Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Division K ‐ Teaching and Teacher Education / Section 9 1
A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of
technology integration and educational change
Sarah K. Howard
University of Wollongong
sarah_howard@uow.edu.au
This paper presents the domains of control framework conceptualizing teachers’ risk
perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational change. This
framework provides a holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions drawn from
educational, sociological, and anthropological approaches and theories. Risk
perceptions are understood as part of a reflexive relationship between individual
teachers and their school culture. Interactions between the two domains will
influence teachers’ choices to use technology in the classroom. Through gaining an
understanding of individuals’ risk perceptions associated with technology use and
changing teaching practices, school leadership can better support teachers’ change
processes and their engagement in school change initiatives.
1 Introduction
In the current educational climate, numerous change initiatives are taking place in schools, many of
which include technology (Hew & Brush, 2007). For every change, there are associated risks. In fact,
risk and change are inextricably linked – without taking risks; change and innovation are not
possible. In the context of technology‐related change, it is important to understand teachers’
perceived risks, as these perceptions will guide teachers’ decisions to use technology in the
classroom. On an individual level, research has shown that up to 50% of people experience anxiety
and frustration when using technology (Wilfong, 2006). On a school cultural level, teachers are
expected to use technology in their practice, but often teachers beliefs about teaching and
technology do not align (Ertmer, 2005). These factors, and others, will influence teachers’ risk
perceptions and thus their choice to change and incorporate technology into their practice.
This discussion presents the domains of control (DoC) as a way to examine teachers’ technology‐
related risk perceptions through three areas of teachers’ lives: individual beliefs (primary), the
classroom (secondary), and the school culture (tertiary). This framework provides a holistic
examination of teachers’ risk perceptions through educational, sociological, and anthropological
approaches and theories. This sociocultural view is an important affordance of the DoC framework,
as “it has become clear that innovations cannot be implemented without regard to the internal
social structures of schools or other pressures that schools face” (Zhao & Frank, 2003, p. 831).
Why consider risk perceptions? Over the past two decades, risk society theorists have identified an
increasing public awareness of technological, natural, and social risk (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). It
is argued that this trend has emerged from the individuals and cultures’ desire to control and
manage risky outcomes. When researchers discuss risk they often mean perceived risk: peoples’
evaluations of possible hazards (Rohrmann, 2000). Risk perceptions are based upon what individuals
and groups perceive as undesired outcomes, thus values and beliefs will guide their choices (Lupton,
1999; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & McGregor, 2004).
In educational research, the following types of comments have been made regarding risk,
technology, and change:
Title: A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational
change
“...these types [technology‐related beliefs] of changes are riskier for teachers.”
(Ertmer, 2005, p. 26)
“...change requires tremendous sophistication as well as some risk taking by
teachers...” (Fullan, 2007, p. 35)
“While these developments have undoubtedly concentrated teachers’ energy and
efforts ... improvement has also introduced some risks and drawbacks.” (Hargreaves,
2009, p. 95)
While the previous statements include the concept of risk, what the risks are has remained
undefined. Educational research has not clarified: what these risks are, what it means to be riskier,
and what constitutes a risk‐taker. Risks have remained undefined, but risk‐taking has been identified
as an essential part of learning (e.g., Reio, 2007). In the context of learning, risk‐taking can be seen
as a way of framing the world, where it is “imaginative, inventive, uncertain, and goes beyond the
ordinary and predictable ...” (Lightfoot, 1997).
The DoC framework helps to clarify risk in two ways, it provides: 1) a holistic examination of social
structures in schools, and 2) a useful conceptualization of teachers’ risk perceptions. First,
educational anthropology has made a call for analysis that goes beyond broad group‐level views of
school culture, to develop a deeper understanding of teaching and learning (Pollock, 2008, p. 370).
At the same time, research examining technology and innovation requires a broader view of social
structures in schools (Zhao & Frank, 2003). This framework provides a view of both levels, as well as
their point of interaction in the classroom. Second, as previously stated, educational research has
identified that teachers need to be prepared to take risks in order to participate in educational
change (e.g., Ertmer, 2005; Fullan, 2001). When risks have been identified, better‐informed
decisions can be made in change‐related situations (Vose, 2008). This framework provides a
conceptual model to examine teachers’ risk perceptions.
2 Reflexivity, teachers, and school culture
The domains of control (DoC) framework is part of a larger PhD study, conducted in Australia and the
United States, considering teachers and school cultures’ risk perceptions from sociological and
anthropological perspectives. In this paper, risk perceptions are considered part of a reflexive
cultural system (see Figure 1), understood through Giddens’ (1984) sociological theory of
structuration.
