In what ways have primary school teachers used technology differently to support children’s learning during remote education and how might this inform their future practice?
Jenny Sullivan
BA (Hons) Primary Teaching Studies 5-11 with recommendations for QTS.
Abstract
This small-scale survey examined how primary school teachers used digital technology differently to support children’s learning during remote education forced upon teachers and schools by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. It examined the barriers teachers faced in using technology to deliver online teaching and learning and identified how their experiences of using technology differently informed their future practice. Data were collected from teachers at three small rural village primary schools in Lincolnshire, resulting in 11 questionnaires being scrutinised and triangulated with five semi-structured interviews before analysis was completed and conclusions drawn. The results from this research have indicated most teachers had their first online teaching experience during the current pandemic, necessitating teachers to swiftly develop Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) in using virtual platforms and software to deliver pre-recorded and live lessons to children at home. This experience has allowed teachers to realise the potential benefits of using digital technology when children returned to school and in future practice, with many intending to put homework online and pre-record lessons for delivery to children in the classroom on occasions when they cannot be with them to provide consistently high-quality teaching whilst providing opportunities for children to develop digital skills essential for adulthood.
Introduction
Whilst Gillen et al. (2007), Selwyn (2007, 2008) and Convery (2009) highlighted the use of technology to support children’s learning, this has been widely debated since the first computers were driven into schools by a government initiative in the 1970s. McFarlane (2015) argues no clear generalisable vision for how technology can be used to improve outcomes has been established, resulting in technology being inconsistently used in education. However, the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has forced children not to attend school on occasions to reduce the transmission of the highly infectious disease, posing significant challenges in educating children using conventional teaching methods (Department for Education [DfE], 2020b). The Coronavirus Act (2020) and associated continuity directive therefore made it compulsory for schools to provide education remotely for all pupils during periods when children must stay at home (DfE, 2021b; The Gazette Official Public Record, 2020).
As a result, many teachers who were previously reluctant to move away from traditional teaching methods have been forced to adopt new teaching strategies incorporating technology to deliver digital remote education (Dhawan, 2020, p.5). Starkey et al. (2021) indicate technology has played a critical role in supporting education during these forced periods of school closure and self-isolation. Ofsted (2021b) suggest schools may seek to continue to use aspects of digital remote education in the long term, having invested in it substantially in terms of finance and time, and having recognised it brings benefits to supporting children’s education. I believe it is a necessity for teachers to incorporate the regular use of technology into the classroom for children to become familiar with and safely use a range of technology to enhance their learning whilst developing the necessary life skills to prepare them for living in what Sumardi et al. (2020) describe as a ‘digital age’. This is consistent with the National Curriculum (DfE, 2014), which indicates schools and teachers should provide children with an educational experience that fully prepares them for adulthood (p.5). Additionally, literature suggests if children are not able to appreciate and use the complicated digital landscape safely and purposefully, they will be prohibited from participating fully in society, limiting their life chances (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015). Therefore, it can be argued it is imperative teachers continually provide opportunities for children to use technology in a purposeful way in education to develop competence for later life.
This small-scale survey sought to identify in what ways primary school teachers used technology differently during remote education, identifying how technology was used to support children’s learning when schools were closed because of the coronavirus pandemic, what barriers teachers faced in using the technology and how they intended to use this technology to support children’s learning in future practice, offering professional development ideas to the wider profession, and informing my practice. It involved the teachers from three primary schools within one academy trust in Lincolnshire
Literature Review
Introduction
‘Digital remote education’ includes the use of technology to facilitate schooling when teaching or learning must occur away from the school premises (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, 2020; Ofsted, 2021b). According to the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2019), digital technology refers to the devices, software and virtual learning platforms used to enhance learning (p.1). Owing to the uniqueness of the circumstance and research focus into the impact remote education has had on children’s learning, there is limited literature specific to primary education upon which to draw when exploring the use of technology to deliver digital remote education during the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, whilst analysis in this thematic literature review has identified key uses of technology in delivering digital remote education, the barriers faced and how technology could be used in future practice in schools, the findings are not specific to primary education and will be cross-examined later in my research analysis before conclusions are drawn.
