Session Information
Contribution
In spite of the considerable efforts made and the resources allocated for enhancing the use of technology to support learning, as it has repeatedly been shown (Balanskat and others, 2006; Law and others, 2008) technology by itself does not produce the claimed educational change and learning improvement (Järvelä, 2006). The persistent rules of the grammar of schooling (Tyack and Tobin, 1994) seem to represent a definitive barrier to the transforming potential of this technology (Sancho and others, 2004; Blin and Munro, 2008; Martínez and Correa, 2009) which in general does not challenge traditional teaching and learning approaches. Within these teaching and learning approaches lies a representation of “pupil” that naturalises this socio-historical construct, resulting in a search for some sort of “ideal” student, while controlling, restricting and over-viewing the “real” one coming to schools (Lesko, 2001; Stevens, 2005).
On the other hand, children and young people are living in settings literally bombarded by aural, visual and sensorial stimuli providing them with very distinctive life and learning experiences, which are often neglected or rejected by the unchanging structures and orientations of schools. According to Twenge (2006), those who were between the ages of 7 and 36 in 2006 belong to Generation Me. GenMe moves through the world beholden to few social rules and with the unshakable belief that I am important. It is the first generation plainly speaking the language of self as its native tongue (Sancho, in press). The philosophy of the so-called Web2.0 seems perfect for expressing the “self” as a second generation of web-based communities and hosted services —such as social networking sites, wikis, folksonomies, weblogs (blogs), social bookmarking, podcasts, RSS feeds, and so on— aim to facilitate authorship, creativity, collaboration and sharing between users and effective information handling. Young people’s recurrent activity with these technologies fundamentally shapes their notions of communication, knowledge management, learning, and even personal and social values (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Howe & Strauss, 2000). The questions: to what extent does the use of technology in and out of school complement, supplement or interfere in students’ learning, process and results? To what extent have schools taken into account that learning does not only take place in the classroom? To what extent do teachers still believe that students are empty vessels, waiting to be filled? To what extent is it taken into account that learning, for better or worse, takes place in all formal and informal environments in which people happen to be involved, at any point in life?
This paper discusses data collected in two case studies carried out in two primary and two secondary schools as part of a R&D project ("Policy and Practice regarding ICT in Education: Implication for Educational Innovation and Improvement" (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. SEJ2007-67562), whose main aim is to explore the encounters and failures to bring together educational policy and teaching practice with the use of ICT. Our presentation will focus on an analysis of the use secondary schools students make of digital technology in and out of the school.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Balanskat A.; Blamire R. &Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT Impact Report. A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. Accessible at: http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/pdf/impact_study.pdf. [Download: May 21, 2007]. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics´ teaching practices. Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490. Cuban L. (1993) How teachers taught : constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York : Teachers College Press. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage Original. Järvelä, S. (2006). Personalised Learning? New Insights into Fostering Learning Capacity. En OECD-CERI (Eds.), Personalising Education (31-46). Paris: OECD/CERI. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J. y Plomp, T. (eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: CERC-Springer. Lesko, N. (2001) Act your age: a cultural construction of adolescence. Routledge Martínez, A. and Correa, J. M. (2009) Can the grammar of schooling be changed? Computers & Education, 53, 51–56. Oblinger, D., y Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Washington, DC: Educause. Sancho, J. M (en prensa). Digital Technologies and Educational Change. En A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A. Lieberman y D. Hopkings (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht; Boston; London: Springer. Sancho, J. M.; Bosco, A.; Hernández, F.; Müller, J.; Larrain, V.; Giró, X.; Nuri, A. and Cernochova, M. (2004). School + More than a platform to build the school of tomorrow. Final Report. European Commission. Stevens, L. P. (2005). ReNaming adolescence: Subjectivities in Complex Settings. In J. A. Vadeboncouer & L. P. Stevens (Eds). Reconstructing the ‘adolescent’: Sign, symbol, and body. New York: Peter Lang. Twenge, J. (2006). Generation Me. New York: Free Press. Tyack, D. y Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-480.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.