Article abstract

Journal of Educational Research and Reviews
Research Article | Published July 2020 | Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 67-80.
 doi: https://doi.org/10.33495/jerr_v8i5.20.137

 

Have teachers’ perceptions regarding the pedagogical change in grade 6 mathematics lessons with ICTs altered over a 16-year period? A cultural-historical activity theory analysis

 

 

 

Joanne Hardman*
Warren Lilley
Email Author

 

School of Education, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa.

 

 

 

……..…....….....…………............……………..........…..……….........................……………………...............……………………………….....………………...
 Citation: Hardman J, Lilley W (2020). Have teachers’ perceptions regarding the pedagogical change in grade 6 mathematics lessons with ICTs altered over a 16-year period? A cultural-historical activity theory analysis. J. Edu. Res. Rev. 8(5): 67-80.
……..…....….....…………............……………..........…..……….........................……………………...............……………………………….....………………...

 

 

 

 Abstract 

 

This paper presents data from 4 teachers across 2 non-fee-paying schools in the Western Cape province of South Africa in relation to pedagogical transformation in mathematics lessons with Information Communication Technologies (ICTs). The paper is informed by the continuing lag in mathematics and science results recorded in South Africa post-apartheid. In order to address underperformance in these core 21st-century competencies, the government introduced Information Communication Tools (ICTs) into schools to improve students’ outcomes at the turn of the 21st century. However, research indicates that it is not the tool itself that leads to pedagogical change but, rather, how that tool is mobilized by teachers (Webb and Cox, 2004). Research is also clear that it is teachers’ perceptions of, and attitudes to novel technology that informs how they use this in their lessons. A cultural-historical framework (CHAT) is used to analyse teachers’ interview data in order to investigate: 1) whether teachers in 2019 feel that their pedagogical practices alter when using ICTs, and 2) if so, in what way these practices alter? and 3) whether teachers’ perceptions of the pedagogical impact of ICTs has altered over 16 years. Findings indicate that there are differences between face to face and computer-based lessons across time, with computer-based lessons moving from being about reinforcement in 2003 to teaching/learning spaces in 2019.

 

Keywords  Cultural-historical activity theory   teachers’ perceptions   pedagogical change  

 

Copyright © 2020 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.

This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0



  References

Author 1. (2008). “Researching pedagogy: An activity theory approach. “J. Educ. 45:63-93. ISSN 0256-0100.

Author 1. (2015). “Pedagogical variation with computers in mathematics classrooms: A Cultural Historical Activity Theory analysis”. PINS 48: 47-76. ISSN 2309-8708.

Asiri MJ, Mahmud R, Abhubaker K, MohdAyub AF (2012). “Role of Attitude in Utilization of Jusur LMS in Saudi Arabian Universities”.Procedia – Soc. Behavior. Sci. ”64(9):525-534.

Badia A, Meneses J, Sigalés C, Fàbregues S (2014). “Factors affecting school teachers' perceptions of the instructional benefits of digital technology”. Procedia-Social Behavior. Sci. 141(2014):357-362.

Chauhan S (2017). “A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students”. Comp. Educ. 105:14-30.

Cheung ACK and Slavin RE (2013). “The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: a meta-analysis”. Educ. Res. Rev. 9:88-113.

Cole M (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.

Condie R, Munro B (2007). The impact of ICT in schools – a landscape review. Coventry, Becta.

Conlon TJ (2004) “A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing global professional competence”. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 28(2-4):283-95.

Cox M, Webb M (2004). “Review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology”. Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 13:235-286.

Cubukcuoglu B (2015). “Factors enabling the use of technology in subject teaching”, [IJEDICT], 9(3):50-60.

Demir S, Basol G (2014). “Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Mathematics Education (CAME) over Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study”. Educational Sciences: Theor. Pract. 14(5):2026-2035.

Department of Education (2000). A South African Curriculum for the 21st century: Report of the Review Committee on Curriculum 2005. Pretoria.

Department of Basic Education (2009). Report of the Task Team for the Review of the Implementation of the National Curriculum Statement. Final Report. Pretoria: Government Printers. Available at: http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20091117-department-basiceducation-task-team-briefing/.

Du Plessis LE (2005). The implementation of Outcomes- Based Education in the Eastern Cape. A management perspective at micro level. Unpublished D.Ed. thesis, UNISA.

Engeström Y (1987) Learning by Expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Harley K, Vedekind V (2004). Political change, curriculum change and social formation, 1990 to 2002. In NUE Comment. Rapid Commercial Printers. Pretoria.

Higgins S, Xiao Z, Katsipataki M (2012). The impact of digital technology on Learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation full report. Durham University.

Hoadley U (2018). Pedagogy in Poverty. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680927.

Hutchinson A, Reinking D (2011). “Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States”. Read. Res. Quart. 46(4):312-333.

Jansen JD (1998). Curriculum Reform in South Africa: A Critical Analysis of Outcomes-Based Education. Available at http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/132/Jansen.

Karasavvidis I (2009). “Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies”. Comput. Educ. 53:436-449.

Karpov Y (2005). A Neo-Vygotskian Approach to Child Development. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Kuutti K (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 17-44.

Leontiev AN (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In: JV Wertsch (ed.). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Lim CP (2001). “Object of the activity systems as a major barrier to the creative use of ICT in schools”. Australian J. Educ. Technol. 17(3):295-312.

Lim CP, Hang D (2003). “An Activity Theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools”. Comput. Educ. 41:49-63.

Lim CP, Chai CS (2004). “An activity theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy”. Comput. Educ. 43(1):215-236.

Moodley G (2013). Implementation of CAPS: challenges and implications for teaching and learning. Unpublished Master’s thesis. UNISA, Pretoria.

Mwendwa NK (2017). “Perception of teachers and principals on ICT integration in the primary school curriculum in Kitui County, Kenya”. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 3(7):409-430.

Nardi B (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Piaget J (1976). To understand is to invent. Harmondsworth: Penguin Slavin RE, Lake C (2009). “Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best evidence synthesis”. Rev. Educ. Res. 78(3):427-455.

Slavin RE, Lake C, Groff C (2009). “Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best evidence synthesis”. Rev. Educ. Res. 79(2):839-911.

Smeets E (2005). “Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?” Comput. Educ. 44:343-355.

Smit B (2001). “How primary school teachers experience education policy change in South Africa.” Perspectives in Education, 19(3):67-84 Spaull N (2013). “Poverty and privilege: Primary school inequality in South Africa”. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 33:436-447.

Tamim RM, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Abrami PC, Schmid RF (2011). “What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study”. Rev. Educ. Res. 81(1):4-28.

Vygotsky LS (1986). Thought and language, revised edition. MIT Press; Cambridge: 1986.

Vygotsky LS (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M Cole, V John-Steiner, S Scribner & E Souberman (eds and trans), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (1976). “The role of tutoring in problem solving”. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 17:89-100.

Xie C, Wang M, Hu H (2018). “Effects of Constructivist and Transmission Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis”. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01923.

Zhao Y, Cziko GA (2001). “Teacher adoption of technology perceptional control theory “Perspectives. Technol. Teach. Educ. 9(1):5-30.