Content uploaded by Jorge Martín-Domínguez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jorge Martín-Domínguez on May 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology
2012, 28(8), 1433-1450
Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice:
Secondary school teacher action plans
Elena Ramírez, María Clemente, Isabel Cañedo and Jorge Martín
University of Salamanca
Knowing precisely how teachers use Internet resources in their classroom practice is
essential when seeking to explain what aspects support the real incorporation of
information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching, and in determining
the mechanisms underlying the use of these resources in direct teaching situations.
This article examines how five secondary school teachers assimilated different Internet
resources into their teaching practice. Using a system for analysing classroom
interaction that allowed us to segment teaching practice into categories differentiated
by their level of generality, we studied the recordings of five class sessions in which
Internet resources were used. The results show that common patterns existed in the
way these teachers handled their sessions. The most outstanding pattern showed the
overriding importance of curricular tasks and contents in the class sessions, and the
subordination of the ICT resources to these curricular elements. It is also important to
underscore the appearance of one type of task performance activity with ICT in all the
sessions analysed, although more analysis about this activity is needed. The results
pose challenges for the development of future research regarding consistency in the
patterns of action found.
Introduction
In this article we present the results from analysing five secondary education class
sessions. The teachers involved were from different specialisations and were video
recorded while teaching in the classroom using a teaching resource associated with the
Internet. We started from the premise that documenting what teachers actually do in
their classroom practice when using Internet resources is essential when attempting to
explain the foundations of the real incorporation of information and communication
technologies (ICT) into teaching and to determine the mechanisms underlying their
use in direct teaching situations.
In previous works we approached the study of secondary education teachers’ use of
ICT resources in Spain from a quantitative point of view, for which we employed
questionnaires. This enabled us to learn what teaching tasks digital resources were
used for, what specific resources were introduced into teaching practice, and to
establish relations between the characteristics of the teachers, such as their professional
experience, their training, and their attitudes towards ICT and other elements such as
the organisational and structural conditions of the secondary schools, ICT practices,
and teachers’ reasons for using digital media, among others. The results obtained from
these studies turned out to be useful for outlining some general characteristics of
Internet use on the part of secondary school teachers. However, these findings shed
1434 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
little light on the real configuration of real practice, and posed doubts as to the
direction of the causal relationships among the variables.
These problems led us to posit the study we describe herein, with the idea that if we
can explain the particular conditions underlying the use of these resources in real
teaching practice, we can then build practical knowledge for their optimum use.
Moreover, as part of the theoretical suppositions, we revisit the ideas from research on
teacher thinking (Clark, 2003), because although there is abundant research on ICT
resources, we believe that a sufficient theoretical basis is still lacking to explain the
professional reasons for incorporating these resources into real teaching practice, apart
from the outcomes obtained in studies focused on innovation processes. We consider
that assumptions about research into teacher thinking have evolved in a way that
provides us with a stronger foundation to explain what goes on in real teaching
practice, in the sense that Yinger (1987, p. 314) calls “the language of practice”.
First of all, we describe the theoretical approaches and the accumulated knowledge
that serve as a foundation for the study. Secondly, we present how the study was
carried out, and the conclusions drawn.
Theoretical assumptions
In approaching this research we found particularly helpful the contributions of experts
such as Loveless (2003) and Koehler & Mishra (2009), because they explain teachers’
adoption of ICT using the idea called ‘teacher professional knowledge’ (Shulman, 1986,
1987). In line with Shulman’s approach, Loveless considered that the pedagogical
knowledge of the discipline, one of the components of teacher professional knowledge,
is the key to understanding the role of ICT as resources for appropriately presenting
contents to the students. Discerning what aspects of ICT form part of this pedagogical
knowledge of the subject matter is, in synthesis, one of the aims of this research,
because it will allow us to explain whether teachers use these resources or not, and
above all, how they use them and how they integrate them in their classroom practice.
However, this perspective on professional knowledge should be accompanied by an
analysis of the conditions in which teaching practice takes place, as we are trying to
study the very action of teaching in natural scenarios.
Therefore, we add the idea of ‘action plans’, contributed by Leinhardt & Greeno (1986)
and Leinhardt, Weidman & Hammond (1987), to the approach proposed by Loveless.
The intention is to explain the mechanisms that teachers put into practice when
handling complex and dynamic contexts whose objectives are not always clearly
defined ... such as in the classroom. These action plans then become standards of
professional behaviour that affect different types of academic activity, among them
classroom performance (Gimeno, 1988). These actions gradually become professional
routines that allow the teacher to take courses of action concerning the structured
behaviour of students and teachers through goal-oriented activities. Practical plans
guarantee the orderly development of the action and economise on effort, making
predictable implementation possible in complex environments such as the classroom.
According to Gimeno (1988), action plans are not only important in direct teaching
practice, but also in other professional actions. In fact, these plans undoubtedly
influence the curricular design and planning stage. A similar premise underpins the
notion propounded by Putnam and Borko (2000, p. 13), whereby teachers’ knowledge
is linked to the context associated with characteristic features of the classes and the
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1435
activities undertaken within them, and organised around tasks the teachers undertake
within the classroom environment, and which they use over and over again for similar
situations. The idea that action schemes are used by teachers for planning and direct
teaching tasks in the classroom ties up with the definition of activity structures/types
of activity, as described by, for example, Windschitl (2004. p. 25).
