Discursive constructions of teacher in an educational technology journal

Abstract

The integration of technology with teaching and learning is a significant area of research in the educational technology field. Teachers play an instrumental role in technology integration, and many teacher-related factors have been identified that predict technology use and integration in educational settings. How teachers are represented in the educational technology literature (e.g., as caring, didactic or lazy) can potentially impact on how technology integration takes place. However, there is little research that specifically explores teacher representations. This paper seeks to address this gap and examines the discursive constructions of teacher in 846 papers from the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET). Using a corpus-based analysis, the multiple representations of teacher in AJET were investigated. The analyses revealed two mainstream representations of teacher: teachers are people on whom researchers impose obligations; and "teacherliness" is old and negative. This paper concludes with a discussion of the potential impact of such representations on technology integration and suggestions of more useful representations of teachers and their teaching.

An analysis of the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2013-2017

“…These reflected the growing "international focus of the journal" (Hadlock et al, 2014, p. iv). They were also similar to the AJET corpus analysis findings of McDonald and Loke (2016), which analysed articles from 1991-2014, and found that the top 10 most frequent words included: students, learning, technology, online, teachers, and teaching.…”

“…One major shift in focus during the past five years has been the focus in articles on "computer/technology uses in education" and "student learning" (Table 4), which echoes the findings by McDonald and Loke (2016) in their corpus analysis of AJET, and which has also occurred in the wider field of educational technology. Marin et al (2018) analysed 221 articles from the IJETHE between 2010-2017 and found that research had moved from focusing on technology and tools, to focusing more on how they could be used to foster student learning and competencies, so too Zawacki-Richter and Latchem (2018) in their analysis of CAE.…”

“…Zawacki-Richter et al (2017) also found that the emphasis in research has become more studentcentred, with learner characteristics the second most frequent research area in IRRODL between 2011 and 2015. Keywords that were not present in the 2014 analysis include "online courses" and "learning environment", which reflects an international trend towards understanding how to create effective and collaborative online learning experiences (Marin et al, 2018;Zawacki-Richter et al, 2017;Zawacki-Richter & Naidu, 2016), and which also reflects the findings of McDonald and Loke (2016). The appearance of the keyword "preservice teachers" in the top 20 also reflected the results of the abstract analysis (Table 5), with "pre-service" and "content knowledge" the second and third most frequent combination.…”

Helping doctoral students crack the publication code: An evaluation and content analysis of the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

“…Research published in AJET in 2013-2017 has become more student-centred (Bond & Buntins, 2018), focusing in particular on teacher knowledge and skill development to strengthen teaching and learning, as well as on collaborative learning in online environments, echoing a previous analysis of AJET (McDonald & Loke, 2016) and research in the wider educational technology field (e.g., Marin, Duart, Galvis, & ZawackiRichter, 2018;Zawacki-Richter, et al, 2017;Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018). AJET publications during this period used a relatively even mix of inferential, interpretative, and combined methods (Bond & Buntins, 2018), showing less methodological bias than in other educational technology journals (Perez-Sanagustin, et al, 2017;.…”

“…Aside from the analyses by Bond and Buntins (2018), McDonald and Loke (2016) and Hadlock et al (2014), AJET editors also provide yearly bibliometric analyses (e.g., Dalgarno, Heinrich, & Henderson, 2016), which provide submission and review statistics, publication summaries, the most downloaded articles, and citation information. Article submissions continue to grow, which has meant a larger number of rejections at both stages of the review process (Heinrich, Lee, & Henderson, 2017).…”