First published in Education and the Information Age: Current Progress and Future Strategies. Bradshaw Books, Cork. 2001. 105-118.

Tom Daly

Much of the argument for the use of technology in education has been made at an abstract level by technists, visionaries and policy makers, remote from the realities of practice and with, sometimes, simplistic assumptions. Development in schools has largely been lead by individual enthusiasts. Some are experimenting with specific pedagogic applications in their own classrooms and exploiting the opportunity offered by the technologies to be creative in their teaching and, perhaps, thereby confronting and transcending the professional constraints that are perceived as normal or natural (Louden, 1992, p. 181). Other school-based development is vocationally orientated, providing basic information technology (IT) training and lower-order cognitive skills. Schools’ perceptions of the need to be progressive by embracing information and communication technologies (ICTs) are also a motivating factor. In spite of this progress, and associated large capital investment, such development is predominantly occurring outside of any vision or plan of how this technology is to influence teaching or learning, and lacks a long-term plan for professional development. There is a lack of direction and coherence, and uncertainty about strategy (Hogan, 2000).

.Meanwhile, much of the education system - at a policy, curriculum and teaching level - remains largely impervious to the ICT revolution, and there is little evidence of integration into syllabi (Mulkeen, 2001, p. 56). The majority of teachers, absorbed in the daily grind of managing and teaching their classes, have little opportunity to stand back and examine their practice (Cannife, 1993, p. 1) in relation to potential ICT use. Without immediately apparent benefits, either in terms of their own professional practice or of their pupils' abilities to learn the various syllabi that have been set out, teachers are unlikely to take on the huge task of adopting their teaching methodology to ICT use. There has been no real policy consultation with this great constituency of teachers as to whether they wish to use technology, whether it might aid meaningful student learning, whether they want their classrooms to be networked, and/or for what purpose. Those teachers who have lead development to date have largely been at the prospecting stage - exploring and sampling - and much of what has been pioneered will, inevitably, be discarded. However, much of value has also been discovered through the testing of the technologies in the environments and contexts in which they will be applied.

The development of policy and structures at European (European Commission, 2001) and national levels (Ireland, 1997, p. 15) is running in parallel with this rather random, school-based development and there needs to be an appropriate orientation between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ development, if the potential of the technologies are to be realised. This raises the question of the ability of the top-down development to recognise, absorb and apply such learning from practitioner-led research. This paper, therefore, intends to examine the issue of current progress and future strategies from the local and micro perspective - through a series of projects developed by the South West Regional Authority (SWRA) and one of its original partners, Boherbue Comprehensive School. Running through this are the contextual issues, or practical considerations, that were highlighted by the projects in attempting to implement technology applications into particular mainstream organisational, cultural and social contexts (Goodyear, 1999; Surry and Farquaher; 1996) and the form of organisational structures through which such activities can inform and advise policy and practice at a higher level.

The said projects were confined to the South West Region and were aimed at the niche needs of pupils with physical disabilities in mainstream education. The process began as the SOLAS Project in Boherbue Comprehensive School, in 1997, and was supported by the SWRA through its STAND-RISI programme (www.swra.ie). SOLAS was an action-research project that was attempting to meet some of the unique needs of pupils with physical disabilities in mainstream education through the use of ICTs. It viewed the role of the technology at a number of levels. Immediately apparent was its potential for assistive technology (AT) applications to overcome functional limitations created by disability. This would allow greater functional literacy and, therefore, greater access to mainstream education.

As well as this, however, it was perceived that pupils with disabilities in mainstream schools were isolated from relevant peer support and, along with the general cultural response to disability, this resulted in a diminished sense of self-worth from their school-going experience. This, it was hoped, could be remediated with an appropriate learning programme that would provide relevance, balance and differentiation to the normal curriculum. A digital network of 13 pupils from throughout Cork and Kerry was established, and a learning programme, with constructive aspirations, was developed through this network. This process was later expanded by the South West Regional Authority through its DATE project (Disabled Access To Education) and, in all, 53 pupils eventually participated in the process.

