Views of mathematics and vocational teachers in upper secondary schools about which forces impact assessment practices and the use of information technology

Abstract

The aim of the study was to understand how teachers in Icelandic upper secondary schools describe forces influencing changes in their teaching practices. Specifically, what they identify as the impetus for changes and how they frame them. The past decade has seen a series of changes to the upper secondary school level in Iceland, through amendments to legislation in 2008, the adoption of a new curriculum in 2011, and a recent initiative to shorten the duration of the upper secondary school from four to three years. These and other developments, such as the enrollment of an ever larger percentage of cohorts and the increasing ubiquity of information technology, are likely to affect the work of teachers. However, little is known as to how teachers view and frame the modifications they make to their teaching practices.We analyzed interviews with six mathematics and six vocational teachers from eight different upper secondary schools, conducted between late 2013 and late 2014. We composed an analytical device consisting of two spectra: On the Y-spectrum we placed reasons for change; with changes viewed as top-down at one end (e.g., educational authorities, school policy) and changes seen as initiated by the teachers themselves on the other. The X-spectrum reflects whether the teachers frame the changes as peripheral (e.g., adjustments made to solve practical issues) or structural (e.g., reflecting pedagogical beliefs or values), corresponding roughly to the processes described by Piaget (1954) and Kolb (e.g., Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2000) as assimilation and accommodation. The analysis revealed that the changes referred to by the teachers fell into two main categories: assessment and technology. Overall, the analysis revealed that the immediate school environment, students, and school policy are perceived as the main motivators for changes in assessment practices and the use of information technology. The results also indicate interplay between school policy and teacher initiative, with one seemingly influencing the other as teachers react to top-down directives. School policy seemed to create the possibilities for changes (e.g., by adopting a course management system or emphasizing formative assessment) but individual teachers determined the implementation and level of involvement, sometimes to the extent of adopting the changes as their own. This is concordance with prior research showing how the support and guidance of school leaders encourages innovative behavior in teachers (Thurlings, Evers, & Vermeulen, 2015) and how changes are best implemented by a combination of top-down and bottom-up processes (Fullan, 1994). The results also reveal how similar changes to practices (e.g., in-class continuous assessment) can be framed in different terms as they reflect fundamental shifts in some cases (e.g., reacting to an increasingly diverse student population) but adaptive practices in others (e.g., to prevent students from copying assignments). Indeed, the wishes and needs of students were often the cited reason for changes, both peripheral and structural as found in previous research (e.g., Árný Helga Reynisdóttir & Ingólfur Ásgeir Jóhannesson, 2013; Thurlings et al., 2015). The teachers described both how increasing student diversity and the growing ubiquity of smartphones had presented particular pedagogical challenges they were trying to solve. In addition, the tradition of the field in question seemed important, as in the case of mathematics which the respondents tend to describe as both conservative and resistant to change. In many schools mathematics was taught by a group of teachers and the senior faculty often determined whether changes were implemented or not, sometimes to the frustration of junior teachers.
The main conclusion is that placing the views on these spectra illuminates the origin and character of the changes. Generally, it was easier to categorize reasons for change (Y-spectrum) than how the reasons were framed (X-spectrum), as it was often less clear from the teachers’ comments how they framed the changes. It is recommended that further studies embed references to the two spectra into the interview for clearer results. This research is part of a larger research project aimed at understanding the development of teaching practices and learning in upper secondary schools in Iceland, entitled Upper Secondary School Practices.