Technology, Pedagogy and Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe20

‘It is no longer scary’: digital learning before and

during the Covid-19 pandemic in Irish secondary
schools

Darina Scully , Paula Lehane & Conor Scully

To cite this article: Darina Scully , Paula Lehane & Conor Scully (2021): ‘It is no longer scary’:
digital learning before and during the Covid-19 pandemic in Irish secondary schools, Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844

Published online: 28 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1674

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844

‘It is no longer scary’: digital learning before and during the

Covid-19 pandemic in Irish secondary schools
Darina Scully , Paula Lehane and Conor Scully
Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of digital technology to support teaching and learning in schools Received 30 July 2020
has been rising for years, but in March 2020, it became the only option Accepted 6 November 2020
when the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of almost all educa­ KEYWORDS
tional institutions worldwide. This article reports on a survey of secondary Digital learning; school
school leaders (n = 72) in Ireland, conducted three months after the leaders; Covid-19
closures. Leaders’ beliefs about technology, digital practices before the
pandemic and responses to the emergency are considered. The findings
suggest that leaders are positively disposed towards technology, and that,
prior to the crisis, approaches to digital learning were aligned with some
best practice recommendations. Although schools endeavoured to con­
tinue provision during the closures, challenges were reported, particularly
in rural schools and those serving disadvantaged cohorts. Leaders per­
ceived teachers’ ‘digital competence’ as an area in need of development,
and noted that the pandemic may have provided an impetus for this.

Introduction
The rationale behind the increasing use of technology in schools typically centres on its potential to
transform the student learning experience and to foster the development of digital literacy, critical
thinking, collaboration and other twenty-first century competencies (Starkey, 2020). However, as
Hammond (2014) pointed out, these claims tend to ‘display excessive optimism and a sense of
inevitability’ and are not necessarily always borne out (p. 191). Much has been written about the
need to avoid ‘techno-centrism’ (Kozma, 2008), whereby technology use is promoted and adopted in
the absence of meaningful pedagogy. Despite this, large-scale international research suggests
inconsistencies between the level of technology integration in schools, and students’ computer
and information literacy (e.g., International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA), 2018). It is clear that there is an ongoing need to explore how technology is
being used within education systems, and to investigate what factors are likely to contribute to
improved learner outcomes.
In March 2020, schools across the globe began to close in response to the rapidly progressing
Covid-19 pandemic. By 1 April, country-wide closures were in place in 193 of the world’s 195
countries, resulting in drastic and abrupt changes to the nature of school education for an estimated
1.6 billion learners (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2020). In these unprecedented circumstances,
teaching and learning could only occur remotely, and thus the use of technology, in particular cloud-
based software and services, became a necessity overnight. It is important to understand how
schools have responded to this situation and what the outcomes have been to date. As of
September 2020, schools in a number of countries have reopened; however, up to two-thirds of

CONTACT Paula Lehane paula.lehane2@mail.dcu.ie Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin,
IrelandTECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2021 Technology, Pedagogy and Education Association
2 D. SCULLY ET AL.

the global student population are still experiencing either partially or entirely remote schooling, and
many will continue to do so for the duration of the coming academic year, if not longer (O’Hagan,
2020). Documenting schools’ initial experiences may thus help mitigate some challenges for these
cohorts. In addition, given the central role that technology has played in facilitating teaching and
learning during the past few months, it is also possible that this information may help inform future
policy and practice regarding digital technology in schools more generally.
The study described in this article was conducted in the Republic of Ireland and focused
specifically on secondary schools (i.e., those serving students from the ages of 12 to 18). It had
two broad, overarching aims. The first of these was to identify the nature and extent of digital
teaching, learning and assessment activities taking place in these schools prior to the pandemic, and
the second was to document how these schools responded to the enforced closures brought about
by the pandemic. Each was explored from the perspective of the schools’ leaders.

The Innovative Digital School model

There is a large, global body of research about the use of digital technology in secondary schools
(e.g., Hohlfeld et al., 2017; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015).
Access to physical hardware and infrastructure (Dolan, 2016) as well as the digital competence of
teachers (Starkey, 2020) and pupils (Hatlevik et al., 2015), have all been identified as key components
that support the use of digital technology in schools. Yet, school is a complicated object to study
given its various administrative levels, actors and role as a societal institution (Ilomäki & Lakkala,
2018). Consequently, when exploring any aspect of educational innovation, such as the use of digital
technology, various components of the school should ideally be taken into account. With this in
mind, and based on previous research on school improvement, innovations and digital technology in
education, Ilomäki and Lakkala (2018) developed the Innovative Digital School (IDI school) model.
This model conceptualises what range of factors lead to schools successfully incorporating technol­
ogy into their teaching and learning practices and offers a whole-school approach to identifying best
practices in the use of digital technology in schools. It has six constituent elements, namely: visions
of the school, leadership, practices of the teaching community, pedagogical practices, school-level
knowledge practices, and digital resources (Figure 1). Within these elements there are between two

