Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baillie, C., Kabo, J., & Reader, J. (2012). Heterotopia: Alternative pathways to social justice. Winchester/Washington, DC: Zero Books.
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 1(1), 25–55.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P., & Unwin, L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68. doi:10.1080/0141192052000310029.
Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T. (2006). Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 641–653. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00605.x.
Hildreth, P. M., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (1998). Computer mediated communications and communities of practice. Paper presented at the proceedings of Ethicomp, Rotterdam.
Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Fransisco: Wiley.
Land, R. (2014). Liminality close-up. Durham: Durham University.
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
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Meyer, E. J., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Pierce, K. M. (2007). Betwixt and between: Liminality in beginning teaching. The New Educator, 3(1), 31–49.
Ross, J. (2011). Unmasking online reflective practices in higher education. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
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.
Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual (Vol. 101). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Phillips, M. (2016). Dispelling the Myth of Teachers’ Consensual and Coherent Use of Technology: Discussion, Deliberation and Dispute. In: Digital Technology, Schools and Teachers' Workplace Learning. Digital Education and Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52462-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52462-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52461-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52462-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)