Studies regarding action plans have highlighted different elements as to their focal
points. Carter and Doyle (1987) and Doyle (1987) point to tasks as the instrument for
directing class actions, as they also serve to translate the curriculum into practical
activities for a long period of time. This central role of tasks, identified as generic
activities, has also been underscored in other papers, for example in Yinger (1977) and
Tillema (1984). Contents have also been proposed as the structuring element of action
plans, although always in close relation to tasks or activities (Shavelson & Stern, 1983;
Zahorik, 1975). The basic dimensions of each task or activity are, according to
Shavelson and Stern (1983), content, some materials to use, particular actions of teacher
and students, general but functional objectives, the conditions of the student, and the
socio-cultural contexts of instruction.
Materials (among which we include ICT media and Internet resources) form one of the
dimensions supporting the structure of tasks or activities: in short, practice; although,
practice is more than the use of materials. Indeed, in the studies that have analysed this
topic, different focal points have emerged around which teaching actions
incorporating technologies may revolve. For example, Ellis et al. (2008) discuss the
integration of the available resources within learning activities that can exploit the
particular possibilities of each type of resource. Other studies (Zhao, Frank & Ellefson,
2006) have underscored the connection between the incorporation of technologies and
whether teachers have the kind of knowledge that enables them to translate the
technological capabilities of digital resources into ways of solving their pedagogical
problems – problems that are local in nature and strongly linked to the teaching
contexts. In line with this, the study by Wells (2007) highlights how the success of
professional development plans for teachers with respect to ICT depends on two
characteristics: the plans must be focused on the learner and offer her or him a high
degree of participation. This kind of participation would focus on matters such as
having teachers analyse their lesson plans and identify potential applications of ICT
resources. From a different perspective, the research done by Cuban (1993, 2001)
regarding this topic found that computers in teaching were used predominantly as a
medium for collecting and storing information, a use that perpetuates the most
consolidated practices involving classical classroom media.
In light of all this, two key aspects can be emphasised: first, the incorporation of ICT
resources into classroom practice will depend on the teacher’s pedagogical knowledge
of the discipline, specifically on the intersection between that knowledge and
knowledge of ICT; and second, it will also depend on whether these resources make
sense or not within the ‘action plans’ that the teacher is using to manage his or her
activity in direct teaching.
Research design
Research objectives
In the previous section, we have described the theoretical propositions concerning
teachers’ use of the Internet and associated resources. Based on these premises, we
1436 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
propose to analyse how teaching is carried out using these media in direct teaching
contexts, describing what is done with the classroom activities, the actions carried out
and their relation to the most important elements of the curriculum: contents,
objectives, tasks, and assessment. By means of this analysis we hope to locate the role
of ICT within the teachers’ action plans and in relation to their knowledge of the
subject. Specifically, we analyse the following issues:
1. What is the methodological strategy that guides the classes? This strategy can be
characterised by studying what the system of analysis used calls “typical classroom
activities” (TCA). To this we add analysis of the instructive actions of the teachers,
which serve to delimit the role of the teacher within the methodological approach
deployed. The system of analysis employed is explained in more detail in the
section on “class analysis procedure” below.
2. What role does the teacher give to the digital resource in relation to the rest of the
curricular elements around which the classroom activity is developed? Analysis of
the relation between typical classroom activities and the so-called “primary and
secondary curricular elements” of each session allow us to locate where, when and
how much the ICT resource is used in real practice.
Before describing the research, we must underscore an important matter that cannot be
overlooked and that has been addressed directly in the research, although not
mentioned specifically in this theoretical introduction. We refer to the role that the
structural and organisational variables of the teaching context play in the effect that
ICT have on teaching practices, a topic that has been dealt with in much previous
research (Ruthven, Hennessy & Deaney, 2005; Baek, Jung & Kim, 2006; Baskin &
Williams, 2006; Cartwright & Hammond, 2007; Bate, 2010). In this study we will refer
to these structural and organisational variables when describing the video recorded
class sessions, but when focusing on the analysis of the direct teaching in classroom
practice, this context serves only as an interpretative framework for ICT practices.
Participants
We video-recorded five complete class sessions in secondary education (Spain) taught
by five different teachers in the following subjects: English as a Foreign Language,
Mathematics, Spanish Language and Literature, Classical Culture, and Philosophy
(second quarter in the 2010 school year). All five teachers participated voluntarily and
the classes were chosen randomly. Four of the five teachers were highly experienced,
whereas the Philosophy teacher was just beginning her professional career. We
informed them that we were interested in video recording classes in which they used
some kind of Internet resource while teaching topics related to their field. At no time
did we suggest either the resource to use or the topic to be taught; both of these
decisions were left up to each teacher according to their own customary teaching
organisation and planning. We then agreed on which class to record, taking into
consideration their teaching schedule. Our intention was to collect data regarding their
classroom practices involving the Internet and one class session was considered
sufficiently representative. The procedure followed in all the cases was as follows:
• Each of the five sessions lasting approximately 50 minutes each were recorded in
video and audio.
• On the date agreed for recording the session, sufficient time was scheduled before
the class to set up the recording equipment in the classroom and to interview the
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1437
teacher about aspects relating to the planning of this particular lesson. This was
done in order to gather data for the structural and organisational variables.
• After the class was over, the teacher was interviewed as to his or her own
assessment of the class session that had just ended, and a live audio recording was
made of this interview.
