposes of the study is a vital criterion. Also crucial is the selection of an appropriate sample size. Marton and Booth (1997) suggested taking a small sample purposively from a particular large population. Trigwell (2000) stated that a minimum of 10 to 15 participants may provide possible variation in participants’ experience of a particular phenomenon. Variation in participants’ experience is an important aspect in this research approach. Therefore, it is necessary to choose participants from different levels of experience and features such as age, gender, disciplines, institutions, and so on, for maximum variation in the outcome space (Åkerlind, 2004; Green, 2005). For this study, guidance was drawn from existing phenomenographic literature, and 13 technical and vocational teachers from two TAFE institutions of New South Wales, Australia, were purposively chosen who had direct experience of using technology in blended contexts. To create a reasonable variation in experience of using technology in TVE, participants were selected from various disciplines and included participants with different levels of experience, age, and gender. This study obtained approvals of the Human Ethics Research Committees (HERCs) of the participating TAFE institutions and from the University of Sydney. The head teachers from the desired disciplines were requested to forward an invitation letter along with a Participant Information Statement (PIS) to all teachers in the department. The PIS clearly explained about the nature of research study and about their voluntary participation in this study. To meet the ethical requirement, participants signed the consent forms before their participation in this study. The main characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic Information.

Teacher ID	Gender	Discipline	Employment level	Teaching experience with technology (years)	Industrial/professional experience (years)
N01-I2	Male	Electrical	Full-time	21 or more	0-5
N02-I1	Female	ICT	Full-time	16-20	0-5
N03-I1	Female	Community service	Full-time	6-10	11-15
N04-I1	Male	Mechanical	Full-time	6-10	6-10
N05-I1	Male	Manufacturing and engineering	Full-time	16-20	0-5
N06-I2	Male	ICT	Full-time	21 or more	6-10
N07-I2	Female	Accounting	Full-time	11-15	0-5
N08-I1	Male	Event management and tourism	Part-time	0-5	6-10
N09-I1	Male	Information technology	Full-time	11-15	6-10
N10-I1	Male	Business studies	Full-time	0-5	16-20
N11-I2	Female	ICT	Full-time	6-10	6-10
N12-I1	Male	Business services	Part-time	6-10	21 and more
N13-I2	Female	Information technology	Full-time	0-5	6-10

Data Collection

Interviewing is one of the most preferred methods of data collection in phenomenographic research as interviews can provide rich data that can be probed as deeply as required (Åkerlind, 2012; Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997). Therefore, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted during the period September 2012 to April 2013, which provided the opportunity to explore teachers’ understanding of specific phenomena and also provided opportunities for clarification of data during interviews (Åkerlind et al., 2005; Bowden, 2005). The first author conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews that took place on a one-on-one interview basis. This study did not conduct any follow-up interviews by following Green’s (2005) recommendation that “unlike naturalistic inquiry where follow-up interviews are often used, phenomenography normally relies on one interview per participant” (p. 40). Each interview took 40 to 60 min and started with general questions about teachers’ experience of technology into their teaching such as “What is the usefulness of technology to you when it is used in teaching? What are the purposes of using technology in teaching practice?”

At the beginning of each interview, some structured questions were asked and mainly followed by “what-” type questions such as “What does teaching mean to you when technology is used in it?” As interviews moved further, some unstructured follow-up questions were also asked to encourage participants to explain further as well as to clarify their responses. For example, when a participant responded, “I like teaching through discussions by using technology,” the researcher asked, “Could you please explain that further? Why is it important? Could you provide more examples?” The main purpose of the interviews was to explore the experience of the TAFE teachers’ technology use for teaching as extensively as possible.