Theme 1 – Technology during digital remote education
Since schools were forced to close on 20th March 2020 to curtail the spread of the coronavirus (Sharp et al., 2020), existing literature suggests digital technology has played a developing but vital role in remote education. Microsoft (2020) identified four out of five teachers stated online digital lessons have been fundamental to children’s learning during this period. Although the findings of this research should be treated with caution as they may have been influenced by corporate bias, they are supported by the School Education Gateway (2020), who identified at least two thirds of teachers had their first experience of teaching online during this pandemic, and the EEF (2020b), who established digital technology has been used in most cases to deliver remote education. Consequently, although teachers lacked experience and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) (König et al, 2020) in using technology to deliver teaching, existing literature suggests it has been used by majority of teachers to support children’s learning during the pandemic.
The DfE (2020a) identified many schools used existing, familiar technology to deliver digital remote education for a smooth transition, but Breslin (2021) indicated even if the technology was familiar, it had not been used previously in every lesson in the manner as was required during remote education. Digital technology has been used during this period to deliver live, synchronous, and recorded, asynchronous lessons (EEF, 2020a; Ofsted, 2021a) and the DfE (2021b) suggested schools should use a single, interactive platform such as ‘Microsoft Teams or Google Classroom’ to provide a central area for all online lessons and materials, even though over half of teachers had never used online digital platforms before lockdown (Microsoft, 2020). Nevertheless, literature suggests such virtual platforms have played a vital part in learning outcomes, allowing teachers to work directly with classes and small groups which would not have been possible without digital technology during school closures (Brown, 2021). However, Ofsted (2021b) noted teachers must be aware of an exceptional need for clarity and explanation in recorded lessons to tackle misconceptions which would normally be addressed in face-to-face teaching. Additionally, many teachers have realised the potential of using digital software such as Google Forms, Kahoot, ClassKick, Socrative and Edpuzzle (DfE, 2021b) to conduct formative assessment during remote education, allowing children and teachers to get instant feedback, supporting early identification of learner needs and informing the planning process in an efficient manner (DfE, 2020a).
Therefore, although online teaching using digital technology was new to most teachers at the start of the current pandemic, literature suggests it has played a critical role in supporting children’s learning during remote education, allowing teacher-led sessions to be delivered through either live or pre-recorded lessons, allowing pupils to collaborate during learning and enabling teachers to continue to assess pupil progress and provide feedback, even when not in the same room as the children. However, the literature is not specific to the primary sector and, therefore, required further investigation to identify relatability to primary education, which my research sought to determine.
Theme 2 – Barriers to using digital technology during remote education
The success of digital remote education has been reliant upon teachers having access to appropriate technology and support to utilise it effectively and fully (EEF, 2020b). However, Sharp et al. (2020) identified over a third of teachers provided their own laptop to conduct remote education (p.30). Additionally, School Education Gateway (2020) and Promethean (n.d.) identified teachers’ access to and unreliability of technology had been a barrier to effective remote education for over a third of teachers, hindering the quality of education offered. Furthermore, a lack of digital teaching experience meant training on how to use the technology to support children’s learning was paramount for teachers during remote education (EEF, 2020b; Schleicher, 2020). However, Sharp et al. (2020) suggested almost two fifths of primary teachers had not received any training on using technology to help them provide digital remote education, negatively impacting pupil progress with the teachers having received less training seeing their pupils falling most behind. Although DfE (2021a) advocated schools should conduct an audit to assess staff’s access to and capability in using digital technology, it was not statutory. Therefore, it could be argued a need still exists to identify if teachers continue to perceive their access to and training in how to use technology to support children’s learning as barriers to delivering effective digital remote education, which my research aimed to address.
Theme 3 – The future of technology in primary schools
Continuing to use the technology discovered in remote education regularly in class and at home is important to ensure technology becomes and remains familiar, developing independence, confidence and skills for both teachers and children, better preparing individuals for today’s digital society, in turn supporting employment prospects and appropriate online social integration (Microsoft, 2020).
The Edge Foundation (2020) identified over half of teachers developed TPK by delivering digital remote education during school closures, which they wish to continue to use in their future teaching practice (p.18). Whilst the small number of participants in this study from across all education sectors mean the statistics must be treated with caution, other research supports the findings, with two thirds of teachers suggesting they would use more online learning than before Covid-19 when schools returned (School Education Gateway, 2020) and over eight out of 10 educators specifying technology would be a core part of learning in the future (Promethean, n.d.). Ofsted (2021b) also identified schools may seek to continue to use more digital technology now that majority of children have returned to classroom teaching. However, Nick Gibb, the school standards minister, suggested the continual use of digital technology in education must be justified, highlighting careful consideration should be given to where it can enhance high-quality provision (Media Officer, 2021).