All the audio and video recordings were transcribed in order to analyse the data, and
thus we had available the texts of all the interviews, as well as of the video and audio
recordings.
The data regarding the participants and the structural and organisational elements
framing the teaching practices are presented in Appendix 1 below. We believe these
data are necessary for interpreting the recorded class sessions incorporating Internet
resources. It must also be noted that in the educational stages at which the data were
collected, the official curriculum in Spain has introduced the compulsory creation of
teaching spaces especially devoted to working with ICT (in fact, there are regulations
regarding the characteristics that the computer classroom must have and its obligatory
use in all schools (Royal Decree 1537/2003, 5 December). It has also adopted
recommendations to develop ICT-related skills in the students that span the different
curricular areas (Decree 52/2007, 17 May, art. 5.7). However, these transversal skills
are not specifically mentioned in the outcomes the students are expected to have when
completing the compulsory stages of education. The contents and applications of
computer science are only dealt with specifically in the case of the subject “Computer
Science” in compulsory secondary education (Decree 52/2007, 17 May, art. 5.3 and
6.3).
Class analysis procedure
In order to study the five recorded classes, we adapted the system for analysing
educational practice developed by a research group at the University of Salamanca
(Sánchez, García, Castellano, de Sixte, Bustos & García Rodicio, 2008; Sánchez, García
& Rosales, 2010), the structure and sense of which can be consulted in Sánchez, García,
Rosales, de Sixte and Castellano (2008); and Sánchez, García and Rosales (2010). The
application of this system has led to a breakdown and analysis of what happens in
classrooms, establishing categories for the study of the practice that shed light on the
types of activity that inform the teachers’ performance, the role of the different
components of the curriculum in shaping the practices, and the parts most frequently
played by teachers [1].
The system of analysis allows breaking down the recorded sessions into several
categories. First, to segment the interaction, we divided the class sessions into units of
analysis that allow us to observe the overall structure of the session by identifying
typical classroom activities (TCAs): “planning activities,” “assigning new tasks,”
“explaining the resource”, “assigning homework”. This unit of segmentation is called
the “prototypical classroom activity” (Lemke, 1990, p. 50), whereby each classroom
session is structured around successive TCAs that trace the general outline upon
which pupils and teachers organise their classroom work.
In the TCA we differentiate another unit of analysis which we call episodes. These
episodes are structures or segments of the interaction that define a goal or objective
that can be perceived or identified by the participants (teachers and students) and form
part of a more extensive segment that comprises the class activities (Sánchez, García,
1438 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
Castellano, de Sixte, Bustos & García- Rodicio, 2008). In the episodes, another level is
analysed which includes the actions of the teacher that are involved in attaining the
objective of the episode. Thus, we divide the class sessions into segments defined by
the objective they are seeking to attain. For example, we have a set of tasks for
planning or explaining the ICT resource, which in turn are carried out with more
specific goals in mind, such as the supervision of knowledge about the resource in
question, or the explanation or performing of tasks.
In order to understand more precisely what exactly is going on in the class sessions
analysed and to study the relations between the Internet resource and the teacher’s
action plan, we break down the teacher’s action into two different groups of factors.
On the one hand, we have those dealing with tasks involving learning - explaining
concepts, namely, identifying, planning, explaining, recapitulating, and supervision -
assessment (Sánchez, Rosales & Cañedo, 1999), and on the other, those related to
curricular elements: objectives, tasks, contents, ICT resources and non-ICT resources
(Gimeno, 2010). The interrelation of these two groups of factors gives rise to the group
of categories that we used to analyse the teachers’ actions. Below, we define what type
of statements each of these categories refers to [2].
A. Identifying: This refers to statements that indicate or point things out about the
elements in question, be they objectives, contents, tasks or resources. Some
examples of this type would be: "Let’s have the chorus, yes!" (Class 1: Identify task-
resource). "Now go to the page to see if the Internet connection is working, you
know what it is, http://www.nortedecastilla.es/" (Class 3: Identify resource).
B. Explaining: This refers to statements devoted to clarifying to a greater or lesser
extent the elements in question, be they objectives, contents, tasks or resources.
Some examples of this type would be: "Let’s do something, at the same time that
you’ve got that open, you can open a Word document like we’ve done before with
Astronomy and I want you to start pasting there certain things that you bring up so
you don’t have to back track on the Internet, okay? Whatever you think is
important, start copying it." (Class 4: Explain task-resource). "Miguel Ángel, 90
degrees. You can’t forget that. 90 degrees. Why? Because it’s the reference: if it’s
larger than 90 it’s obtuse; if it’s smaller, then it’s acute" (Class 2: Explain content).
C. Planning: This refers to statements addressed to organising the elements in question
in relation to goals and means, be they objectives, contents, tasks or resources. Some
examples of this type would be: "So we are going to divide the activity into two
parts and I’m going to do a short presentation of the controversy to bring us up to
the year 2005. Then we’re going to see a segment of a Simpson's episode to present
this polemic and finally we’re going to do an Internet search in groups" (Class 5:
Plan task-resource). "Now that you’ve heard it we’re going to try to associate it, you
see? And I’m going to pause the image whenever I want, to see if we can learn to
sing it a little, I can hardly hear you." (Class 1: Plan task-objective).