Figure 1. Elements of the Innovative Digital School model (adapted from Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018, pp. 8–9).
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 3

and four sub-factors. For example, with respect to ‘leadership’, the model theorises that if a principal
is effective at encouraging and supporting staff in their use of technology (role of the principal), is
continuously exposed to new ideas and practices in relation to technology from their peers
(networking) and is able to distribute responsibility for technology use among staff (shared leader­
ship), then innovative technology use in the school should increase. Similarly, subsumed under
‘teachers’ pedagogical practices’ is the idea that teachers, when embedding technology in their
practice, ‘should focus on complex issues and activities like knowledge creation and problem solving
in order to advance pupils’ general competencies’ (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018, p. 24), in place of more
traditional teacher-centred methods involving content learning and routine tasks.
In applying their model to three schools in Helsinki, Ilomäki and Lakkala (2018) concluded that it
was effective in investigating ‘whether schools use digital technology in an innovative way to improve
pedagogical and working practices’ (p. 7); however, further empirical work in applying the model is
still needed to fully understand its value to the field. Furthermore, there are additional factors that may
impact on schools’ efforts to use digital technology innovatively that it does not address. For example,
it does not take into account school leaders’ personal beliefs regarding technology, nor does it
consider external forces such as national policy surrounding technology use in schools.

School leaders’ beliefs about technology

A significant body of research has explored how school leaders can alter the level of technology use in
the classroom. On a macro level, Pelgrum and Voogt (2009) found that school leaders in high ICT
(information and communications technology) use countries were more likely than others to ‘set
directions for using ICT’ and ‘actively monitor and evaluate the implementation of pedagogical
changes’ (p. 300). As such, their work emphasised that leaders with an active vision for how technology
can be used in schools, and who oversee its use, can affect technology use in a positive way.
Furthermore, proponents of the will, skill, tool model of teacher technology use note the importance
of the school leader in encouraging teachers to use technology (will), providing them with support or
professional development opportunities to aid this use (skill) and ensuring they have adequate access
to the necessary hardware and software (tool) (Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Petko, 2012).
It is acknowledged that all of the above actions are addressed by the leadership element of the IDI
school model. School leaders’ personal beliefs about and perceptions of technology, however, are not.
Beliefs about technology and pedagogy tend to assume significance in terms of predicting future
behaviour (Prestridge, 2017); as such, it may be worth exploring these too. Indeed, Polizzi (2011) found
that school leaders’ beliefs, including issues such as their own level of comfort with using technology,
and their confidence in its potential to improve learner outcomes, were important predictors of the
extent to which they engaged in behaviours that support technology integration. That said, some
school leaders have been reported to exhibit overly optimistic views of the ease with which technology
integration can be achieved, in part due to the fact that they are rarely involved in the implementation
of new technologies in the classroom (Claro et al., 2017), and such naïvely positive beliefs could act as
a barrier to successful integration.
The value of the IDI school model in understanding the use of digital technology may thus stand
to be enhanced if school leaders’ ‘technological orientations’ are simultaneously taken into account.
Of course, regardless of these orientations, both leaders and schools are also subject to macro-level
influences that are often outside their control, such as national policy. As the study described in this
article focused specifically on secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland, the policy pertaining to
this sector will now be considered.
4 D. SCULLY ET AL.

Table 1. A standard and corresponding statements of effective and highly effective practice pertaining to the dimension
‘Teaching and Learning’ and the domain ‘Learner Outcomes’ from the Digital Learning Framework (DES, 2017).