The DfE (2021c) stipulate any child who is well but is not able to be in school because of the continuing pandemic should continue to receive recorded or live guided teaching time, complemented by additional learning tasks (p.44), indicating teachers will need to use digital technology in ongoing practice. The EEF (2020b), The Edge Foundation (2020) and Ofsted (2021b) also indicate schools may use digital technology to improve homework delivery and engagement.
Additionally, Sharp et al. (2020) suggest digital technology may play a greater role in classroom practice as teachers continue to be restricted in their movement around the classroom to maintain social distancing requirements, making the assessment of children’s independent work difficult. Therefore, a need for new approaches to formative assessment and feedback may be required to maintain effective learning strategies, which digital technology could support by using online self-quizzes during classroom lessons (EEF, 2020b).
Finally, digital technology may have a role to play in ensuring continuity in children’s learning when a teacher is absent from the classroom. Recorded lessons could be used when staff are absent from school, reducing the need for supply teachers, ensuring continuity in learning and maintaining high-quality provision (Ofsted 2021b), although this suggestion came from leaders and not teachers and requires further research to identify teachers’ attitudes towards the use of recorded lessons to cover their absences from the classroom.
Literature Gap
It is evident existing research has identified many teachers across the education sector have used digital technology to support children’s learning during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. However, there is a gap in the knowledge which my research sought to fulfil in terms of examining specifically how primary school teachers have used the technology, what barriers they faced and how they plan to use any new technology they have discovered in the future to enhance practice and children’s learning outcomes.
Methodology
Introduction
This research was a small-scale survey as it gathered data at a specific moment in time with a view to identifying the nature of recent practices (Cohen et al., 2018), ascertaining in what ways primary school teachers had used technology differently to support children’s learning during digital remote education since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. A survey provided a fitting methodology, allowing me to answer my ‘in what ways’ question by enabling me to collect rich data through the questioning of professionals (Bell & Waters, 2018; Denscombe, 2017), establishing a comprehensive, detailed picture of teachers’ ways of working with technology. A mixed method approach was used to collect data to develop a better understanding of the research topic than would have been possible if only one approach had been used (Biesta, 2017; Plano Clark, 2017). Closed questions produced quantitative data and allowed for greater statistical comparison during data analysis (Creswell, 2014), whilst the predominant use of open-ended questions produced abundant qualitative data to allow for deeper exploration of the topic over breadth (Austin, 2016). However, being a single small-scale survey means it is not appropriate to generalise the findings of this research as the conclusions may not be representative of the wider profession (Rapley, 2014). Nevertheless, to improve the validity of my research and make the results more transferable, the survey triangulated two methods of data collection and included three schools to broaden the sample and add depth, improving reliability and increasing understanding (Bell & Waters, 2018; Burton et al. 2014). Online methods of data collection were chosen to adhere to guidance from the research sector which advocates digital methods be used as suitable alternatives to face-to-face methods during the continuing pandemic, minimising potential risks to participants’ health and safety (The Market Research Society, 2021).
Sample
The research was undertaken in three rural village primary schools who share the same Executive Headteacher, all located in Lincolnshire and from one academy trust, with school A and school B being much smaller than average-sized, resulting in children being taught in mixed-aged classes (Ofsted, 2019a, Ofsted 2019b), whilst school C is smaller than averaged-sized but has a single class in each year group (Ofsted 2014). I intentionally chose these sites as a purposeful sample for the valuable information they would offer (Creswell, 2014, p.228) having previously established from the Executive Headteacher each school had used technology to conduct digital remote learning during the pandemic. School A has three teachers, school B has five teachers and school C has seven teachers, all of whom were approached to participate, providing a sample size of 15.