D. Recapitulating: This refers to statements devoted to reminding, repeating and/or
updating in the sense of clarifying or organising the elements in question, be they
objectives, contents, tasks or resources. Some examples of this type would be: "We
were seeing what Man is, we’d seen the evolutionist positions, we’d seen the
theory, they had examined previous knowledge about evolutionism, we’d also
looked at taxonomy since Linnaeus" (Class 5: Recapitulate content). "Next ... triangles
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1439
... classification of triangles. Let’s remember this... We’ve also been looking at this ...
at what a regular polygon is" (Class 2: Recapitulate content-resource).
E. Supervise-assess: This refers to statements addressed to more or less openly
controlling the attainment of and/or progress in the elements in question, be they
objectives, contents, tasks or resources. Some examples of this type would be:
"What is ‘sitting’? What’s ‘I’m sitting’? What’s ‘I’m sitting’? ‘I’m sitting’ ... how do
you say in Spanish ‘I’m sitting’?" (Class 1: Supervise content). "What’s the matter,
Miguel? Let’s see; one plus one, two; and four fourths ... How much does four
fourths make?" (Class 2: Supervise content-resource).
With respect to the curricular elements that the teacher works on during the class
interaction, two levels can be distinguished, primary and secondary, reflecting the
many occasions on which a teacher working with a primary curricular element uses a
secondary curricular element as support or a resource for presenting the tasks and the
contents. This situation is also very common when teachers use ICT. An example of
this would be: "And then when I finish, I’ll tell you about a Creationist web page called
'Sedin', and you’ll be able to see the arguments Creationism uses to reject
Evolutionism" (Class 5: Plan task-ICT resource). "Good, Adrian has done a sketch; I’m
going to try and make it a little smaller so you can see it. He’s chosen the title of the
newspaper, Vox Populi 81, right? Would you explain it, Adrián?" (Class 4: Supervise
task-resource ICT).
Thus, the procedure followed to analyse the classes is summarised in Figure 1, which
indicates a three stage process:
1. Division of the class session into TCA, that is, the general activities that give the
class structure.
2. Segmentation of the TCA into episodes defined by the goal or objective underlying
the set of interactions comprising them, within the structure defined by the TCA.
3. Within each episode, identification of the actions that the teacher carries out in
order to gradually build each segment of interaction within his or her classroom
practice. By inter-judge agreement, we established as a criterion for segmentation of
the actions, namely a change occurring in the teacher’s action, either in the content
of the action (from planning to explaining), in the primary curricular element
involved in the action (from contents to tasks), or in the teacher’s interlocutor (from
the group to one student, from one student to another, etc.).
The sequence developed for applying the analysis system to the transcribed class
sessions was as follows:
a. A class session is categorised simultaneously by three members of the research
team trained in the system, in order to reach agreement regarding the contents of
the categorisation.
b. The six members of the research team work in pairs to categorise another of the
class sessions involved in the study.
c. The six members of the research team work individually to categorise the rest of the
class sessions.
d. A review is made of the degree of agreement in the categorisation of the classes
analysed, and, when necessary, agreements are reached regarding the discrepancies
that may arise, until a univocal categorisation is attained. This stage began with an
1440 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
agreement rate surpassing 84.2% for individual categorisations and 100% in the
final joint categorisation.
Figure 1: Summary of class analysis procedure
The set of statements or the sample from which the data presented in the results
section were obtained is displayed in Tables 1 and 2 below. It includes the final count
of the frequencies and percentages obtained in each of the categories of the system of
analysis.
Table 1: Frequency of TCA and instructive actions in each TCA
Typical classroom activity
(TCA)
Frequency of
each TCA (N=16)
Instructive actions in
each TCA (N=431)
Planning-explanation
3
34
Review of contents
2
42
Task performance (with ICT resource)
6
278
Task performance (with non-digital resource)
1
29
Explanation (with ICT resource)
1
35
Assigning homework
2
4
Review of tasks
1
9
Total
16
431
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1441
Table 2: Frequency and percentage of instructive actions and curricular elements
Primary
Secondary
Instructive
actions
f
%
Curricular
elements
f
%
f
%
Identify
72
16.70%
Objectives
1
0.23%
6
2.33%
Plan
64
14.84%
Contents
164
38.14%
44
17.13%
Explain
126
29.23%
Tasks
173
40.23%
46
17.90%
Recapitulate
18
4.18%
ICT resource
89
20.70%
157
61.09%
Supervise-assess
151
35.05%
Non ICT resource
3
0.70%
4
1.55%
Total
431
100%
Total
430
100%
257
100%
Results
The presentation of the results is organised around the two issues analysed and will
allow us to delimit the role of the ICT resource within the teachers’ actions and in
relation to their pedagogical knowledge of the subject matter: (a) the methodological
strategy guiding the class and the role of the teacher, and (b) the role the teachers give
the ICT resource in relation to the rest of the elements of the curriculum.
Methodological strategy and the role of the teacher
The data in relation to this issue were obtained through an analysis of the TCA and
their relation to the instruction the teachers carry out in the class sequences collected.
These results are shown in Table 3. The analysis procedure was carried out as
described below.