Standard
Students enjoy their learning, are
motivated to learn, and expect to
achieve as learners
Statements of Effective
Practice Statements of Highly Effective Practice
Students use digital Students use digital technologies to collect evidence,
technologies to collect record progress, evaluate and reflect, and to create
evidence and record new solutions and/or products
progress

National policy: the Irish context

In 2015, the Irish government launched the Digital Strategy for Schools (Department of Education
and Skills (DES), 2015) after a significant period of non-attention on the issue of technology use in the
classroom. Informed by findings of a census on the existing levels and usage of ICT in schools at the
time (Cosgrove et al., 2013), a subsequent phase of public consultation and relevant international
research, this policy provided a rationale and plan for the embedding of digital technology into
teaching, learning and assessment practices in Irish schools over a five-year period. To support the
implementation of the strategy, a €210 million investment in ICT infrastructure grants was
announced, where every primary and secondary school in Ireland would receive funding to purchase
relevant equipment (e.g., devices) and develop necessary resources (e.g., cloud-based tools, learning
platforms) over a five-year period. The Digital Learning Framework was subsequently developed to
help schools to effectively plan for and use these newly acquired digital technologies.
A key principle of the Digital Strategy was that the use of technology in schools should be
underpinned by a constructivist pedagogical orientation, whereby ‘learners are actively involved in
a process of determining meaning and knowledge for themselves’ (2015, p. 3). It envisioned students
‘actively engaging’ in and ‘accepting ownership’ of their learning, which may involve going beyond
the consumption of teacher-designed resources (e.g., instructional videos), and towards the use of
technology to develop their own resources to enhance their learning. Teachers, in turn, were
encouraged ‘to take a more facilitative role, providing student-centred guidance and feedback,
and engaging more frequently in exploratory and team-building activities with students’ (p. 13).
The DLF is organised along two dimensions: Teaching and Learning and Leadership and
Management. Under the first dimension, four domains exist: learner outcomes, learner experiences,
teachers’ individual practices and teachers’ collective/collaborative practice. Under the second
dimension, the four domains are: leading teaching and learning, managing the organisation, leading
school development and developing leadership capacity. Each domain contains ‘Standards of
Practice’ that have statements differentiating between the behaviours and attributes characteristic
of ‘effective’ and ‘highly effective’ technology use in secondary schools. An example of a standard
and corresponding statements from the framework are provided in Table 1.
The ‘statements of practice’ contained within the DLF are based on a number of European
frameworks related to digital technology use in schools (e.g., DigCompEdu; Redecker, 2017), but
many also align well with the more recent IDI model (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018). For example, ‘teachers
evaluate, demonstrate and reflect with peers on the use of digital technologies to innovate and
improve educational practice’ is a statement of effective practice under the domain ‘teachers’
collective/collaborative practice’ (DES, 2017, p. 9); similarly, the IDI school model also recommends
pedagogical collaboration and the sharing of expertise between teachers as part of ‘practices of the
teaching community’.
Despite the enhanced awareness of and interest in technology-based teaching and learning in
the Irish education system brought about by the DLF, there is no formal requirement on schools to
report the main approaches they take with respect to the use of technology. Consequently, until
relatively recently, there was a dearth of information as to how exactly technology is used in Irish
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 5

classrooms (Marcus-Quinn et al., 2019). The release of the first part of a longitudinal evaluation of the
DLF (Cosgrove et al., 2019), which included responses from 320 secondary school teachers, has gone
some way in describing the successes and challenges of Irish schools as they begin to use digital
technologies to support teaching, learning and assessment in accordance with national policy.
Concerns over technical support, internet connectivity and the organisation of continuous profes­
sional development (CPD) were evident amongst the sample. Furthermore, secondary schools were
significantly more likely than primary schools to have a Digital Learning Plan in place and to consider
themselves as ‘advanced’ in the use and embedding of digital technology. However, this was
a poorly defined term within the survey which may have led to ‘variations in how schools view
levels of effective and highly effective practice’ (Cosgrove et al., 2019, p. 9).
An additional report on technology use in Irish schools has also very recently been released by the
DES Inspectorate (Department of Education and Skills (DES), 2020a). This evaluation included
observations of practice between January and October 2019, and amongst its main conclusions
was that digital technologies were used ‘to a satisfactory or better degree by teachers’ in 81% of the
secondary school lessons (n = 194) observed (DES, 2020a, p. 15). Findings were less promising,
however, with regard to the prevalence of constructivist teaching practices, and the active use of
technology by learners, both of which were promoted in the Digital Strategy.

Emergency remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic

Since the onset of school closures across the globe, information has been emerging at a steady pace
regarding schools’ experiences of emergency remote teaching. For example, a report by the National
Foundation for Education Research in England and Wales found that schools using a Virtual Learning
Environment to facilitate online teaching had significantly higher levels of engagement than those
who communicated through other means such as a school website (Lucas et al., 2020). Similarly,
research by Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute found that the transition to distance
learning was ‘more straightforward for schools who were using existing systems of online learning
rather than creating new ones’ (Mohan et al., 2020, p. 80). School leaders in this study also expressed
concerns regarding reduced curriculum coverage, particularly in practical subjects like construction
and woodwork. A disproportionate negative impact on students from socioeconomically disadvan­
taged backgrounds, and those with special educational needs, was also reported (Mohan et al.,
2020).