Method 1
I devised and distributed online questionnaires using Jisc software to begin the data collection in a manner compliant with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (JISC, 2021), after completing reading of the existing literature on my research topic, allowing me to begin my exploratory work (Tymms, 2017, p.231) in a timely, cost-effective manner, asking all participants the same questions to ensure consistency (Denscombe, 2017). This was particularly important given the lack of funding and project timescale of just 11 weeks for completion of the whole project. Although I predominantly used open-ended questions, providing text boxes to collect qualitative data, which Dawson (2015) suggested allows for free responses to catch authentic, rich answers from participants, some quantitative, closed questions were included where responses fell into predetermined categories to identify key information (Newby, 2014) such as length of time teaching, location of job and age of children taught, allowing for greater comparison during data analysis. However, Cohen et al. (2018) suggested questions can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, or participants may lose interest or disengage whilst completing questionnaires, producing unreliable or negligible responses. Additionally, once questionnaires have been distributed, their completion cannot be controlled, and people may confer or lie when completing them, and there may be no opportunity to identify the truthfulness of the answers (Denscombe, 2017). These limitations were realised during data collection in my survey as having received replies from 12 participants in the specified week-long time slot, it was apparent during data analysis some responses were minimal or inappropriate. In hindsight, this issue could have been reduced by piloting the questionnaire before distribution to final participants to ensure it was not too long and to ensure each question was clear (Bell & Waters, 2018). Additionally, two respondents from the same school appear to have completed the questionnaire together with similar worded answers in free text boxes and having submitted responses just 1 minute apart. Although the realisation of the limitations of questionnaires diminishes the validity of the findings, this was partly overcome through triangulation of methods, as the questionnaire offered participants opportunity to participate in a follow-up interview for further discussion, allowing some answers to be checked and clarified.
Method 2
Following data analysis of the questionnaires, I determined further open-ended questions to put to five participants who had volunteered to participate in an individual semi-structured interview, providing clarity and expansion on initial answers whilst allowing further qualitative information to be gathered to enhance data analysis through triangulation (Burton et al., 2014; Dawson, 2015). Two of the participants were from school A, one from school B and two from school C, ensuring the sample represented each setting. To ensure data collection was of the highest standard, I sought permission from all participants to produce a video recording of the online interview on Microsoft Teams, practice Clough and Nutbrown (2012) advocate is best to adhere to ethical guidelines and to ensure all data is safely documented. However, Denscombe (2017) indicates being recorded may prevent participants from speaking openly and honestly about their experience, casting doubt on the reliability of the data collected. However, this method of live data collection allowed me to flexibly probe participants with first-hand experience for further answers (Austin, 2016), gaining valuable insights from teachers which I had not previously established, allowing my research to explore the topic in depth. As soon as the interviews had been completed, I transcribed the recordings and deleted the video files to protect participants’ anonymity.
However, a possible limitation to this method must be acknowledged as interviews can be subject to potential interviewer bias (Austin, 2016; Cohen et al., 2018; Denscombe, 2017), where subconsciously I may have sought answers to support my own beliefs and ignored information which did not. Although I tried to overcome this by pre-determining open questions, Powell et al. (2012) suggest the interviewer must be skilled in adhering to such questions which may come with interviewing experience, a practice I lacked initially but have developed across the course of the interviews, questioning the validity of the findings and therefore, overall reliability of conclusions of my project.
Ethical Considerations
Association [BERA], 2019). I gained ethical approval from my university research tutor before starting the project, followed by gatekeeper permission, verbally from the Executive Headteacher followed by full written consent from the three Heads of School. Teachers were then approached regarding their participation via a well-defined information sheet, providing full details of the project and an explanation of their right to withdraw up until the point of data analysis, before informed consent was gained from participants (BERA, 2019; Denscombe, 2017).
Throughout this research, careful planning and design, including the use of alphabetical coding of participants and schools to protect identities, has ensured anonymity and confidentiality has been maintained, in line with the BGU Research Ethics Policy (2019) and Data Protection Act (2018). All collected data have been stored securely online to ensure only I had access to it in line with GDPR requirements (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2018), and on completion of my research, I have deleted it all.
Limitations
The reliability of this survey may subconsciously have been negatively affected by researcher subjectivity as Schumm (2021) indicates all individuals have biases which will influence social science research. I have decided what to code, how to theme and how to present my findings in this project and it should be noted this could be different to how someone else may have reported the findings if they had been presented with the same data. Therefore, the conclusions of this research should be compared against similar projects to critically test the validity.
Analysis and Discussion of Findings
Introduction
Given much of the data collected were of a qualitative nature, a comprehensive method of repetitively reading responses whilst applying a thematic coding system (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Guyan, 2018) enabled a robust analysis to be completed, allowing for a critical discussion of findings.
Questionnaires
I received responses from 12 of the 15 potential participants – two out of three from school A, three out of four from school B and seven out of eight from school C. Therefore, each school had a fair representation of participants. However, one of the responses from a participant at school B indicated they were on maternity leave during the period of remote education and although they provided some answers, the validity and reliability of these data were questionable. Therefore, given the participant did not agree to interview and their responses could not be clarified, their data were omitted from the analysis to uphold reliability of my research findings, resulting in 11 responses being analysed (n=11).