Table 3: Frequency and percentage of observation of
the different TCA and instructive actions
Instructive actions
Typical classroom activity
(TCA)
Identify
Explain
Plan
Supervise
Total (a)
Planning the class/explanation
5
(15.6%)
15
(46.9%)
1
(3.1%)
11
(34.4%)
32
(8.6%)
Review of contents
2
(4.9%)
8
(19.5%)
12
(29.3%)
19
(46.3%)
41
(11.0%)
Task performance with ICT resource
54
(20.1%)
76
(28.4%)
41
(15.3%)
97
(36.2%)
268
(71.7%)
Explanation with ICT resource
8
(24.2%)
9
(27.3%)
6
(18.2%)
10
(30.3%)
33
(8.8%)
Total (b)
69
(18.4%)
108
(28.9%)
60
(16.0%)
137
(36.6%)
374
(100%) (c)
(a) TCA: (χ26=906.74 p<.0001)
(b) Instructive actions: (χ24=129.10, p<.0001).
(c) TCA x instructive actions: (χ29=19.601, p<.0001, w=.225)
In the first place, we confirmed that the different TCA analysed did not have the same
probability of occurring. Task performance with ICT (64.5%) was the TCA most
observed, whereas Assigning homework and Review of tasks took place to a much lesser
extent, and in none of the cases did it exceed 5% (Table 1). Secondly, we found that the
different Instructive Actions did not have the same probability of occurring either.
Supervision was the Action most observed (36.6%), and Planning, the least (16.0%) (see
Table 3). We then proceeded to verify whether there was a relation between the TCA
and the Instructive Actions, and found a statistically significant relation, allowing us to
affirm that the different Instructive Actions are not employed in the same proportion
1442 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
in the different TCA. After analysis of the corrected typified residuals, we considered
only those with a significance level under .01, and they are shown in Table 3. We found
more actions of Explanation and fewer of Identification in the TCA of Planning the
class/explanation; more of Supervision in those of Review of contents; more of Supervision
in that of Task performance with ICT resource; and more of Supervision and Explanation
and fewer of Planning in Explanation with ICT resource (Table 3).
Role of ICT resource in relation to the rest of the curricular elements
The data relating to this issue were obtained through analysis of the TCA and their
relation to the primary and secondary elements of the curriculum that teachers
addressed in the recorded class sessions. These results are shown in Table 4 (primary
elements) and in Figure 2 (secondary elements).
As regards the primary curricular elements, we found that they do not have the same
probability of occurring. The Task and the Content appear in a significantly higher
proportion (40.2% and 39.2%, respectively), than the ICT resources (20.6%) or the non-
ICT objectives (0%) (see Table 4).
Table 4: Frequency and percentage of observation
of TCA and primary curricular elements
Primary curricular elements
Typical classroom activity
(TCA)
Content
Task
ICT resource
Total (a)
Planning the class/explanation
10
(29.4%)
10
(29.4%)
14
(41.2%)
34
(8.2%)
Review of contents
20
(48.8%)
10
(24.4%)
11
(26.8%)
41
(9.9%)
Task performance with ICT resource
122
(44.5%)
96
(35%)
56
(20.4%)
274
(66.3%)
Task performance with non-digital resource
2
(6.9%)
27
(93.1%)
0
(0%)
29
(7.0%)
Explanation with ICT resource
8
(22.9%)
23
(65.7%)
4
(11.4%)
35
(8.5%)
Total (b)
162
(39.2%)
166
(40.2%)
85
(20.6%)
413
(c)
(a) TCA: (χ26=906.74 p<.0001)
(b) Primary curricular elements (χ24=322.97, p<.0001)
(c) TCA x primary curricular elements (χ28=60.263, p<.0001, w=.373)
To establish the relation between the TCA and the primary curricular elements, we
considered only the TCA in which the primary curricular elements observed were
sufficient to posit a chi-square test. The results yielded a statistically significant
relation, allowing us to confirm that the different primary elements of the curriculum
did not appear in the same proportion in the different TCA. Again, we analysed the
corrected typified residuals, considering only those whose level of significance was
below .01, which are the ones displayed in Table 4. We found that more elements of
ICT resources were observed in Planning the class/explanation, whereas Contents
prevailed in the Review of contents. The elements of Contents and Task were more
present in Task performance with ICT resource; Tasks predominated over the rest of the
elements in Task performance with non-digital resource, and also predominated in
Explanation with ICT resource.
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1443
In relation to the role of the secondary curricular elements we proceeded as follows.
We verified that that they did not have the same probability of occurring. The ICT
resources appear to a much greater extent (61.09%) than Tasks (17.9%) Contents (17.12%),
Objectives (2.33%) and Non-ICT resources (1.56%). However, when considering only
those TCA in which the number of secondary curricular elements observed was
sufficient for using a chi-square test, all the cells had to be eliminated except those
corresponding to the TCA of Task performance with ICT resource. Therefore it was not
possible to obtain the relation between the TCA and secondary curricular elements.
We can only report the chi-square obtained through the non-parametric test of the
secondary curricular elements and the data regarding the percentages of secondary
curricular elements in the total observed class sessions (Figure 2).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Objective Content Task ICT resource Non ICT resource
Figure 2: Percentages of observation of the secondary curricular elements
Discussion
The results presented in the section above reveal several aspects that remain constant
for all teachers involved in the study.
Firstly, the methodological strategy underlying their classes was focused on the joint
activity of students and teachers. One of the traits revealed by the data analysed is the
appearance in all the classes of a typical classroom activity that we call “Task
performance with ICT resource.” Of the 16 TCA found, six corresponded to this
activity and occupy 64.5% of the total of instructive actions in the classes studied (278
over 431, Table 1). This seems to be a norm of practice relatively common to all the
teachers in this study when incorporating Internet resources into their teaching.
