[This post was originally published in 2014]
We assume that digital technology can improve education and that ‘the challenge’ is how to bring innovative technology and educational professionals together. However, the research evidence shows that despite massive investment digital technology has not resulted in significant improvements in learning experiences or attainment in education (e.g. Luckin et al., 2012) [http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/decoding-learning].
Many of the barriers to the effective implementation of digital technology to enhance education are well understood, and relate to human factors rather than technological ones (Twining et al., 2006). Indeed, it has been argued that no amount of technology will transform education (Osborne, 2003) because it is people who bring about change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991).
That is why I will be arguing for the importance of continuous professional development (CPD) in my keynote at the Technology in Education conference on the 4th March [http://educationandtechnology.co.uk/.
We know a great deal about what effective CPD looks like, both in general and specifically in relation to using digital technology to enhance learning (see Twining, Raffaghelli, Albion, & Knezek, 2013). Implicit within this is the notion that teaching is a profession.
Bob Burstow recently questioned whether this was the case, and I have to admit that I no longer think that teaching, at least in England, is a profession.
Before you add an outraged comment below, let me explain …
We would all recognize the following as being key features of a profession: knowledge of the underpinning principles and theories in your field; a requirement for regular updating and re-accreditation; being the creators and curators of knowledge within your field; not working a fixed number of hours; having a degree of autonomy, within the constraints of appropriate professional standards, to decide what you do and how you do it; having an independent professional body that sets and maintains those standards. Since the late 1980s all of these things have been eroded or totally missing for teaching in England.
In 1987 teachers’ terms and conditions were changed to specify the number of hours a year that they should work (1,265 hours over 195 days per year); a shift from an expectation that they should work the hours that were necessary.
In 1988 the National Curriculum was introduced. This took away teachers’ autonomy to decide what to teach.
In the late 1990s the National Strategies were introduced. These undermined teachers’ autonomy for deciding how to teach.
Alongside these developments were changes to the curriculum for initial teacher education, which are reflected in this now being referred to as initial teacher training. These involved reducing time spent on understanding how children learn (learning theory) and thinking about what school is for (educational philosophy) in order to make room for training on how to structure teaching (e.g. the three part lesson) and how to deliver specific approaches such as synthetic phonics. This undermined teachers’ understanding of education’s underpinning principles and theories.
There is no requirement for teachers in England to undergo professional updating or re-accreditation; they are not expected to engage with, yet along carry out, educational research; and up till now they have not had an independent professional body.
Of course there are many individual teachers who are professionals and who recognize the need for teaching to be a profession. That is why there is such strong support for the formation of the College of Teaching. This is a critical step towards re-professionalising teaching. However, it would be foolish to think that it will be able to redress the problems inherent in the revised national curriculum, which I raised in a previous post or even help teachers prepare to deliver the new Computing curriculum from September this year.
References
Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., & Noss, R. (2012). Decoding Learning: the proof, promise and potential of digital education. London: Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/public_services_lab/digital_education/assets/features/decoding_learning_report
Osborne, J. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions (No. 6). Bristol: Futurelab.
Twining, P., Broadie, R., Cook, D., Ford, K., Morris, D., Twiner, A., & Underwood, J. (2006). Educational change and ICT: an exploration of Priorities 2 and 3 of the DfES e-strategy in schools and colleges - the current landscape and implementation issues. Coventry: Becta. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42792354
Twining, P., Raffaghelli, J., Albion, P., & Knezek, D. (2013). Moving education into the digital age: the contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 426–437. doi:10.1111/jcal.12031