Laptops for Teachers: An evaluation of the TELA scheme in Auckland schools

5. A qualitative snapshot of 2006

Two rounds of focus groups were held in 2006. First, focus groups were held with groups of teachers from five of the initial six case-study schools. These were simply available teachers although we had asked that Year levels across the school be represented. In each school, four to a dozen teachers attended, depending on the size of the school. The aim of the discussion, in the first round, was to ascertain whether there had been shifts in the type or level of use of the laptops from that reported in 2005 and also whether there had been shifts in reported attitudes and capacity. Questions asked centred around current use of laptops, current skill and confidence levels and the perceived value of the laptop and how these had shifted, if at all, from 2005.

The second set of focus groups involved four of the schools and discussion centred on barriers to laptop use (in effect, this equated to computer use in general). It should be noted that we asked specifically for low users and the size of these groups was smaller. In the following two sections, each of these focus groups is discussed individually before some overall conclusions are drawn.

Laptop use, attitudes and expectations in 2006

In this section, data from each of the focus groups in the five participating schools are reported separately.

Focus group one

At this focus group the teachers reported that they were using their laptops more than a year ago and that there was an increasing dependency on them. One participant felt that overall usage had increased at least 25% if not 50% on the year before. This was supported by another participant who commented that she “very rarely [does] anything manually any more”.

The participants reported that everything they were doing, in an administrative sense (eg, absentees and behaviour management), was now electronic and they needed their laptops to access these systems. In addition, they reported receiving all notices through email. It would seem that the school substantially increased its use of computers for a range of administrative tasks over 2006 and this resulted in an increase in teacher use through mandated administrative tasks. This shift to electronic administrative processes was described by the participant teachers as a “biggie” in that it had been “a big shift for a lot of teachers”. The increase in administrative use was seen as beneficial in that “it is so much easier to do a lot of these things …with the press of a button…than looking through heaps of paper.” For these teachers “laptops are making [their] lives easier in the classroom”. The installation of a wireless network also appears to have been an important factor in the increase in use at this school.

The teachers in this group felt that they had largely reached a stage where currently available technology was not always readily meeting their newly perceived needs and expectations. This failure to meet new needs may lead to dissatisfaction which, in turn, may impact on use. The teachers at this school reported having acquired many of their new skills through “playing around at home” with programmes such as Garageband (a programme which enables people to write and record their own music) and games. One participant made this clear when she stated “I’ve learnt through games”.

However, it was not only skill that increased as a result but, perhaps, more importantly, confidence increased. One participant commented that “if you’re not confident you’re not going to use it”. This confidence was reported as being across a range of programmes or in one or two areas only, depending on use.

The school reportedly provided opportunities to continue to learn about ICT through, for example, “techie brekkies” or technical breakfasts. These were held several times a term and the expectation was that teachers would attend one or more as needed.

A future goal for these teachers was “to see the laptops used more by the kids”. However, as was often reiterated in these discussions, future use would be determined by need and that “if something comes up you don’t know you just learn that”. There seems to be no predetermined set of goals or course of learning for these teachers. New ways of using their laptops or increased use will, it appears, be determined by individual need and motivation.

Focus group two

At the second school there was also a clear message about the importance of the laptops and how necessary they were for the participants. It seemed that laptops were increasingly becoming an invisible tool; that is just part of a teacher’s life rather than something new and exciting. These teachers were not readily able to calculate how much they used them or why, they just knew they needed them (rather as we feel about older technologies)! Whether this is necessarily a positive shift is open to debate and depends on whether we consider current types of use to be sufficient in both extent and nature to achieve the goals of strategic policy. Complacency and a high level of comfort with the tool may be barriers to the need to continue learning.

As has previously been commented on, it was the portability and flexibility of the laptops that was seen as their greatest feature. However, accessibility was often influenced adversely by security concerns and, positively, by the installation of a wireless network.

One participant described how she could “sit with [the laptop] on her knee and ‘tell’ a cooperative story, whereas to sit at a computer that’s in a corner and they’re behind you – it doesn’t work”. The suggestion here was that ease of use was also related to how readily the laptop allowed for current practice to be enriched while the core of the activity remained constant (in this case having the students sit around her while she recorded the story they were telling).