1444 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
Secondly, the teachers positioned their teaching activity around the TCA used in the
classroom, their role being fundamentally one of supervision, followed by their role as
explainers. This means that in the sessions recorded, the time was devoted to having
the students carry out tasks while the teacher assessed and evaluated how the students
were performing them, also explaining the contents and tasks related to student
performance, but to a lesser extent. This predominance of supervision followed by
explanation seems logical if we take into account the type of TCA prevailing in the
teaching practice from which the data were obtained (Task performance with ICT
resource).
Thirdly, we can highlight the fact that these practices with Internet-related resources
were carried out by teachers acting primarily on two curricular elements: contents and
tasks, with the ICT resources as background support. Only in two of the cases did the
ICT resources play a leading role: one of them is an episode in which the teacher
reorganises the distribution of students and computers due to problems with the
Internet connection (Class 3) and the other occurs when the teacher explains how to
use the Publisher software (Class 4). It is in this last case, then, when the ICT resource
becomes the contents of the class.
In short, if we analyse the data, several issues can be highlighted:
• The repeated appearance of a type of activity that has been called “task
performance with ICT resource” in the five classes analysed, regardless of the
teacher, type of resource or nature of the lesson being taught.
• The teacher’s role in the classes is reflected in the actions of supervision and
explanation, which are the main elements in their activity, in close correspondence
with the predominant type of TCA.
• The predominance of tasks and contents as the primary focal points of the teachers’
actions in their teaching practice, and the incorporation of Internet-associated ICT
resources as support elements for action on these contents and activities and thus
subordinated to them.
Conclusion
As we explained in the first section on theoretical suppositions, this study was
intended to locate the role of ICT media within the action plans of teachers involved in
the study and in relation to their pedagogical knowledge, since we believe that based
on these theoretical approaches we can interpret and understand how and why
teachers incorporate the use of ICT into their classroom practice.
Our analysis of the data and discussion of the results allow us to draw some
conclusions in relation to the theory. First, as regards the teachers’ action plans
incorporating Internet-related resources, it is clear that tasks and contents are the
instruments that direct their action in class. In this sense, our conclusions are no
different from the results obtained in studies of teaching practices that did not use ICT
resources. This allows us to affirm that, at least in the case of our study, the use of ICT
resources does not modify the customary action plans that other studies have
described when analysing teaching practice in general. The data have also shown the
close relationship between these curricular elements and the Internet-associated
resources, and that this relationship subordinates the resource to the teaching tasks, or
to the lesson contents, or to both simultaneously. Therefore, we can conclude that, at
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1445
least as far as the teachers involved in our study are concerned, the resource does not
define an action plan in teaching practice (Ruthven, Hennessy & Deaney 2005); rather,
it is the tasks and contents that do so, linked secondly to the resource being used.
In second place, and closely related to the above, it can be concluded that it is the
pedagogical knowledge of the subject matter in relation to the resource which imbues
the use of the resource with meaning in the contexts of practice, at least as regards our
study. The analysis of how these five teachers act in class shows us a panorama in
which the Internet-associated resource incorporated into each of the practices acquires
meaning because it is consistent with the practical action plans that the teachers have
regarding the teaching of their subject (Olson, 2003). This consistency is based on the
fact that these resources support and maintain the work done involving the tasks or
the contents, which are the central focus of the teaching practice. We can thus also
conclude that, at least in this study, the incorporation of ICT resources into teaching
only makes sense if it is consistent with the execution of the practice, and that
consistency has been verified in our study through the analysis of direct teaching
practices incorporating ICT resources. It still remains to be seen whether this
consistency is a result of knowledge acquired from direct teaching, from observation of
other teaching models, or from knowledge acquired during training experiences,
among other things.
Thirdly, future research is also needed to study the type of activity we have called
“task performance with ICT resource” as a pattern of action of teachers when working
with Internet-related digital media. More specifically, the nature of this type of
activity, its relation to the use of these resources, to lessons of different subject matter,
to different types of teachers, and so on, are issues that can be studied with controlled
research designs in which it can be verified whether or not there exist typical
instructive sequences in classroom practices incorporating Internet-related ICT
resources.
Finally, we must underscore the need for detailed study of real teaching practice in
order to be able to explain what is taking place in teaching-learning processes (Dede,
Honan & Peters, 2005; Lawless & Pelegrino, 2008) and to be able to propose norms of
action for change, if considered necessary (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010). As Olson (2003)
pointed out: “Research is needed to find out more about teachers’ work culture and the
technologies that sustain it, and the implications of new approaches for those
technologies” (pp. 51)
Notes
1. More information on how this system is used to analyse different interactions in
reading comprehension can be found in Sánchez, García, Rosales, de Sixte and
Castellano (2008) and Sánchez, García, De Sixte, Castellano and Rosales (2008), and
for different patterns of actions of teaching practice in this same task see Sánchez,
García, de Sixte and Castellano (2008), and Sánchez, García and Rosales, (2010).
Other studies in the vein developed by these authors can also be consulted: Chi,
Siler, Jeong,Yamauchi and Hausmann (2001); Leinhardt and Steele (2005);
Nystrand, Wu, Gomoran, Zeiser and Long (2003); Polman (2004); Tabak and
Baumgartner (2004); Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik & Soloway (2000).