Data Analysis

In accordance with advice from existing phenomenographic literature (Bowden, 2005), the data analysis procedure for this research started after completion of all interviews. A digital audio recorder was used to record the interviews that were then transcribed verbatim to perform the analysis. There is no single technique for data analysis in phenomenographic research (Marton, 1986). For example, Sjöström and Dahlgren (2002) used seven steps for analyzing the data: familiarization, compilation, condensation, preliminary grouping, comparison, naming, and contrastive comparison. On the contrary, González (2010) employed five steps: reading interview transcripts several times to get familiarity with transcripts, focused reading and adding annotations, construction of an initial list of categories, rereading of transcripts with preliminary categories in mind, and finally, finalization of categories of description. It is imperative to state that these five steps do not conflict with Sjöström and Dahlgren’s (2002) seven steps. The later study employed a concise way to accommodate the former seven steps in university teaching where technology (eLearning) was focused. The current study chose to follow five steps of González (2010) in analyzing data as the main focus of both studies was on technology. The first step of data analysis was familiarization with the data to develop an understanding of the responses of the participants in the interviews. The first author made necessary corrections in the transcripts after reading the whole individual transcripts several times, which was common practice in this research approach (Bowden, 2000). The first author also prepared personal notes for each of the transcript including the participants’ demographic information. The accuracy of the transcripts corresponding to their audio files was carefully checked, and through this process, similarities and dissimilarities of responses were identified within the transcripts. The next stage involved the identification of similar answers given by the interviewees that were then linked to the relevant sections that were previously identified based on similarities and dissimilarities. The subsequent task was to determine preliminary categories based on their central meaning (Bowden, 2005) as well as the logical relation between categories (Marton & Booth, 1997). In this step, the first author followed an “open-minded attitude,” a common recommendation for phenomenographic data analysis (Åkerlind, 2005; Bowden, 2005; Prosser, 2000). This recommendation suggested that the categories of description should be discovered and should not be derived from existing frameworks or biases. The researchers discuss about the preliminary categories to ensure that there was no bias involved in analyzing the data as phenomenographic analysis ideally could be accomplished collaboratively (Marton & Booth, 1997). The preliminary categories were checked against the interview data, and the relevant quotations for each category were selected based on their core meaning. In this stage, the research team followed Bowden’s (2005) recommendations: (a) Except interview transcripts, we did not consider other evidence and (b) bracketing of our own conceptions relating to technology-enhanced blended teaching. To confirm the final outcome space, the end results of phenomenographic research, this study followed Marton and Booth’s (1997) recommendation of three criteria for judging the quality of the outcome spaces: (a) The individual category of outcome space should reflect something distinctive about the way of experiencing the aspect of the world, (b) the categories are logically connected in a relationship that is frequently hierarchical, and (c) the outcome space should be parsimonious. That is, the critical variation in experience is presented by as few categories as possible. Thus, the final outcome space was discerned depending on internal key features and elements shared among each category.

Reliability in this study was achieved through the use of appropriate methodological procedures to obtain quality and consistency in data collection and analysis (Åkerlind, 2012; Kvale, 1996). This study preferred dialogic reliability check along the line proposed by Åkerlind (2012), that is, to enact a reliability check in this research in which the interpretive steps provide a clear discussion with appropriate examples and incorporate details to clarify each step. After preliminary categories were decided on, these were discussed with the research team who had experience of phenomenographic data analysis (see the appendix). To further ensure reliability, all interpretive steps were discussed with the research team to confirm the emerged set of categories. Besides, as we mentioned earlier, quotations from interviewees were given to establish and support the final outcome spaces. The researcher team consulted with each other whenever any confusion was emerged.

Category A: Updating Teacher Knowledge

In this category, the role of technology in TAFE teaching is viewed as a way for teachers to update and seek further knowledge on a constant basis. Teachers generally use technology-supported tools to update two distinct aspects. First, every teacher’s knowledge is incomplete and requires updating. Knowledge in any discipline, for example, computer, electrical, mechanical, civil, is changing rapidly, thereby creating a pressure (external and internal) on a teacher to update their knowledge to cope with the changing pace. For example, the following extract indicates how teachers acknowledged the incompleteness of their knowledge as,

I use a lot Google [search engine], because during the time I prepare for my class, even I’m a teacher, but that doesn’t mean I know everything. I want find out [new information] and so I do research [on Google]. (N05-I1)