The nature of use appeared to have shifted at this school and participants reported using their laptops for creating movies and saving them on DVDs, for creating music and for saving their photos. One participant explained how her laptop “before used to be [her] planning file…and now it’s more than that”.

As with the first school reported on, here much of this different use had initially been personal, related to teachers’ home lives and this was then transferred to the classroom. As one participant stated “I think that is the trick, if teachers start using it for personal use then it’s going to spill over into school”. This was probably related to confidence in that teachers were able to perfect skills in the safe environment of their personal lives and then, when they felt confident, transfer those skills to the more public arena of their professional lives without perceived professional risk. It was personal use that appeared to be driving innovative classroom use.

Confidence was once again seen by these participants as crucial to increased use. As one participant stated “ I think confidence is more important than skill…I now think I don’t know how to do that but it’s not a problem because I learned how to do ….and I can figure it out now as long as someone will help me”. What these teachers appeared to be referring to is computer literacy. They had realised that “once you’ve learned the tricks with one program those tricks are transferable to another program”. The confidence came through knowing that they were “able to pick up most other things…just given the opportunity”. That was seen as the difference between “confidence and proficiency”. Maybe, though, it was the difference between computer literacy or fluency and skill. With a certain level of literacy comes confidence.

At this school, as with others, there was a strong sense of communal learning and support. Teachers appeared willing to ask for help and to recognise expertise in others.

Like those in the previous focus group, these teachers would have liked to see increased technology available for student use in their classrooms.

Focus group three

During this focus group, participants spoke of how the value of the laptops had remained centred around their portability and flexibility. As with other teachers interviewed, they had become dependent on their laptops and used them for a range of purposes, particularly administrative, such as planning and assessment. One participant commented that a laptop is “not a luxury or a comfort, it is a necessity”. This teacher “really dreads losing it or getting it misplaced”, while another “can’t imagine what [she] would do without one”.

The ability to log into the school network when they get to work and update files automatically appeared to be a key capability for them in promoting use. They reported doing much of their administrative work at home and then bringing it to school the next day. The linking of the laptops with a robust and extensive network appeared to be critical, and in a number of schools a key factor for increasing use was the installation of a wireless network.

These teachers did report using their laptops a lot with their students (as they did in 2005) despite being aware they were not really meant to (although there does seem to have been a change in school policy with support for the use of the laptops in the classroom). As with the previous focus group, at least part of this use with children was related to the ease with which the laptop could become part of the classroom routines. As with other focus groups, these teachers were also concerned over their inability to meet student expectations in terms of the infrastructure available for students. For many of these students, their active use seemed to be largely restricted to once a fortnight in the computer suite. Although there were one or two computers in classrooms these were not seen as adequate or reliable. While the laptops were meeting teacher needs in that “they’re having a huge impact there” they were not meeting the students’: “the needs of the kids…that’s more worrying”.

As alluded to earlier, it may be that raised expectations meant that a certain measure of disillusionment had settled in. While the value of the laptops for administrative and professional work remained, these teachers wanted much more for their students than they had previously, or maybe it would be more accurate to say they were now aware of what was possible. One participant seemed to confirm this when she stated:

“but it’s frustrating because without the laptops we never would have realised how much we were missing…because there’s all these neat things we find on the laptops but we can’t use in the classroom…we have to wait for that one slot we’ve got in the ICT suite”.

Or as another said, the laptops have “just highlighted…how lacking it is in other areas”. It was not that they wanted to give them back they just “wanted another ten”. Much of this awareness of the potential of ICT appeared to have arisen, as with the earlier group, through playing with their laptops at home. Home was perceived as a much safer place to play “if things go wrong”. This was often because there were family members able to help. Learning at home then raised their “confidence to work with the children”.

As with the earlier groups it seemed that confidence came with a critical level of capacity. These participants also felt this confidence was not related to skill level but was about “knowing that you can do that, which means you are willing to go out and find more things” and having the knowledge to “go through here and open that and you go to there and…” when you want to do something.