Analysis has shown that regardless of how long they had been teaching, whether they were newly qualified or had more than 20 years’ experience, nine out of 11 participants had not taught online prior to Covid-19 (see Table 1). This finding is broadly in line with the literature from the School Education Gateway (2020) which identified two thirds of teachers had their first experience of teaching online during this pandemic, although the data would suggest the figure of primary teachers experiencing their first online teaching was slightly higher than existing literature indicates.
Therefore, the data show participants were inexperienced in using technology to support children’s learning during remote education, although further analysis identified participants believed technology had played a critical role in supporting children’s learning during remote education, with nine of the 11 stating it supported children’s access to resources and teacher-led learning (see Appendix 2, Table 2). One participant stated: ‘If it was not for technology children would not have been able to access and complete certain tasks without the modelling teachers were able to do via videos.’ Participant 2
My findings are in line with the literature by Microsoft (2020) which suggested the use of technology was fundamental to support children’s learning during remote education.
When asked what technology participants had used to support children’s learning during remote education, 10 stated they had used Microsoft Teams for the first time, with only participant 8 not mentioning it (see Appendix 2, Table 3). Although the participant may not have used it, it was recognised this could be a realisation of the limitations of using open-ended questions in a questionnaire, as perhaps the participant just failed to mention it (Cohen et al., 2017). As participant 8 had volunteered to be interviewed, I was able to establish during interview they had used Microsoft Teams, allowing triangulation of the data to be achieved. ‘We did all learning on TEAMS.’ Participant 8
Therefore, all participants (n=11) stated they used Microsoft Teams, which they had not used before, to support children’s learning. However, further analysis of the data also showed participants had used other collaborative virtual learning platforms in addition to Microsoft Teams, with six having used Zoom and five having used Padlet. This contradicted the literature which suggested schools should use a single interactive platform such as Microsoft Teams to conduct remote learning (DfE, 2021b). Therefore, I developed a question to ask during interview to investigate how and why the virtual platforms of Zoom and Padlet had been used in addition to Microsoft Teams (see Appendix 3).
When asked how existing technology had been used differently to support children’s learning during remote education, all participants (n=11) mentioned using the laptop for delivering lessons via either pre-recorded or live sessions or both (see Appendix 2, Table 4), verifying the findings of the EEF (2020a) and Ofsted (2021a), indicating they are applicable to the primary sector.
Additionally, analysis showed four participants had adapted the use of Powerpoint software to include narration or videos or both, and participant 6 mentioned a need for more detail than usual on the Powerpoint slides. However, four of the five volunteers for interview had not mentioned Powerpoint in the questionnaire responses. Therefore, I devised a question to ask at interview to triangulate the data further before conclusions were drawn on how Powerpoint had been used to support children’s learning (see Appendix 3).
From analysing the data to identify what barriers teachers faced in using technology to support children’s learning during remote education, it was apparent my research contradicted the literature, identifying all primary school teachers surveyed (n=11) had received some training in the form of live or recorded video training (see Appendix 2, Table 5), whereas Sharp et al. (2020) indicated two fifths of primary teachers had received no training whatsoever. However, one participant in my survey suggested the training may not have been sufficient, especially at the beginning. ‘…lack of training was a barrier initially, but we got through that by sharing practise within school…’ Participant 11
Therefore, I used the interviews to examine participants’ perceptions in more detail to establish if training on the use of technology was still a barrier in using it to support children’s learning. Analysis of the questionnaires also showed five of the 11 participants identified reliability of technology including network and software issues had been a barrier in using technology to support children’s learning remotely, although another participant had made a point of stating: ‘Most of the time the reliability of technology was good.’ Participant 2
Therefore, although reliability of technology had been an issue for some when delivering remote education, this was not the case for all. Additionally, although five participants also remarked that children’s access to technology had proven a barrier to them delivering teaching and learning remotely, no participants mentioned their own access to equipment was a barrier to delivering remote education, contradicting the literature which had identified over a third of teachers had supplied their own laptop (Sharp et al., 2020).