2. The original transcriptions were in Spanish. Every example here has been
translated by a specialist in scientific translations.
1446 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by funds from the Castilla and León Regional Goverment
(Reference number: SA060A06).
References
Baek, Y., Jung, J. & Kim, B. (2006). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom?
Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers &
Education, 50(1), 224-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.002
Baskin, C. & Williams, M. (2006). ICT integration in schools: Where are we now and what comes
next? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 455-473.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/baskin.html
Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1042-1061.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/bate.html
Carter, K. & Doyle, W. (1987). Teachers’ knowledge structures and comprehension processes. In
J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 147-160). London: Cassell Education.
Cartwright, V. & Hammond, M. (2007). “Fitting it in”: A study exploring ICT use in a UK
primary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 390-407.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/cartwright.html
Chi, M., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T. & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human
tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2504_1
Clark, C. H. M. (2003). Ten years of conceptual development in research on teacher thinking. In
M. Kompf & P. M. Denicolo (Eds.), Teacher thinking twenty years on: Revisiting persisting
problems and advances in education (pp. 211-221). The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-
210. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=82
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Decree 52/2007, 17 May, art. 5.7 (BCyL 05/23/2007). [ viewed Jan 2010]
http://bocyl.jcyl.es/html/2007/05/23/html/BOCYL-D-23052007-7.do
Dede, C., Honan, J. P. & Peters, L. C. (Eds.) (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based
educational improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doyle, W. (1987). The classroom as a workplace: Implications for staff development. In M.
Wideen & I. Andrews (Eds.), Staff development for school improvement (pp. 38-54). London: The
Falmer Press.
Ellis, A., Hughes, J., Weyers, M. & Riding, P. (2008). University teacher approaches to design and
teaching and concepts of learning technologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 109-117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.010
Gimeno, J. (1988). El curriculum: una reflexión sobre la práctica. Madrid: Morata.
Gimeno, J (Ed.) (2010). Saberes e incertidumbres sobre el curriculum. Madrid: Morata.
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1447
Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology
into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921
Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 75-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.75
Leinhardt, G. & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional
dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_4
Leinhardt, G., Weidman, C. & Hammond, K. M. (1987). Introduction and integration of
classroom routines by expert teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(2), 135-176.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179622
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Loveless, A. M. (2003). The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their
pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 313-326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EAIT.0000008674.76243.8f
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
http://www.editlib.org/p/29544
Murcia, K. & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. In
M. Thomas & A. Jones (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards: An Australasian perspective.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(Special issue, 4), 417-431.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/murcia.html
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gomoran, A., Zeiser, S. & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time:
Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse
Processes, 35(2), 135-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
Olson, J. K (2003). Information technology and teacher routines: Learning from the
microcomputer. In M. Kompf & P. M. Denicolo (Eds.), Teacher thinking twenty years on:
Revisiting persisting problems and advances in education (pp. 45-52). The Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments.
Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_3
Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004
Royal Decree 1537/2003, 5 December (BOE 12/10/2003). [viewed Jan 2010]
http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2003/12/10/pdfs/A43808-43813.pdf
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S. & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom
practice: Pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers.
Computers & Education, 44(1), 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.11.001
Sánchez, E., Rosales, J. & Cañedo, I. (1999). Understanding and communication in expositive
discourse: an analysis of the strategies used by expert and preservice teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 15(1), 37-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00033-X
Sánchez, E., García, J. R., Castellano, N., De Sixte, R., Bustos, A. & García-Rodicio, H. (2008).
Qué, cómo y quién: Tres dimensiones para analizar la práctica educativa. Cultura y Educación,
20(1), 95-118. http://es.scribd.com/doc/60357844/Sanchez-et-al-2008-Que-como-quien-tres-
dimensiones-para-analizar-la-practica-educativa
1448 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
Sánchez, E., García, J. R., De Sixte, R., Castellano, N. & Rosales, J. (2008). El análisis de la práctica
educativa y las propuestas instruccionales: Integración y enriquecimiento mutuo. Infancia y
Aprendizaje, 31(2), 233-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021037008784132978
Sánchez, E., García, J. R., Rosales, J., de Sixte, R. & Castellano, N. (2008). Elementos para analizar
la interacción entre estudiantes y profesores: ¿qué ocurre cuando se consideran diferentes
dimensiones y unidades de análisis? Revista de Educación, 346, 105-136.
http://www.revistaeducacion.mec.es/re346_04.html
Sánchez, E., García, R. & Rosales, J. (2010). La lectura en el aula. Qué se hace, qué se debe hacer y qué
se puede hacer. Barcelona: Graó.
Shavelson, R. & Stern, P. (1983). Investigación sobre pensamiento pedagógico del profesor, sus
juicios, decisiones y conducta. In J. Gimeno & A. Pérez (Eds.), La enseñanza: Su teoría y su
práctica (pp. 372-419), Madrid: Akal.