While these projects demonstrated a potentially successful, though fragile paradigm (Daly, 1999; Daly, 2001), the finding that is most relevant to the subject of this paper was that contextual barriers within the wider education system militated against the adoption of such innovative methodology. Such factors represent a substantial "obstructionist perspective" (Tessmer and Richey, 1997, p. 87) and, in the case of the DATE SOLAS process, can be categorised into four broad contextual elements:

Values context

The Values Context, which especially pervades the second-level sector, is dominated by the overwhelming influence of the examination system. While we may claim to aspire to enhance the personal development of pupils by setting goals that are appropriate for individuals’ unique differences and abilities, and that they should be supported towards achieving these goals at an appropriate pace, the reality is that much intervention is aimed at achievement in the norms-based exam system. Thus, the take-up of technology will be often dependent on how useful it is perceived to be in this regard. For example, a senior cycle pupil with a disability may not learn to write independently by using technology if better marks can be gained in the Leaving Certificate by using a scribe to write for him/her.

Equally, the dominant values created by our examination system (Murray, 1997 pp. 56-57; Ireland, 1995, p. 17) - the assessment tail that wags the dog and "operationalises our educational goals as much as it reflects them" (Hyland, 1997, p. 3) - and the difficulty of achieving accreditation and certification for such ‘alternative’ learning, results in a strong de-valuing of such activities.

Ethos context

The school ethos develops within the wider Values Context and the eventual successful use of the technologies in this context depends, to a great extent, on school ethos, management, and attitudes towards inclusiveness for all pupils with unique needs. A ‘whole school approach’ assumes an understanding and acceptance that all teachers are responsible for teaching pupils with unique needs, and that meeting these needs is not the sole role of an individual within the school or of an outside agency. Where such an ethos is absent, some teachers may hold the view that it is not their function to adopt their methods to the needs of a particular pupil who uses technology - or the necessary supports may not be sought or available for this to occur. This issue is outside the scope of micro-projects and has to be addressed through instruments such as legislative provision and the school planning process.

Orientation context

The Orientation Context occurs where the pupil is faced with the prospect of a new technology that he or she may essentially view as an extension of themselves and part of their sense of identity. In this situation, the pupil will attempt to determine his or her position with regard to the technology. The human factors involved such as peer-group acceptance, or how the pupil may perceive the technology as adding a further handicapping label to themselves, may determine the level of acceptance of the technology. Professional and parental insight is required to understand this process.

Transfer context

The Transfer, or Organisational Context, includes the strategies, tactics and systems through which assistive technology is effectively transferred from being an abstract concept into a reality that helps to liberate an individual’s abilities. Such structures had evolved in Ireland, but were based on traditional clinical/rehabilitation models that marginalised the role of teachers in decision making. Schools, therefore, experienced difficulties in exploiting such technologies due to structural issues, including poor knowledge of its workings, fragmentation, and de-contextualisation (Ireland, 1993; Ireland, 1993b; Ireland, 1996; Colgan, 1998; INTO, 1999; Browne, 1999; Statement, 2000; Kenny et al, 2000).

The Values and Ethos Contexts were broader issues outside the scope of these projects, but it was felt that the Orientation and Transfer Context could be examined by piloting a system of assistive technology provision that would be sensitive to a variety of contextual and organisational considerations. This was approved as a School’s IT2000 SIP Project (schools integration project) and ran from June, 1999 to June, 2001, with Boherbue Comprehensive as the lead school.

As a pilot project, the role of SOLAS SIP was to step outside of existing structures and procedures, to test the feasibility of an alternative organisational and values-orientated approach and, thereby, generate insight that might inform future development. Such action-research inevitably questions existing interests and has the potential to be challenging and to generate tension and conflict (Elliott, 1998, p. 184). It also faced the somewhat unusual challenge of implementing ICT applications to classrooms where teachers were not always ICT enthusiasts, and each individual case represented a unique ICT innovation within that classroom.

During its two-year span, the project confined itself mainly to primary schools and to the ‘mid-tech’ range of assistive technologies – those that have a reasonable chance of being implemented successfully in mainstream settings without on-going specialist support. It benefited greatly from the NCTE's supportive, rather than prescriptive, approach and had the advantage of three years’ previous work during which its ideas were frameworked and refined. It was guided by five basic assumptions that had evolved during that period, and that were modified during the course of SIP:

AT is a qualitative ICT innovation that can make a substantial ‘functional’ difference.

Understanding and interacting with the context provided by the school setting is essential.

Practical, intuitive or ‘lay’ knowledge carried by teachers must be given due weight to ‘expert’ technical knowledge in making decisions.

There is a need to act positively on recent changes in policy principles that have not yet resulted in equivalent policy frameworks and policy implementation.

Flexible local provision, monitoring and support is essential (O’Mahoney, 2001, pp. 8-9).

Following from these assumptions, and two years' practical experience, the project identified ten contextual factors that might be considered, with varying degrees of significance, if the technology use was to be successfully integrated into everyday classrooms:

The pupil

Matching technology and pupil

Home circumstances

Cognitive ability

Ergonomics

Inclusiveness of curriculum

School planning and individual education plan

Classroom management

Role of Special Needs Assistant (SNA)

Avoiding abandonment of the technology

Each of these factors contains various sub-elements and considerations, but an overview will illustrate that technical and/or clinical considerations do not dominate. While ‘outside’ technical/clinical advice and support may be necessary, the sum of these contextual considerations re-orientates decision-making towards the school and the professional role and judgements of teachers, who were left with the fundamental pedagogical questions - whether the technology would actually work in the real setting, how the technology configurations might take full account of the socio-pedagogical conditions, and how the technological innovation would interchange with the overall educational context.

Using this approach, therefore, ICT provision has to be filtered, or mediated by a complex, non-technical, contextual milieu, and decision-making is heavily dependent on teachers' insight, experience, intuition and professional judgement of particular situations. Provision is not based on a linear, sequential and easily quantifiable, or ordered managerial system that we inherit from the classical sciences; but on a more complex, "fuzzy" and fractal type of system that is now recognised in the post-modern sciences (Doll, 1993, p. 3).

The independent evaluation process visited a random selection of schools that had been engaged in the process, and the project’s innovative model received a high degree of support among teachers, suggesting that the project's key ideas work well in practice (O’Mahoney, 2001, p. 34). The fundamental question was whether the student could:

participate in class after the intervention in circumstances where they could not before it? The answer to this question in the majority of cases was that the project did make that difference and that its contextual, situated approach was the main factor in it being able to do so (O’Mahoney, 2001, p. 34).

A vital aspect of teachers’ judgement of the value of the project's approach was its willingness to come to the educational setting, and to depend on the teacher’s judgements of responses that would be appropriate to that setting (O’Mahoney, 2001, p. 34).

The very clear sense from teacher interviews was that this change of emphasis gave them a sense of ownership over the provision process that the normal approach could not equal. The model facilitated the provision of services by taking account of their own inputs (O’Mahoney, 2001, p. 34).

There are some conclusions that can be drawn, tentative as they must be, from such a micro-level activity. These relate to the project's findings and to the wider issue of the role of practitioner-led action-research in the development of ICT in Irish education.

Teachers’ positive views of ICT use in this context had three dimensions. As discussed, the contextual dimension was crucial because the technology decisions were made in the contexts in which they were to be used and where all parties could be present, understand, and buy into the proposed approach. Secondly, the dialogical dimension involved not simply a token attempt to involve stakeholders, but to get them to communicate from their respective standpoints and to genuinely consider these viewpoints in decision-making. Thirdly, the consensual dimension involved the constitution of technological solutions and associated practices that could gain the commitment of all (O’Mahoney, 2001, p. 34).

While such action research projects may reveal potentially useful methodologies, there remains the question of the ability of such research to inform the Irish education system, or the system’s ability to absorb such learning. The power of teachers is limited, and their research activities cannot be exploited unless they are supported and co-ordinated (Stenhouse, 1975, p. 25) and ‘the teacher as researcher’ is little-debated in Irish education (Gleeson, 2000, p. 25). Even though various policy statements support the principle of pilot projects (Ireland. 1989, p. 20; Ireland, 1993c, p. 27), there are no clear conduits through which such learning can be channelled into wider learning and practice, so that it may eventually be translated into institutional designs. In relation to ICT development, there have been calls for research at system level, recognising that teachers operate in the context of a broader educational system (Mulkeen, 2000, p. 76). And, it has, equally, been indicated that the voice of the classroom teacher, who has to operate within very practical constraints, may not be heard (Galvin, 2000, p. 71).