When asked how teachers intended to use any new or adapted technology discovered during remote education in the future (see Appendix 2, Table 7), analysis showed two common uses. Eight of the 11 participants indicated they were still using it for homework, whilst nine also indicated they were using it ongoing to pre-record lessons for children to access in class for a variety of reasons. These included to cover times when they cannot be in the room, to teach a group of children in a mixed-age class when learning intentions do not align, to provide adult support to groups of children when an additional adult is not available and to deliver interventions for specific children. These findings are in line with existing literature by The Edge Foundation (2020) and Ofsted (2021b) who indicated schools may continue to use the technology to support homework delivery, and the EEF (2020b) who also indicated schools may use it to deliver pre-recorded lessons when a teacher cannot be in the classroom. Only one participant mentioned the technology was being used ongoing to teach children who are absent from school, contradicting the literature which stipulates this should be ongoing during the continuing coronavirus pandemic (DfE, 2021c). Therefore, further investigation is required to identify if teachers are continuing to use technology to deliver remote education to children forced to stay at home, which should have been addressed in the interviews but was not. Curiously, no participants mentioned continuing to use technology for assessment and feedback purposes which had been identified in the literature (EEF, 2020b), therefore, I used the interviews to triangulate the data and examine this topic further.
The main theme identified from the data when participants were asked what benefit they hoped to achieve by using the technology ongoing was to provide children with consistently high-quality teaching (n=4) (see Appendix 2, Table 8), verifying the existing literature by Ofsted (2021b) which identified this was what leaders were also hoping to achieve. Additional benefits also identified during data analysis included developing children’s independence in learning (n=2) and preparing children for later life (n=1), supporting the claims made by Microsoft (2020).
Interviews
Having completed individual semi-structured interviews (see Appendix 3 for pre-determined questions) with five volunteer participants (n=5) from the questionnaires, analysis of the data identified Zoom had been used in addition to Microsoft Teams for recording lessons (n=2) and holding registrations (n=1) and Padlet had been used to provide a separate platform for children to socialise with each other (n=1). ‘I used Zoom to record my lessons before I attached them to Teams.
‘This was the way a colleague showed me.’ Participant 1
‘I didn’t use Zoom or Padlet.’ Participant 2
‘We used Padlet like the playground for wellbeing where children could socialise with each other.’ Participant 8
‘I preferred Zoom for recording lessons as it is very easy.’ Participant 10
‘We had Zoom registrations as this was shown to me by a colleague.’ Participant 11
Therefore, together with data analysis from the questionnaires, this identified all participants (n=11) had only used Microsoft Teams as the single, interactive platform to conduct remote learning, suggesting Government recommendations had been followed (DfE, 2021b), using other online platforms to complement their personal pedagogy and support children’s wellbeing. Additionally, during interview, I established all five participants had used Powerpoint in almost every recorded lesson to support children’s learning during remote education, with all teachers indicating they used it more frequently than they would and with more detail either on the slides or via the voiceover to provide clarity and address misconceptions they believed children may hold, consistent with the literature (Ofsted, 2021b). However, all participants (n=5) stated they have gone back to only occasionally using Powerpoint in the classroom to support learning now children are back in school, having found the slides time consuming to compile and not having recognised a significant benefit in using them to support children’s learning.
When asked how they felt about the amount of training received on using the technology, four participants stated there was ample available to get them started, although participant 11 commented the training was delivered too late into the start of lockdown after they had already been trying to use the technology. However, a direct link can be made with the literature as all participants (n=5) suggested they would be more confident using the technology to support children’s learning in the long run having gained a significant amount of experience and developed TPK (The Edge Foundation, 2020), indicating they no longer perceived training to be a barrier.
Finally, when asked how participants had conducted assessment and feedback during digital remote education, all (n=5) stated they commented on work children had posted online. Although four of the five participants stated they regularly used online quizzes such as Kahoot and Classroom Screen as part of everyday classroom practice to conduct assessment prior to school closures, only participant 11 used online quizzes during remote education, and only occasionally, stating it was difficult to make accurate assessments when the children were not present because of the unreliability of the work. ‘You don’t know how much help they’ve (the children) had, and you don’t know if it was them or their big brother and sisters doing it.’ Participant 11
This differed from the literature which suggested many teachers had realised the potential of using online quizzes to support the assessment process during remote education (DfE 2020a, DfE 2021b), and requires further detailed exploration before conclusions can be drawn.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Although digital technology has previously lacked a clear vision for how it can improve learning outcomes (McFarlane, 2015), following careful analysis of my findings and comparison with existing literature, it is evident digital technology has been fundamental in facilitating teacher-led learning for children being educated at home during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. My research supports existing literature by the School Education Gateway (2020), recognising majority of teachers have had their first experience of online teaching during this pandemic, requiring them to learn quickly how to use virtual platforms such as Microsoft Teams and software such as Powerpoint to teach in ways they have seldom done before via pre-recorded or live online lessons.