Figure 1
The reflexivity of teachers' agency and school culture
2
Title: A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational
change
Reflexivity suggests that while individuals are affected by their structure (cultural context; school
culture), individuals’ (teachers) actions can affect and change the structure through agency; referred
to as the duality of structure. Individual teachers’ actions (agency) will have an impact upon their
school culture (structure), at the same time, the decisions teachers make will be influenced by their
school culture. Educational research has previously identified this relationship between teachers and
school culture (e.g., Hargreaves, 1994), but not in terms of reflexivity.
The DoC framework extends Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration to include a secondary domain,
which contextualizes the classroom as the space in which agency and structure interact. Individual
beliefs and values guiding actions are invisible until they become visible in behaviour; culture is
visible through a combination of values and behaviours (Hofstede, 2001, p. 10). Teaching behaviours
observed in the classroom space, as well as teachers’ reflection upon these behaviours, will reveal
teachers’ values and beliefs about teaching and technology.
3 Teachers’ risk perceptions
To understand risk‐taking behaviours, perceived risks must be first identified (Vose, 2008).
Individuals’ risk perceptions can provide a useful framework through which values and beliefs can be
examined (Lupton, 1999). Individual teachers’ agency and perceived risks, as well as their
perceptions of the school culture will influence their choice to integrate technology in teaching.
Perceptions are rooted in individuals’ social knowledge, past experiences, and values, each teacher
will view teaching, technology, and school culture differently – but not entirely. By the nature of
individuals being teachers and having similar general experiences in that role, they will have a
common disposition (Bourdieu, 1994). At the same time, teachers often fulfil different roles within a
school, which will affect how they perceive situations and actions. Teachers perform multiple roles
as part of their “day‐to‐day life,” including their lives outside of the school. The risks individuals
associate with their role as a teacher are defined through their choices and practices in the
classroom (Howard, 2009). When considering technology integration, individuals will base decisions
on their perceived value of technology, the role of technology in teaching (Ertmer, 2005), as well as
past experiences using technology (Todman & Drysdale, 2004).
The larger study, which the DoC framework was developed in, has shown that teachers believed the
over‐arching cultural value in education, and therefore the main area of concern and risk perceived
in relation to technology integration, was student learning. While the findings from this study are
from a small sample and are not generalizable (two case study schools, eight teachers), they were
consistent with prior research identifying student learning as teachers’ primary source of satisfaction
(e.g., Dinham & Scott, 2000), as well as it often being the benchmark for teacher effectiveness (e.g.,
Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakides, & Robinson, 2005). Teachers identified several concerns related to
student learning, when integrating technology into teaching (Howard, 2009):
How technology supports notions of effective and quality teaching
Loss of classroom control when using technology
Time to prepare to teach with technology, and instruction time lost where there were
problems teaching with technology
Fulfilling cultural expectations (e.g., test scores, curriculum alignment, etc.)
Individuals’ evaluate the costs and benefits of risks through a combination of rational and affective
analysis (Slovic, et al., 2004). Personal benefit can be understood as gains supporting something a
person values. Zhao and Frank (2003) describe this as perceived relative advantage. Teachers, that
are likely to use technology, will generally perceive a positive benefit from technology integration,
such as increase in student engagement (Howard, 2010). Others would see the possible risks, such as
3
Title: A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational
change
students being off task, as limiting factors and would not integrate technology into their teaching.
This preference has little to do with the actual risks associated with technology integration in the
classroom. Perceptions of cost and benefit, influences on the perception of advantage, can be
conceptualized through the DoC framework.
4 The domains of control framework
The DoC framework provides a way to understand influences on teachers’ risk perceptions. It offers
a holistic view of teachers’ perceived risks in the context of technology‐related change by
considering teachers’ beliefs about their own efficacies, teaching, and using technology in
conjunction with their perceptions of classroom and school cultural influences. The three general
domains are presented with teachers’ technology‐related risk perceptions, as identified by Howard
(2009), in Figure 2. The framework and the related risk perceptions are not intended to be a rigid
categorization. The domains build upon each other; therefore, conceptual overlap between the
areas would be expected.
Figure 2
Technology‐related risk perceptions aligned with the domains of control
The concept of control, as it is understood in the DoC framework, is derived from risk society theory.