The Schools IT2000 initiative, through SIP, offered a potential structure to address these issues from the ICT point of view; and SIP did afford SOLAS an opportunity to examine the system issue, in particular. Similarly, in the case of many such projects, SIP provided much of the structural scaffolding that is necessary for collaborative action-research to work and provided some of the balance between bottom-up development and top-down orientation that is necessary if school-based action research is not to be "focused narrowly on conservative, low quality changes" (Cousins and Earl, 1995, p. 175).

However, there are other necessities for the success of technology development within education. At the planning stage, there is the need to develop a negotiated technology ‘vision’, from which goals and implementation emerge (Perisho and Costello, 1996, p. 2). Byrom (1998, p. 3) identified the need for a detailed plan for professional development as one of the prime necessities for success in educational technology projects. It is not yet clear how adequately SIP addressed these issues: whether the necessary linkages were made between individual action research projects, or groups of projects working in similar disciplines, and their corresponding structures in the mainstream system that they were intended to inform; whether it will be able to meaningfully analyse the experience of projects and contribute useful knowledge; whether its learning will be effectively disseminated to all levels, from policy-makers to practitioners; and whether there is a strategy to address the inevitable institutional resistance to change.

Equally, it is not clear if Schools IT2000 made an attempt to prioritise educational need - such as literacy, special needs and educational disadvantage - and to focus ICT development on such priorities. For example, even though the government’s policy framework for ICTs in education recognised the benefits of ICTs for pupils with special needs (Ireland, 1997, p. 15), there are still no training courses developed for special needs, four years later. This is possibly a reflection of the value framework throughout the education system.

Values, therefore, are the dominant issue. The big decisions are not of a technical nature, but of values (Alexander, 2000, p. 9) and of sectoral interests (Gleeson, 2000, p. 5), and whether the European education tradition can respond to the needs created by changing societies and technologies (Elliott, 1998, p. 162).

In this regard, McNiff (2000) fired a timely shot across the bows of the technology rush in Irish education:

There is an overwhelming political pressure in technologised countries to encourage practitioners to see themselves as techno-professionals, to adopt a commitment to free-market ideologies in education, and technist assessment procedures…Deep Irish values include relationship and connectedness, and Ireland needs to resist the inappropriate technist influences of North America/Anglo approaches to professional competence (p. 146).

It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the use of technology will remain marginalised to limited ‘technist’ use; whether its principal application will be limited to providing a faster track for those interests that have, previously, most benefited from the existing system (old wine in new bottles); or whether it will fulfil the vision of alternative pathways to meet the more pressing needs on Irish education.

This limited project provided some insight into how careful consideration of context and the professional role of teachers may facilitate the penetration of ICT into teaching and learning. However, such an approach can only be generalised if there is a careful re-orientation in decision making that meaningfully considers the intuitive professional knowledge of teachers and the complex school contexts in which the pedagogical needs are located.

Alexander, T. (2000) New OECD Initiatives on ICT, Education and Learning, in Dissolving Boundaries, 8-16. NCTE, Dublin.

Browne, J. (1999) An investigation into the level of policy with regard to the role and availability of assitive technology as a support mechanism in the education of pupils with disabilities. A report commissioned by the SOLAS Project. Unpublished. Available on the web: http://www.enabletech.ie/policy_at.htm.

Byrom, E. (1998) Factors Influencing the Effective Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning, extract from the SEIR© TEC Year Three Report SERVE, Inc. P O Box 5406 Greensboro, NC 27435. Available on the web: http://www.serve.org/seir-tec/publications/lessons6.0rtf.doc.

Canniffe, T. (1993) Whole School Planning and the Role of the Teacher in: School Development in Post-Primary Schools, Cork Teacher’s Centre. Cork. 1-5.

Cousins, J. B. and L. Earl. (eds.) (1995) Participatory Evaluation in Education: Studies in Evaluation Use and Organisational Learning, London. Falmer Press.

Colgan, A. (1998) Access to Mainstream Classrooms: a review of the current practice and policy towards enabling students with special educational needs to have access to their local mainstream school. An unpublished report commissioned by the Disability Federation of Ireland.