Shulman, J. H. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. The Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. http://her.hepg.org/content/j463w79r56455411/?p=b34e90
bd653642a889110338b933a9df&pi=0
Tillema, H. (1984). Categories in teacher planning. In R. Halkes & J. K. Olson (Eds.), Teacher
thinking (pp. 176-185). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Tabak, I. & Baumgartner, E, (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures,
symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 303-429.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_2
Wallace, R., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J. & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students online
in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0901_5
Wells, J. G. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101-122.
http://www.editlib.org/p/6057
Windschitl, M. (2004). What types of knowledge do teachers use to engage learners in “doing
science”? Paper commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC:
Board of Science Education. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/mwindschitl_
comissioned_paper_6_03_04_hslabs_mtg.pdf
Yinger, R. J. (1977). A study of teacher planning: Description and theory development using ethnography
and information processing methods. Michigan State University, Doctoral Disertation.
Yinger, R. J. (1987). Learning the language of practice. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(3), 293-318.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179695
Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers’ planning models. Educational Leadership, 33, 134-139.
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197511_zahorik.pdf
Zhao, Y., Frank, K. A. & Ellefson, N. C. (2006), Fostering meaningful teaching and learning with
technology: Characteristics of effective professional development. In E. A. Ashburn & R. E.
Floden (Eds), Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do (pp.161-
179). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ramírez, Clemente, Cañedo and Martín 1449
Appendix: Participants and classes - structural and organisational
data
Classes
Class loc-
ation and
lesson topic
Location and
number of
computers
Res-
ource
employ-
ed
How often
the resource is
used over the
academic
year. Reasons
Attitude
towards and
training in
ICT
Techn-
ical
problems
with the
resource
1.
Teacher of
English as a
Foreign
Language.
1st year
Compul-
sory Sec-
ondary Ed.
(aged 13).
Special
classroom
for art and
technology
equipped
with digital
blackboard.
Topic: The
Present
Continuous
Verb Tense
One computer
for the teacher
connected to a
digital
blackboard
and projector
(total students:
24).
Internet
page
with
song in
English
plus
digital
black-
board.
Not very often
because special
classroom not
often available.
Very favorable
attitude
towards use of
ICT.
Training in
ICT use at the
local Teacher
Resource and
Training
Center.
Sound not
in step
with the
video
sequence.
2.
Teacher of
Mathem-
atics.
2nd yr
Compul-
sory
Secondary
Ed. (aged
14).
Mathem-
atics: slow
track curric-
ulum.
Topic:
Geometry.
Pythagoras’
Theorem
and Class-
ification of
polygons.
Special Ed.
classroom.
Three
computers –
one per
student (total
students: 3).
Math
exercises
selected
from a
web
page.
All Friday
sessions
throughout the
academic year.
Used to
reinforce
contents
learned during
the week.
Very favorable
attitude
towards use of
ICT.
Mainly self-
taught
No
technical
problems.
3.
Teacher of
Spanish
Language.
3rd yr Com-
pulsory Sec-
ondary Ed.
(aged 15).
Drawing
Classroom
with 12
computers.
Topic:
Journalistic
language.
Not the reg-
ular classroom
but rather the
Drawing
Classroom: 12
computers. 2-3
students per
computer (tot.
students: 22)
Web sites
with
digital
press.
Sporadically,
once or twice a
trimester,
because
classrooms
with
computers are
not readily
available.
Positive
attitude
towards the
use of ICT.
Self-taught
and teacher
training
courses.
Problems
in several
computers
with boot-
ing up and
connecting
to the
Internet.
4.
Teacher of
Latin.
1st year
Upper
Secondary
Ed. (aged
17).
Ordinary
classroom.
Topic:
Games and
public
spectacles in
Ancient
Rome.
3 computers:
one for teach-
ing connected
to a projector
and two lap-
tops for stud-
ent use. All
connected to
the Internet
(total students:
2).
Web-
Quest
made by
the
teacher.
Quite regularly
due to the
teacher’s
interest in
working with
ICT.
Very favorable
towards the
introduction of
ICT.
Self-taught
and training
courses esp. in
editing digital
video.
No
technical
problems.
1450 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(8)
5.
Teacher of
Philosophy.
1st year
Upper
Secondary
Ed. (aged
17).
Computer
Room
Topic: The
controversy
surround-
ing the
Theory of
Evolution
and Creat-
ionism.
10 computers
connected to
the Internet,
plus one
connected to a
projector for
teaching (total
students: 21).
Digitalis-
ed video
frag-
ments
and
Internet
search
engines.
Not often
because the
computer
room is not
readily
available due
to high
occupation.
Very favorable
towards the
introduction of
ICT.
Initial training
when studying
at the
University.
At first the
projector
did not
work.
Authors: Dr Elena Ramírez (Corresponding author), Professor
Facultad de Educación, University of Salamanca
Paseo de Canalejas, 169, 37008-Salamanca, Spain
Email: ero@usal.es
Dr Maria Clemente, Full Professor
Facultad de Educación, University of Salamanca
Paseo de Canalejas, 169, 37008-Salamanca, Spain
Email: mcl@usal.es
Dr Isabel Cañedo, Professor
Facultad de Educación, University of Salamanca
Paseo de Canalejas, 169, 37008-Salamanca, Spain
Email: icado@usal.es
Jorge Martin, Fellowship at the University of Salamanca
Facultad de Educación, University of Salamanca
Paseo de Canalejas, 169, 37008-Salamanca, Spain
Email: jorgemd@usal.es
Please cite as: Ramírez, E., Clemente, M., Cañedo, I. & Martin, J. (2012). Incorporating
Internet resources into classroom practice: Secondary school teacher action plans.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1433-1450.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/ramirez.html