I also have access to lots of other sites to learn about materials used in this product [design a gearbox] and how to select materials for the design so I use other resources as well. So, I would say it’s mostly looking for the latest developments in material looking for latest technology and you basically get this information so quickly [by using the internet], ’cause you don’t have to look for books and stuff. So, it’s readily available and you can easily access and I use a lot of Internet resources. (N05-I1)

Second, due to the changing nature of knowledge, teachers continually need to update their resource materials. Every year, teachers generally update their lectures, class notes, and presentations. The participant teachers informed that they updated their resource materials by continually adding new information:

Well, every semester I update the programs that I use. I research for any additional new information to accumulate in it. (N12-I1)

Thus, in this category, TAFE teachers perceived technology integration as a way to add new knowledge to their teaching.

Category B: Ease of Communication

In the second category, the use of technology is seen as a means to communicate with students and among other teachers in TAFE. Specifically, teachers use different technology-supported tools to communicate easily and effectively. For example, many teachers use email, social media, communicator, text messaging, and module to communicate with students and colleagues. One participant teacher stated,

To relate with the students these days, because you can communicate with students better if you use ICT [technology]. It is faster. (N04-I1)

Technology, in this category, is also viewed as a tool for assessing students’ learning and a medium for occasional discussion and communication. For example, teachers use technology for uploading their quiz questions, assignments for students who later upload their completed assignments. Sometimes, teachers invite students to discuss online on a synchronous or asynchronous basis with students and/or other teachers. Teachers can also use technology for announcements about changes in quiz dates or a space for keeping in touch:

So that’s really how I use the ICT [technology] in that classroom. Submit the assignments, peer-to-peer evaluation, discussion forums, general repository of information where they get to do it back and forth, and communication tool between students and between the student and the teacher. (N01-I2)

So I can use them as a [sic], an intellectual resource or as a communicative resource. (N10-I1)

In brief, TAFE teachers perceived technology as a supportive tool for communicating with both colleagues and students, discussing occasionally with students in a synchronous and/or asynchronous basis and assessing students’ learning.

Category C: Effective Teaching

In Category C, the role of technology in TAFE teaching is considered as a way of delivering teaching effectively. Inside a classroom, students are coming from diverse backgrounds and have different skill levels—For example, some are slow learners or fast learners, some like presentations, some like reading, and some may have other learning preferences. In addition, students may have different knowledge backgrounds and have distinctive learning styles. Teachers therefore need to choose from a myriad of teaching tools that match with students’ learning styles. This awareness was derived from teachers’ responses such as the following:

I’m also aware that that’s [using one technology tool] not going to suit every learner in my classroom. I need to make sure that there are diverse applications, diverse methodologies in play to pick up all of the different learning preferences. (N09-I1)

What would be different is the approach that I take, obviously because people from those different cohorts [different backgrounds] have very different foundation, knowledge levels, and so I would have to adapt my presentation in accordance with that. (N07-I2)

In addition, this category indicates that teachers use various forms of technology to engage students in activities. The participants mentioned that one of the main reasons for using technology is to invite students to become involved in different activities such as quizzes, analyzing different problems, and summarizing concepts by using interactive smart boards and other ICT-supported tools:

So having an interactive smart board where they have to get up and do a quiz, tap the board, move things around and put things together. They can [do many things], it’s whatever works. That’s a thing really why we use and why we should use the technology. (N03-I1)

[I use] YouTube clips and then ask them to watch that video clips carefully, and then I actually ask them to answer the questionnaire before [watching the video] and after watching the video. They can answer certain questions [before watching the video], and after watching video they can answer most of the questions. So that is like an activity, watch video and answer questions. I found that they actually relate very well to that sort of resources. I can actually keep them engaged better . . . I think learning is bit more effective if teachers use such resources. (N05-I1)

In short, TAFE teachers, in this category, considered technology as an effective tool to enhance classroom teaching by offering various tools for enhancing their teaching.