Daly, T. G. (1999) An Action Research Study of the Application of Information and Communication Technologies in meeting the Special Educational needs of Pupils with Physical and Sensory Impairments in Mainstream Second-level Education. An unpublished MA Thesis, University of Limerick.

Daly, T. (2001) Pedagogy and Disability: Insights from Action Research. In Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 2, 2001. 107-124. Available on the web:

http://www.enabletech.ie/pedadogy_disability.htm.

Doll, W. E. (1993) A Post-modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York. Teachers College Press.

Elliott, J. (1998) The Curriculum Experiment: Meeting the Challenge of Social Change. Buckingham. Open University Press.

European Commission, (2001) The eLearning Action Plan: Designing Tomorrow's Education. Available on the Web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/elearning/doc_en.html

Galvin, C. (2000) Information and Communication Technologies in Education: Issues in Public/Private Partnership, in Dissolving Boundaries, 67 -71. NCTE. Dublin.

Gleeson, J. (2000) Sectoral Interest Versus the Common Good? Legitiamtion, Fragmentation and Contestation in Irish Post-primary Curriculum Policy and Practice. Irish Educational Studies. 19. 16-34. Dublin.

Hyland, A. (1997) Time to Get off the Fence: Issues relating to Assessment and Certification with particular reference to Physical Education. In The P. E. Journal. The Physical Education Association of Ireland. VI. II. 1-6. Limerick.

Hogan, L. (2000) ICT in Irish Second-Level Schools: Removing the Barriers. Working Paper Series, School of Computer Applications, Dublin City University. Available on the Web at http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/CA_Working_Papers/MCE/wplist00.html.

INTO, (1999) Special Education and Information and Communication Technology - The Way Ahead. Irish National Teachers Organisation. Dublin.

Ireland, (1989) A Guide to the Junior Certificate, National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Dublin.

Ireland, (1993) Education and the New Technologies of Information and Communication: Issues and Options in Ireland. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Dublin.

Ireland, (1993b) Report of the Special Education Review Committee (SERC). Dublin: Department of Education, Stationary Office.

Ireland, (1993c) A Programme for Reform. Curriculum and Assessment Policy Towards the New Century. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Dublin.

Ireland, (1995) Assessment and Certification in the Senior Cycle: Issues and Directions. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Dublin.

Ireland, (1996) Working Paper on Education, prepared for the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Dublin, Stationary Office.

Ireland, (1997) Schools IT2000: A Policy Framework for the new Millennium. Department of Education and Science. Dublin. Available on the web: http://www.ncte.ie/overview.htm.

Kenny, M, McNeela, E, Shevlin M. and T. Daly. (2000) Hidden Voices: Young People with Disabilities Speak about their Second Level Schooling. Cork. Bradshaw Books.

Louden, W. 1992. Understanding Reflection Through Collaborative Research, in: Hargreaves, A., and M. Fullan (eds) 1992, Understanding Teacher Development. London: Cassell. 178-215.

McNiff, J. 2000. Virtual Professionalism and the Challenge for Irish Educators, in Irish Educational Studies. Dublin. 19. 139- 147.

Mulkeen, A. 2000. Information and Communication Technologies in Education: issues in the Evaluation of ICT Actions, in Dissolving Boundaries, 72 - 76. NCTE, Dublin.

Mulkeen, A. 2001. The Place of ICT in Irish Schools: Early Indicators of the Changes since IT2000, in Irish Educational Studies, Vol. 2, 2001. 45-58.

O’Mahoney, P. 2001. Evaluation Report of the SOLAS SIP Project. Unpublished. Available on the Web: http://www.enabletech.ie/evaluation_report.html.

Perisho, D., and R. Costello, 1996. Voice, Video, Data, and Education: Planning a Building’s Technology Infrastructure, in: THE Journal, (Technological Horizons in Education) December, 1996. Available on the web: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A152.cfm.

Statement. 2000. Evaluation Report, Statement Pilot Project. Association for Higher Education And Disability. Dublin. Unpublished.

Tessmer, M. and R. Richey, 1997. The Role of Context in Learning and Instructional Design, in: Educational Technology Research and Development, 1997. 45. 2. 85-115.