In modernity, it is assumed that individuals have a certain amount of control over, and that they are
responsible for, their interactions and environment (Giddens, 1990, 1991; Lupton, 1999). The
relativity of objects to an individual refers to the level of control they are able to exert within each of
the domains, and thus manage risk. Historically, teachers could symbolically exercise control over
their classroom, have occupational autonomy, by closing the classroom door (Robertson, 2000). In
the current educational climate, specifically considering state‐level testing requirements, teachers
and schools are being held more accountable for their practices and student learning outcomes. This
shift in priorities places increasing external pressure on teachers to ensure student learning shows
adequate yearly progress; to use language from the No Child Left Behind initiative (Hargreaves,
2009).
Using the DoC framework teachers’ technology integration can be evaluated in the three domains.
For example, a teacher makes the choice to integrate technology into their teaching practice
(primary domain); part of this decision would be guided by their individual beliefs about teaching
and technology. The second domain is the act of integrating technology into their teaching and the
classroom, where risk‐taking behaviours can be observed. While the teacher may value technology,
do they feel the benefit is worth the cost of instruction time? The tertiary domain represents how
4
Title: A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational
change
the action would be situated in the wider school culture. Was the teacher fulfilling an explicit school‐
level expectation; or, were they independently motivated to integrate technology, and if so, was the
choice supported by the school?
5 Significance and contribution to the field
Risk perceptions are highly contextualized in culture and specific to the individual. The DoC
framework draws upon educational, sociological, and anthropological approaches and theories to
conceptualize teachers’ technology‐related risk perceptions. In Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, &
Thomas’ (2006) review of educational change literature, it was identified that, “The focus is not just
on individual teachers’ professional learning but of professional learning within a community
context.” The framework addresses this priority, by providing a holistic way conceptualize the
impact of school culture, within an examination of individual teachers’ risk perceptions.
Risk theorist have identified a growing awareness of technology risks, and a desire to control these
risks (Giddens, 1991), but teachers need to be risk‐takers in educational change (Fullan, 2007). As
previously outlined, risk perceptions can provide a useful framework for examining individuals and
groups’ values and beliefs (Lupton, 1999). Teachers’ technology‐related risk perceptions were
identified in Howard’s PhD study (2009) and conceptualized through the DoC framework. This
construct will help researchers and school leadership to better understand teachers’ experiences
with technology integration, thus more informed decisions can be made to support teachers in
change‐related situations.
In conclusion, the DoC framework provides a unique way to consider technology‐related educational
change, and teachers’ uptake of technology integration in the classroom. The framework’s reflexive
perspective supports the current need to contextually examine the interaction of teachers’
experiences within their school culture. The holistic approach, examining teachers’ risk perceptions
in the three domains, offers a new and potentially powerful tool illustrating the intricacies of
teachers’ experiences in innovation and change initiatives.
6 References
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London: SAGE
Publications.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(4), 379‐396.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25‐40.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self‐identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers' work and culture in the
postmodern age. London: Continuum.
Hargreaves, A. (2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity—an
introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 89‐100.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K‐12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Tech Research Dev,
55, 223‐252.
5
Title: A holistic view of teachers’ risk perceptions in the context of technology integration and educational
change
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Howard, S. K. (2009). Teacher change: Individual and cultural risk‐taking perceptions in the context
of ICT integration. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Sydney.
Howard, S. K. (2010, April 30 ‐ May 4). What makes technology “risky”?: An exploration of teachers’
perceived risk in the context of technology integration. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Lightfoot, C. (1997). The culture of adolescent risk‐taking. New York: Guilford Press.
Lupton, D. (1999). Introduction: risk and sociocultural theory. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and
sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 1‐11). Cambridge: University
Press.
Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., & Robinson, W. (2005). Making the case for differentiated
teacher effectiveness: An overview of research in four key areas. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 16(1), 51‐70.
Pollock, M. (2008). From shallow to deep: Toward a thorough cultural analysis of school
achievement patterns. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(4), 369‐380.
Reio, T. G. (2007). Exploring the links between adult education and human resource development:
Learning, risk‐taking, and democratic discourse. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human
Resource Development, 21(1/2), 5‐12.
Robertson, S. L. (2000). A class act: Changing teachers' work, globalisation and the state. New York:
Falmer Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & McGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings:
Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311‐322.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221‐258.
Todman, J., & Drysdale, E. (2004). Effects of qualitative differences in initial and subsequent
computer experience on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(5), 581‐590.
Vose, D. (2008). Risk analysis: A quantitative guide: John Wiley and Sons.
Wilfong, J. D. (2006). Computer anxiety and anger: The impact of computer use, computer
experience, and self‐efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1001–1011.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807‐840.
6