Category D: Flexible Teaching

In this category, the use of technology is viewed as a medium for offering a flexible teaching and learning environment. The emphasis is on using technology to provide a relaxed platform for teaching more effectively in a wider range of contexts. In this category, there are two main reasons to use technology for flexible purposes. The provision of flexible opportunities for student learning is a primary goal—For example, students generally use various sorts of mobile devices such as smart phones, iPads, or other electronic devices in their learning. In most cases, they do not rely on printed material such as textbooks or hard copy study materials in or outside the classroom. They have either softcopy that is stored on their mobile devices or they prefer to go online to search for related information. Within this context, some teachers in TAFE offer flexible teaching and learning through mobile devices. Such interpretations were made from teachers’ responses such as the following:

Especially for the new generation, and the students who come to class with their iPhone, iPad and they do not carry any textbook. If we [teachers] give them more flexibility, more online resources, [it] will make their study easier. (N13-I2)

Some courses are offered in a blended mode—For instance, at the beginning of a semester, students need to attend regular classes to understand the course contents, objectives, and learning outcomes; to become familiar with class teachers; and to receive teaching instructions and learning materials for the next fortnight or other period. During this time span, teachers offer online teaching and resource material by using different technologies. Therefore, students can attend online classes from anywhere and at any time as explained by the following participant:

You [students] enroll, you come here every three weeks, we’ll give you update in face-to-face, but on the days which you can’t get in, use the Internet. You can read the lectures, you can view videos, you can work through examples, you can see work examples if you want. And see how they cope. It is the change of the working patterns that we can also address. (N05-I1)

In brief, this category showed a wider experience of using technology in TAFE teaching context. The use of technology is not limited to classroom teaching; rather it goes beyond the classroom context.

Relationships Among the Categories

The four categories ranged from a simple to a more sophisticated experience of the role of technology in TVE teaching. The first two categories are considered less sophisticated categories because the main focus is on technology-oriented teaching, whereas students’ conceptual development by involving active and flexible learning is given very little attention. Conversely, Categories C and D are seen as more complete when compared with the first two categories because the main focus of the teachers’ tasks shifted to students’ development by creating spaces for engaging them in active learning.

An additional important aspect that needs to be highlighted is that more completed categories (Categories C and D) include features ¹ (elements/components) that may not be found in less sophisticated categories (Categories A and B). The highest order category is the most inclusive in nature; that is, it generally includes elements from the other three lower order categories. In Figure 2, Category D is hierarchically above than the former three categories (Categories A, B, and C) and presents more sophisticated elements. For example, in Category D, the role of ICT is viewed not only as upgrading knowledge (A), communicating easily (B), and teaching effectively (C) but also as offering flexible teaching (D). Similarly, the Category C contains components from lower order categories, but it may not include elements from higher order Category D. That is, the use of ICT in Category C includes the various elements from previous categories. For example, using ICT for effective teaching in Category C is extended from the Categories A and B. More specifically, in Category C, upgrading teacher knowledge is an element similar to Category A, but its focus is not only related to upgrading knowledge (A) and communicating easily (B) but also related to teaching effectively (C). Therefore, Category C is hierarchically above Categories A and B, but it is lower than Category D. A similar nature is also found in Categories A and B. In this hierarchical relationship, Category A is less sophisticated than Categories B, C, and D; that is, Category A does not include components from Categories B, C, and D.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Hierarchical relationships.

Limitations

Before discussing the implications, we discuss the limitations of this study to highlight which particular aspects this study did not cover. The participants were recruited from two Australian TAFE institutes and were relatively small in number. However, a sample of 13 participants is not unusual in practice using a phenomenographic research approach. For example, González (2009) interviewed seven teachers about their conceptions of teaching online; Ho, Watkins, and Kelly (2001) interviewed 12 academics about their conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning. Moreover, the results depend on the setting or the context of each study; therefore, it may not be generalizable to other contexts. In addition, the aim of the phenomenographic research approach is not to provide generalizable results; rather, these studies focus on a particular phenomenon that needs to be investigated deeply to improve the existing situation. In addition, this study relied solely on interview data. What teachers said during their interviews might not be reflected in their teaching practices (Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002). However, many studies in the literature rely solely on interview data, and they have the capacity to contribute to existing theory and practices (Åkerlind, 2004; Ellis et al., 2009; González, 2009).