Focus group four

Interestingly, at the fourth focus group, there did not seem to be the same level of confidence and ease reported around the laptops as reported above. While there were reported increases in use and an awareness of the potential of the laptops, these participants still seemed uncertain of their laptops and what they offered or the extent to which they valued them. They also seemed to have less peripheral knowledge about things impacting on laptop use, such as firewalls or the robustness of systems. There was more concern expressed around the potential for things to go wrong.

Need remained a strong driver of learning. For example, one teacher, the literacy coordinator, discussed how valuable the laptop was for her with the level of administration required in her role. All her work for the literacy project was electronic and, as such, the laptop was essential. Another participant reported increased use owing to the special needs of one of her students. Using her laptop and a data projector made it a lot easier for the teacher to meet the needs of this student. This was a very specific use, which reinforces the idea that often need drives use.

Another participant also reported more general increased use in that she now used her laptop “all the time…where two years ago [she] couldn’t do a thing”. She felt she could now do what “normal people could always do” suggesting a low entry skill level. This low skill level appeared to be linked to a low level of confidence with computers generally.

There were also issues around using the laptops in the classroom. One concern centred on classroom management; another on the physical safety of the laptops in the classroom and another on system incompatibilities.

Despite these concerns, as with other groups, the convenience of the laptops was a critical factor in their use. There were some for whom the cost-benefit equation still meant that the effort to change, for example, from tried and true planning books to electronic media, was too great.

Focus group five

This final school was reportedly very well resourced and appeared to have a strong culture of collegiality and professional learning. Reported laptop use was high across all participants and apparently school wide. The range of uses mentioned was diverse. The group were clear about what had enabled this level of use across the school and listed three factors: school leadership, school infrastructure and ongoing professional development and support. With respect to the first factor, the principal had communicated to them the expectation that they would learn and had provided the tools they required. With regard to the second, the school was well resourced with computers and laptops for student use (16 laptops on two Computers on Wheels (CoWs) and a well set up media suite); digital cameras in every classroom; projectors and a robust server which was well supported. In addition, things were repaired immediately. Finally, as well as external professional development there was internal support provided through key staff and a strong culture of professional learning.

Focus groups on barriers to use

Focus groups were held at only four of the case-study schools to discuss the barriers to laptop use. We had asked that the teachers included were ones whose laptop use was limited, either in terms of level of use or breadth of nature of use. However, in one school this was problematic as the teachers in this school all appear to be relatively high users of their laptops.

The nature of participants and of responses varied greatly between the groups. Therefore, each focus group is discussed separately before drawing some general conclusions.

Focus group one

In the first focus group three teachers were involved. These teachers all had many years of teaching experience and would have been in the 55 years plus age group. For them, the central barrier to use appeared to be related to their lack of previous experience with computers. They felt that their entry level, in terms of prior learning, was much lower than their younger colleagues and that, as a result, the training provided had not met their needs sufficiently. One teacher commented that it was “demoralising” to have to keep asking for help, particularly as she had always prided herself on being a highly effective and capable teacher more than able to meet the expectations of school leaders and the school community in the past. She, as with the others, was used to “being on top of everything” and did not feel sufficiently confident in using the laptop or other computers.

In addition, this group commented that they needed “a clear purpose” for using their laptop, which appeared to be determined by whether using the laptop “is a better way”. One teacher did comment that she did use her laptop “where there was a need” and gave the example of showing artwork using a data projector. Indeed, all three teachers did use their laptops, just not as extensively as their peers.

It may be that their expertise as classroom teachers, linked with their entry level of skill, acted as a barrier to their perceiving any real need for their laptops. The reason for this seems to lie, at least partially, in the effort necessary for these teachers to use laptops as opposed to older technologies. As one stated, it is much easier “to open a book than turn on a computer”.

The perception of the laptops as “a better way” is also, perhaps, limited by the length of time they have been teaching and a high trust in more traditional methods built up as a result. This was exemplified by another participant who commented that she preferred to “handwrite reports” as they “are more personal”. As one of them stated they “have worked and taught without [computers] for a very long time” and to change that now would require a significant shift in their constructions of good practice.

Expertise as a teacher proved a barrier to laptop use in an interesting way for one of these teachers. Despite the mandated use through management systems, such as reporting and discipline records, this teacher had developed her own systems, which enabled her to avoid the mandated electronic systems. In her opinion, there was no need to “replace other successful systems with computers”.

To overcome their reportedly low skill level, they felt, would require individual training including step-by-step instructions and detailed notes. This training would certainly raise their skill level and would overcome the first hurdle, which they saw as their very low entry levels and lack of prior expertise compared with younger teachers who had “always taught with computers”. However, whether it would enable them to see that laptops offered “a better way” is less certain.

Focus group two

The second focus group on barriers was substantially different. The teachers spoken to did not perceive any real barriers to use at their school and, indeed, other focus groups, held previously at this school, would seem to suggest that all teachers used their laptop extensively for both professional and classroom activities. With this group, therefore, the focus group centred on what was needed for this level of use to occur across a school.

It would seem that the expertise and awareness of the potential of ICT had, in this school, outgrown the capacity of the laptops currently in use. That issue aside it would appear that there were high levels of use across the school and “even the most reluctant is now [reportedly] on board”. This shift appears to have been achieved through the work of the teacher leader who felt that it had only been a matter of “finding the right button”. She commented that this had been achieved primarily through a modelling approach and through the motivation of the students in the class who had taken the teacher with them.

The reported high level of use across the school appeared to be due to a number of related factors. The school was very well resourced, it had a leadership that empowered and supported the teaching staff, there was internal support and coaching readily available and the culture of the school appeared to be one of collegial professional support and deprivatised practice. In addition, the teacher leader appeared to have been instrumental in supporting her colleagues.

Focus group three

The third focus group on barriers was similar to the previous one in that the school was also very well resourced in terms of ICT infrastructure (in fact more so). High levels of use were reported across most of the school. However, at this school, there did appear to be more barriers mentioned than in the previous groups and the staff interviewed in this focus group were not as positive about their laptops. Indeed, there were similarities between them and the first group discussed in that they, too, commented that they used their laptop only when there was a clearly perceived need and when it was easy to do so. They appeared to have some cost-benefit formula that determined their use and was related to the perceived benefit compared with the required effort.

A key barrier appears to be related to the extent to which use of the laptops was bound by rules and conditions designed to protect both the laptops and the school’s extensive network. Conversely, this apparently lessened the flexibility and ease of use for teachers. For example, the computers were set up so that only those with administrator rights were able to load software. These were only granted to “power users”.

The teachers in this school agreed that knowledge and skill was a barrier but they related their skill level to need. That is, they were able to do, or learn to do, what they perceived as necessary and no more. One of the teachers commented that she was able to do everything she wanted to and did not see any need to use the computers more. While she admitted that she “did not know what she didn’t know” she also felt “comfortable with where [she] was at”. The issue here does not appear to be skill but the lack of desire to increase capacity. The participants spoke of how “desperation drives learning” and teachers “learn on a need to know basis”.

A final reported barrier was related to how busy the school was and the range of expectations placed on the staff. In this context the laptops are “one more thing to learn” and for one participant given they “do not readily fit into the curriculum” they were not seen as a “necessary added extra” at that time. For this participant “what is imperative gets done”, a view that seems very similar to that expressed at the first focus group. What is interesting here is the difference between these two schools and the second focus group, where the laptops appeared to be an integral part of everything. The difference appears to be related to school culture and strong leadership promoting and supporting a pedagogy that required the laptops.

Focus group four

At a fourth school only one teacher was interviewed about her use of laptops and the barriers limiting that use. This teacher commented that she had an already highly developed and, in her opinion, effective system for completing her work, which was based around her home computer. She, therefore, felt she had no real need to utilise her laptop. In many ways, this barrier is similar to those expressed at one of the other schools where expert teachers felt their own parallel systems and procedures were the most effective, implying there was little need to change what they had always done.

One of the issues with this, of course, is the need for organisational efficiency and effectiveness as well as individual. For this individual to have all her records and material only on a home computer and not part of an organisational database could have implications for the long term sustainability and effectiveness of the school as a whole. The teacher did comment that the school lead teacher was working to convince her and to assist her to shift to the school system.