“Given both the significant potential to change the nature of instruction, as well as the difficulties inherent in adopting new tools and pedagogies, digital technologies provide a critical context for the investigation of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and classroom practice.” 

(Ertmer et al., 2015, p. 404)

Education is in constant evolution. Often we are seeing new strategies and techniques for teaching. We have moved from “the sage on the stage” style, which is top down teaching, to student centered “guide on the side” style (King, 1993, p. 30).  As we go through these evolutions of education, we often expect teachers to jump on board the latest trend and immediately become experts. This assumption ignores the human element of teaching and that not all parties will experience change in the same way. The Theory of Change (Weiss, 1995) suggests that in order for change to be effective, you must first understand why people embrace or resist in order to manage the change effectively.  

In their article, Ertmer et al., (2015) explore the reasons why teachers are not using technology at the expected rates. They focus primarily on teacher beliefs and their use of technology while exploring any barriers which impact the integration of digital technologies. The authors first determine that in order for teachers to make a change in their pedagogy to include more digital technologies, we must first acknowledge teacher beliefs. They state “technology should be used as part of a meaningful and impactful approach to instruction, altering both the content and context of learning, instruction, and assessment” (Ertmer et al., 2015, p. 405).

Within their article, Ertmer et al., (2015) discussed the presence of barriers that prevented teachers from integrating digital technologies into their classroom practice. In a previous article, Ertmer (1999) took the factors and attributed them as either first-order or second-order barriers. First-order barriers are external factors like limited access to technologies, lack of time for planning instruction, insufficient support. Whereas second-order barriers are internal factors like a teacher’s beliefs about teaching, mindset toward technology, pedagogical knowledge, and willingness to change. It’s important to note, that these identified barriers are in relation to in-service teachers.

Throughout time, as technology has become more present in schools and classrooms, some of the initial first-order barriers have been reduced or eliminated, like limited access to technology. Ertmer et al., (2015) clarify that the identified barriers can also be seen as facilitators when the school culture, beliefs, and access to tech has already changed. Teachers are more likely to take advantage of the technology independently. Especially when there is little change required to the teacher’s classroom practice. Such as using technology to support their existing practice, like using technology as a word processor. However, when the technology is used to support “21st-century goals (e.g., collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving)” (p. 408), then change is required for several classroom practices in order to accommodate these new goals. 

Conversely, pre-service teachers already have a foundation of knowledge and understanding of technology. According to Taimalu & Luik (2019), pre-service teachers’ “​​pedagogical knowledge had a significant total effect on technology integration” (p. 101) and their beliefs about technology had an indirect effect. 

Ertmer et al., (2015) concentrate on how the existing research and understanding of technology integration can be addressed in professional development (PD) opportunities. The authors suggest that rather than a single approach in PD sessions, to have multiple strategies to address various barriers. 

Implications for my project

The purpose of my project is to develop a course outline for professional development which focuses on developing the digital literacy skills of inservice teachers. Currently, there is an abundance of technology, both hardware and software, available for teachers to use in their classroom practice but many teachers are not using it for “21st century learning” (Mishra & Kereluik, 2011). In my personal observations, many teachers who use technology are using it for word processing or slide decks, which according to Ertmer et al. (2015) is an easy and simple enough transition for teachers to make because it doesn’t require them to really change their pedagogy. If we were to consider Puentedura’s (2006) Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model, which defines an approach for integrating technology into classroom settings, then these teachers would be at the “substitution” level. They are substituting paper and pencil for typing in a document. 

The research conducted by Ertmer et al., (2015) concentrates on teacher practice as well as the change required for a teacher to integrate technology into their practice. Ertmer et al., (2015) also address the impact the existing research has on professional development. Many articles focus only on student outcome as a measure for determining whether a professional development program was effective. Ertmer et al. (2015) advocate for professional development to support teachers in changing their pedagogical beliefs, or facilitating the growth of new practices, in order to change their classroom practices with technology to support 21st-century learning. 

The authors advocate for information and communication technology (ICT) professional development (PD) to consist of multiple facets. They suggest that PD be situated in curricular context, focus on how practices and tools support content instruction, include evidence that the new practice has positive impact, as well as the opportunity to observe and practice the new skills. 

I found this article to be very helpful in understanding how to structure a PD program to support teachers who might be resistant to changing their classroom practice because they view technology as a barrier due to their pedagogical beliefs. Approaching ICT professional development from multiple points permits participants to have multiple entry points in the new skills. It’s not about their beliefs being wrong or incorrect, it’s about using skills they may already have (from using technology in their personal lives) to foster 21st-century learning. 

A final note, I found it very refreshing to read an article which focused on the skill development of the teachers and focused on the change in their beliefs and/or practices, rather than using student achievement as a measure. Berk (2014) suggests that using student achievement to measure a teacher’s effectiveness is fallible. Teacher’s work with student’s whose traits differ significantly within the same class (ie. not all students have the same skill, interests, ideas, learning needs, etc.), teacher’s have very little say in their class (ie. size, composition, environment, etc) and no control over the traits and individual differences of the individual students, it’s very challenging to determine which part of a student’s evaluation and outcome was a result of the teacher’s effectiveness (Berk, 2014).

References

Berk, R. A. (2014). Should Student Outcomes Be Used to Evaluate Teaching? The Journal of Faculty Development, 28(2), 87–96.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teachers’ Beliefs and Uses of Technology to Support 21st-century Teaching and Learning. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs (pp. 403-418). Taylor & Francis Group. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203108437-28/teachers-beliefs-uses-technology-support-21st-century-teaching-learning-peggy-ertmer-anne-ottenbreit-leftwich-jo-tondeur

King, A. (1993, Winter). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558571.

Mishra, P. & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st Century Learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3301-3312). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2025 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36828/. 

Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/. Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory:. Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Roundtable on Comperhensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. (pp. 65-92). Aspen Inst. for Humanistic Studies.