|February 16, 2021
Teachers matter enormously to student learning. Teachers deliver academic knowledge. Teachers impart model socioemotional skills. Good teachers boost students’ long-term life outcomes. Teachers can inspire (and in another demonstration of their importance, in some cases, sadly, teachers can disappoint or even abuse).
Yet teachers, often lionized and occasionally villainized, are people. They enter the profession for a wide range of reasons, they have their own families to feed, and – like most professionals – they respond to incentives, support, accountability, and the quality of the management around them. In short, they are part of a system.
Getting teacher policies right isn’t always easy, and sometimes education technology solutions can seem like a shortcut. It’s tempting to search for the perfect app that will “disrupt” the learning process and allow countries to “leapfrog” to high-quality, equitable education without having to engage with these complicated people near the center of the learning process. (Let’s keep learners at the actual center.) Education technology interventions have had both successes and failures. Even as the COVID crisis has heightened attention to education technology, many parts of the world lack the infrastructure for it have an extended, effective reach, with big implications for educational inequality.
In a recent note—“Education Technology for Effective Teachers”—I look for examples of how education technology—rather than seeking to circumvent teachers—can help teachers to be as effective as possible and make their jobs and lives easier in the process. Looking at a wide range of experiences, mostly in low- and middle-income countries, I identify and discuss four principles to guide investments in technology to boost teacher effectiveness.
Beyond these principles, which may seem obvious but which anyone who has worked in the implementation or evaluation of education technology can tell you are often not applied, I provide practical examples of six ways that education systems are using technology to support teachers. I summarize these in the table below, but you can find more country experiences in the note.
| Systems can use technology to… | Where and how |
| Coach and mentor teachers |
|
| Complement teacher content knowledge and pedagogical skills |
|
| Create virtual communities of practice for teachers |
|
| Manage teachers effectively |
|
| Deploy the teacher workforce effectively |
|
| Increase the attractiveness of the teaching profession |
|
Technology is not the solution, but just like books and classrooms and blackboards, technological tools can help teachers to improve their skills, to use their skills most effectively, and to be accountable. These investments should never be made on the basis of evidence-free optimism but rather evidence-based realism in terms of systems’ capacity to maintain the technology, teacher willingness to engage the technology, and whether the technology will perform better than the cheaper, analog alternative.
(In Kenya, a tablet-based literacy program boosted learning, but no more so than the analog alternative and at higher cost.)
But in cases where technology passes those tests, it can be a valuable complement to teachers. It can also make teachers’ jobs a little bit easier so they can focus their energy on teaching.
Further reading:
x
This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here.
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24, 201–216.
Article Google Scholar
Atkins, T. W., & Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1188–1192.
Article Google Scholar
Bliss, T. J., Hilton, J, I. I. I., Wiley, D., & Thanos, K. (2013). The cost and quality of online open textbooks: Perceptions of community college faculty and students. First Monday, 18, 1–7.
Article Google Scholar
Carl, A. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.
Google Scholar
Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H-J., & Könings, K. D. (2015). Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S. & Voogt, J. (2014). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for emergent literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, ISSN 1475-939X.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 338–356. doi: 10.1108/09578230510605405.
Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.
Google Scholar
Frank, J. R., Jabbour, M., Frechette, D., Marks, M., Valk, N., & Bourgeois, G. (Eds.). (2005). CanMEDS physician competency framework: Report of the CanMEDS phase IV working groups. Ottawa, Canada: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Retreived from //www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/canmeds/framework/the_7_canmeds_roles_e.pdf.
Gerard, L. F., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1037–1063. doi: 10.1002/tea.20367.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
Google Scholar
Kali, Y., & McKenney, S. (2012). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 582–583). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 551–567.
Article Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL. Inaugural address. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & Davis, N. (2003). Pedagogic benchmarks for ICT teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12, 127–149.
Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F., & Janssen, J. (2014). The collaboration principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 547–575). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). Participatory instructional redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: Effects on perceptions of instruction. Instructional Science, 39, 737–762.
Article Google Scholar
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1, 293–307.
Article Google Scholar
Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 1–29. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9338-1.
McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2.
McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. Amsterdam: McKinsey.
Google Scholar
McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7–29. doi: 10.1080/0158791010220102.
Pieters, J., & Voogt, J. (2008). Curriculum, docent en innovative [Curriculum, teacher and innovation], research program of the department curriculum design and educational innovation. Enschede: University of Twente.
Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Hilton, J, I. I. I. (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning outcomes. Educational Researcher, 43, 341–351.
Article Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., Kali, Y. (2015). Fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers' designing of technology-enhanced learning. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9342-5.
Simons, R. J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In R.-J. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform. Washington DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. Retrieved from //www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Standing-on-the-Shoulders-of-Giants-An-American-Agenda-for-Education-Reform.pdf.
van den Dool, P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Integrating the educative functions of ICT in ‘the teachers and learners toolboxes’: A reflection on pedagogical benchmarks for ICT in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12, 161–179.
Article Google Scholar
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Google Scholar
Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7.
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.
Article Google Scholar
Page 2
Competences of many professionals