Although my research would suggest primary school teachers have received more training and have more access to the devices needed to deliver online learning than in other education sectors (Sharp et al. 2020), given the small scale of my survey and questionable validity owing to issues such as researcher subjectivity and interviewer bias, further research is necessary to confirm all findings in my survey before they can be generalised.
However, my research identified primary school teachers are intending to draw upon new TPK (König et al., 2020) acquired during this unprecedented period to use digital technology in their future practice in new ways. The majority are now posting homework online as well as pre-recording lessons to be delivered to children in the classroom on occasions when as the teacher, they cannot physically be with the children, aiming to provide consistently high-quality teaching (Ofsted, 2021b). By providing children with such opportunities to use digital technology regularly in the classroom and at home to access and complete learning, teachers are fulfilling the requirements of the National Curriculum (2014), providing opportunities for children to develop the skills they require for successfully living and working in a digital age (Microsoft, 2020; Sumardi et al., 2020), preparing them for adulthood. However, although these findings are useful for me to consider for my future practice, further research is required to examine the practicability and morality of continually delivering homework online given my research identified five participants commented children’s access to technology had been a barrier to them achieving learning during remote education, suggesting not all children may be able to access homework online, raising ethical concerns I wish to investigate further before developing such practice myself.
References
Austin, R. (2016). Researching Primary Education. SAGE Publications.
Bell, J. & Waters, S. (2018). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Biesta, G. (2017). Mixed methods. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L.V. Hedges, & J. Arthur (Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education (2nd ed.) (pp.147-152). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bishop Grosseteste University. (2019). Research Ethics Policy.
Breslin, T. (2021). Lessons from Lockdown: The Educational Legacy of COVID-19. Taylor & Francis Group.
British Educational Research Association. (2019). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.). https://www.bera.ac.uk/ publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online
Brown, S. (2021, February 12). Digital education platforms and how they’re helping schools. DfE Digital and Technology. https://dfedigital. blog.gov.uk/2021/02/12/digital-education-platforms/
Burton, N., Brundrett, M., & Jones, M. (2014). Doing Your Education Research Project (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2012). A Student’s Guide to Methodology (3rd ed.) SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.
Convery. A. (2009). The pedagogy of the impressed: how teachers become victims of technological vision. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(1), 25-41. https://doi. org/10.1080/13540600802661303
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research – Techniques and Procedures for developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). SAGE publications Ltd.
Coronavirus Act (2020). HMSO. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2020/7/schedule/17/part/3/crossheading/temporary-continuity-directions?timeline=false
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.
Data Protection Act. (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted
Dawson, C. (2015). Introduction to Research Methods – A Practical Guide for Anyone Undertaking a Research Project (4th ed.). Robinson.
Denscombe, M. (2017). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects (6th ed.). Open University Press.
Department for Education. (2014). The National Curriculum in England – Framework document. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381344/ Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
Department for Education. (2020a). Guidance – Adapting teaching practice for remote education. HMSO. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ adapting-teaching-practice-for-remote-education
Department for Education. (2020b). The Coronavirus Act 2020 Provision of Remote Education (England) Temporary Continuity Direction – Explanatory Note. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/923539/Remote_Education_Temporary_Continuity_Direction_-__ Explanatory_Note.pdf
Department for Education (2021a). Review your remote education provision – Schools. HMSO. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/review-your-remote-education-provision?utm_ source=remote_education
Department for Education (2021b). Guidance – Remote education good practice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/remote-education remote-education-good-practice/remote-education-good-practice
Department for Education. (2021c). Schools coronavirus (COVID-19) operational guidance. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/985138/10_May_Schools_Guidance.pdf
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: a panacea in the time of covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018
Education Endowment Foundation. (2019). Digital Technology – moderate impact for moderate cost, based on extensive evidence. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/ generate/?u=https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ pdf/toolkit/?id=134&t=Teaching%20and%20Learning%20 Toolkit&e=134&s=
Education Endowment Foundation. (2020a). Remote Learning: Rapid Evidence Assessment. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ public/files/Remote_Learning_Rapid_Evidence_Assessment.pdf
Education Endowment Foundation. (2020b). The EEF Guide to Supporting School Planning: A tiered approach to 2021. https:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/ Covid-19_Resources/The_EEF_guide_to_supporting_school_planning_- _A_tiered_approach_to_2021.pdf
Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A “learning revolution”? investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256. https://doi. org/10.1080/17439880701511099
Guyan, K. (2018). Analysing Qualitative Data – A Guide for University and College Practitioners. Retrieved from http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Research-Data-briefing-6-Analysing- Qualitative-Data.pdf
Information Commissioner’s Office. (2018). Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/711097/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-1-0.pdf
Jisc. (2021). Online Surveys and GDPR. https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/gdpr/
König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during covid-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080 /02619768.2020.1809650
McFarlane, A. (2015). Authentic Learning for the Digital Generation – Realising the Potential of Technology in the Classroom. Routledge. https://www-taylorfrancis-com.bishopg.idm.oclc.org/books/mono/10.4324/9781315794808/authentic-learning-digital-generation-angela-mcfarlane
Media Officer (2021, January 20). Creating a more resilient education system built on technological and digital foundations and how “Government can’t do this alone” – Nick Gibb at the BettFest conference. The Education Hub. https://dfemedia.blog.gov. uk/2021/01/20/creating-a-more-resilient-education-system-built-on-technological-and-digital-foundations-and-how-government-cant-do-this-alone-nick-gibb-at-the-bettfest-conference/
Microsoft. (2020). The acceleration of hybrid learning – preparing UK schools for a digital future. https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/ cms/api/am/binary/RE4GyBG
National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers. (2020). Remote Education – Position Statement. https://www. nasuwt.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/01b2d8c0-9a34-48d3- 9f8d1dd22009ca08.pdf
Newby, P. (2014). Research Methods for Education. Routledge.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning – Making the Connection. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en#page1
Ofsted. (2014). School C. https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/2417549
Ofsted. (2019a). School A. https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50092588
Ofsted. (2019b). School B. https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50095622
Ofsted. (2021a). Guidance – What’s working well in remote education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/whats-working-well-in-remote-education/whats-working-well-in-remote-education
Ofsted. (2021b). Research and analysis – Remote education research, Updated 18 February 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/remote-education-research/remote-education-research#future-benefits-to-remote-education
Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Mixed methods research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 305–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439 760.2016.1262619
Powell, M. B., Hughes-Scholes, C. H., & Sharman, S. J. (2012). Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(2), 126–134. https://doi. org/10.1002/jip.1357
Promethean. (n.d.). The State of Technology in Education – 2020/21 UK & I Edition. https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/technology-education-industry-report/#schools-strategic-goals
Gateway. (2020). Survey on Online and Distance Learning – Results. https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/ viewpoints/surveys/survey-on-online-teaching.htm
Schumm, W. R. (2021). Confirmation bias and methodology in social science: an editorial. Marriage & Family Review, 57(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2021.1872859
Selwyn, N. (2007). Curriculum online? exploring the political and commercial construction of the UK digital learning marketplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2), 223–240. https://doi. org/10.1080/01425690701192729
Selwyn, N. (2008). Realising the potential of new technology? Assessing the legacy of new labour’s ICT agenda 1997-2007. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980802518920
Sharp, C., Nelson, J., Lucas, M., Julius, J., McCrone, T., & Sims, D. (2020). The Challenges Facing Schools and Pupils in September 2020 – Schools’ Responses to Covid-19. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/4119/schools_responses_to_ covid_19_the_challenges_facing_schools_and_pupils_in_september_2020.pdf
Starkey, L., Shonfeld, M., Prestridge, S., & Cervera, M,G. (2021). Special issue: covid-19 and the role of technology and pedagogy on school education during a pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1866838
Sumardi, L., Rohman, A., & Wahyudiati, D. (2020). Does the teaching and learning process in primary schools correspond to the characteristics of the 21st century learning? International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13325a
The Edge Foundation. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on education – A summary of evidence on the early impacts of lockdown. https://www. edge.co.uk/documents/92/covid-19_report_final_-_web_7C24k6R.pdf
The Gazette Official Public Record. (2020). Coronavirus – Temporary continuity directions etc: education, training and childcare. https:// www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3642261
The Market Research Society. (2021). Post-Covid-19 Lockdown Guidance: Undertaking safe face to face data collection. https://www. mrs.org.uk/standards/undertaking-safe-face-to-face-data-collection
Tymms, P. (2017). Questionnaires. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L.V. Hedges, & J. Arthur (Eds.), Research Methods and Methodologies in Education (2nd ed.) (pp.231-240). SAGE Publications Ltd.
