It has been observed that students show a great deal of ease with using gadgets because it triggers their curiosity which is the main driver for learning. This trait of curiosity and engagement seems to be missing from our schools. According to Toffler, “The illiterate of the 21st century, will not be those who can’t read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn” (as cited in Hassan, Sajid, 2013). Schools should seek the ways to make learning and teaching curious, challenging and engaging. Several frameworks such as TPACK, SAMR, TIM etc. have been proposed that can help schools achieve the goal of bridging education and technology.
TPACK is a theoretical framework, is based on three core elements; Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge. The framework identifies how combining these elements (TPK, TCK, PCK, and TPACK) would give rise to an effective learning environment.
UNESCO’s ICT Competency Framework for teachers is based on the idea that it is not sufficient for the teachers to have ICT competency instead, they should aid students in developing skills such as collaboration, problem-solving, and activity through ICT. The framework is based on three approaches to teaching: Technology Literacy, Knowledge Deepening, and Knowledge Creation. The framework also addresses six aspects of teacher’s work; Understanding ICT in education, Curriculum and Assessment, Pedagogy, ICT, Organization and Administration and Teacher Professional Learning (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2011).
Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) coined by Florida department of Education and Florida Centre for Instructional Technology. The matrix has two main dimensions; levels of technology integration into the curriculum. The different levels include; Entry level, Adoption level, Adaptation Level, Infusion, and Transformation. The other dimension has five characteristics of learning environment i.e. Active, Collaborative, Constructive, Authentic and Goal-Directed (Technology Integration Matrix, 2010)
The practical implementation of these frameworks would vary according to the level of competency of each teacher and the ICT integration barriers and the enablers in a particular school setting.
Pakistan stands far behind in the ICT integration process. In a qualitative study analysis, ICT coordinators were interviewed about various aspects of ICT. They revealed about various barriers in the ICT integration (Hassan & Sajid, 2013 ). I have grouped the barriers presented in the study in two categories: External factors and the Internal Factors:
External Factors:
Internal Factors
The quantitative study analysis revealed that a good number of teachers were in favor of pre-service training of computer usage. 70% of teachers had the opinion that over-populated classrooms make integration of ICT cumbersome. The in the availability of an ample number of computers is another barrier (Hassan & Sajid, 2013 ).
Apart from ICT integration being a challenge, the teacher’s own competency and capability is a challenging and crucial factor in determining the effectiveness of implementation of any framework. According to National Education Census (NEC) data 2005, 26 % of the teachers are untrained, 37% have only basic training at PTC and CT levels. 44% have an incomplete undergrad degree. The primary school teacher certification fails to provide education to inculcate effective communication skills, critical thinking, and creative instructional leadership. The talented candidates are not attracted due to poor salary structure and service condition for primary schools (National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan, 2009).
Keeping in view these factors, I have presented the analysis of all three frameworks in with respect to their implementation in low-cost private schools, elite schools, and government schools.
In low-cost private schools, implementing TPACK would pose certain problems because these schools have limited number of teachers and each teacher is assigned more than one grade level. This increases the workload on the teachers and they prefer getting done with the work instead of concentrating on ways to deliver the content in an effective manner. In other words, teachers do not have enough pedagogical knowledge to engage students in such school settings. The schools have limited number of technological resources and a good number of students which makes it difficult for teachers to accommodate huge student population in a single IT lab or make use of technology while delivering the lecture. The UNESCO ICT competency framework would work well, if properly implemented in a low-cost school setting because it is clearly laid out in different stages and each stage corresponds to different aspects of teachers work. For instance the technology literacy phase requires the teachers to have the policy awareness. This is something which TPACK doesn’t entail. Since the majority of teachers in low-cost private schools have little information about ways to integrate ICT in education, this framework would guide them from the very basics to the advanced level. TIM, on the other hand, majorly revolves around pure integration of technology and how students can use it. It doesn’t include enough guideline about the pedagogic ways that the pedagogue can use to aid students achieve the effective learning environment.
The recruitment procedure of the teachers in elite schools is rigorous. These schools hire teachers only if they show desired competency and skills in their subject area. Such schools are also equipped with sufficient technological resources. TPACK would work in these school settings since teacher’s trainings are carried out every now and then which helps them to learn about various pedagogical ways and the implantation of technology in education. TIM framework would work best for students have sufficient access to the technology in the classroom and training programs designed by the schools themselves, help teachers to be part of this integration matrix. UNESCO ICT CFT would work at a more advanced level (Knowledge Deepening and Knowledge Creation) because the majority of the teachers recruited by such schools already have technology literacy knowledge.
The state of government schools is quite worse. The biggest hurdle in such schools is teacher absenteeism. Such schools do not follow any proper teacher recruitment procedure. In most cases, they hire senior students to teach junior students. For instance, a 10th grader will teach students of the 2nd or 3rd grade. These schools consider technology integration in the education system as a sheer waste of resources and money. UNESCO’s ICT CFT framework would still work here in contrast to the other two because ICT CFT’s purpose as stated earlier is not confined to technology integration only. It also focuses on eliminating poverty and improving quality of life. It is based on the principle that systematic social and economic growth is key to poverty reduction and improved quality life (UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers, 2011).
It is crucial for the policy makers to consider and understand the dynamics and the demands of the 21st century and devise ways to improve the quality of teaching. The fee structure should be the only basis of dividing schools into different categories (low-cost private schools, elite schools, government schools) and not the quality of education. In other words, policy makers should work their ways in keeping the quality of education uniform in different categories of school.
Hassan, T. u., & Sajid, A. R. (2013 ). ICTs in Learning: Problems Faced by Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflection in Education, 52-64.
(2009). National Professional Standards for Teachers in Pakistan. Islamabad: Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan.
Technology Integration Matrix. (2010). Florida Center for Instructional Technology.
UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. (2011). United Nation Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization.