Conceptualising a Dynamic Technology Practice in Education Using Argyris and Schön’s Theory of Action

Abstract

Despite substantial national effort to integrate technology in education, it seems that practitioners in the education system are not working in line with the given policy. Evidence from large-scale studies of students' technology practices at school over the last decade show disparities in student practices. The observed gap between the micro and the macro level call for a closer exploration. Research that explores the influence of social and organizational factors may be useful for understanding the processes behind such gaps. Argyris and Schön's 'Theory of Action' ( 1978) is proposed as an example of an organizational theory that can be adopted in educational technology research to move towards understanding the complexities of technology practice. To encourage discourse and application of Argyris and Schön's theory in the field of educational technology research, this paper introduces the theory, a review of its empirical application in research of teacher educations' technology practice and relevant conceptual work. The paper presents a conceptual framework based on Argyris and Schön's theory that has been developed through two recent studies, and invites its application in future research and development.

Decoding the Digital Gap in Teacher Education: Three Perspectives across the Globe

“…The studies in this chapter are based on the 'theory of action' by Argyris and Schön [15,16], which is widely used in organizational theory to describe the relationship of people in learning organizations [17]. The descriptive framework serves as a methodological instrument for the systematic analysis of learning organizations at the meso level (between macro and micro level).…”

What is the motivation of Norwegian and New Zealand teacher educators for using digital technology when teaching?

“…Data was collected from teachers' self-reports on fivepoint Likert-type questionnaire items. Some items were collapsed into three multi-item constructs, while others remained as single items (Madsen & Thorvaldsen, 2019).…”