This study
To recap: international research continues to reinforce the message that although technology has
the potential to enhance learning experiences and outcomes, the extent to which this is realised is
dependent on how exactly it is used. Understanding the factors and mechanisms underlying
successful technology integration in educational settings has been the focus of many researchers
and practitioners for some time, but in March 2020, it abruptly became an urgent global priority.
Ilomäki and Lakkala's (2018) IDI school model provides a potentially useful framework through which
the nature of technology integration in schools may be explored; however, there are some factors
which it does not take into account. These include the personal beliefs of school leaders regarding
technology, and the policy context in which schools are situated. In the Republic of Ireland, policy
surrounding technology integration is characterised by a strong emphasis on constructivist
pedagogies.
Taking all of the above into account, this study aimed to provide a snapshot of the nature and
extent of digital learning occurring in Irish secondary schools prior to the onset of the Covid-19
pandemic, drawing on themes from the IDI school model, school leaders’ technological orientations,
and elements of national policy as a conceptual framework. It also sought to document how these
6 D. SCULLY ET AL.

schools responded to the extended closures brought about by the pandemic, during which the role
of technology in everyday teaching and learning was suddenly and unexpectedly escalated. The
specific research questions were as follows:

1. What are Irish secondary school leaders’ beliefs about and attitudes towards digital technology
and its potential role in teaching and learning?
2. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic:
(a) how well equipped for digital learning were Irish secondary schools, in terms of basic
hardware and resources?
(b) to what extent were schools using digital technology in an innovative way to improve
pedagogical and working practices?
(c) did practices in relation to digital technology differ across different school types, or
according to school leaders’ technological orientations?
3. During the enforced closures brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic:
(a) how did Irish secondary schools provide continuity of teaching and learning?
(b) what, according to school leaders, were the main challenges and opportunities encoun­
tered during this period of remote teaching and learning, particularly with respect to the
use of digital technology?
(c) did leaders’ accounts of the emergency remote teaching period differ according to school
characteristics, or according to their own technological orientations?

Methods
Survey design
A bespoke online survey instrument for school leaders was designed for this study, using SurveyHero.
Acknowledging the substantial demands being placed on school leaders at the time, every effort was
made to create an instrument that would yield sufficient data to address the research questions,
without being excessively burdensome to complete. The final instrument consisted of four sections:
(i) School Characteristics, (ii) Technology and your school prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, (iii) Your
views on digital technology, and (iv) Your school and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Section One comprised a series of basic contextual questions (e.g., school size, type and location).
Section Two sought to gather detailed information about the state of affairs with respect to digital
learning in Irish secondary schools prior to the onset of the pandemic, and was informed by themes
from Ireland’s Digital Strategy for Schools and the IDI school model (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018).
Although the model is intended primarily to support case study research, which involves the
collection of much richer data than is possible with survey methods, it proved to be a useful guiding
framework for question construction, and every effort was made to obtain relevant information
pertaining to each theme. Finally, in recognition of the importance of good question phrasing in
survey design (Krosnick, 2018), several questions were modelled on items from the most recent
iteration of the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (IEA, 2018). Table 2 provides
examples of questions from Sections 1 and 2 of the survey, and the justifications for their inclusion.
Section Three of the survey focused exclusively on leaders’ beliefs and attitudes towards technol­
ogy, in light of the recognised significance of these in influencing school technology use (Polizzi,
2011). Some items pertained to school leaders’ own relationships with technology (e.g., ‘I use digital
technology for a wide range of purposes in my personal life’), whilst others sought their views
regarding its value in educational contexts (e.g., ‘the potential benefits of digital technology for
teaching and learning are exaggerated’).
The final section of the survey inquired about the actions taken by schools in response to the
enforced closures brought about by the pandemic. Given the unprecedented nature of this
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 7

Table 2. Examples of survey questions and justifications for their inclusion.

Question
Q10. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . .
the school was well equipped with digital technology
hardware (e.g., computers, laptops, tablets, projectors)
digital technology integration was a priority area of focus
in the school
I regularly discussed strategies for digital learning with
other school leaders in my professional network
Q11. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, what proportion of the
teachers in your school regularly used digital technology . . .
to support inquiry-based learning during lessons
to collaborate with other teachers
Justification for inclusion
as part of the Digital Strategy, the Irish government provided
substantial funding for ICT infrastructure for all schools
aligns with the visions of the school element of the IDI school
model
aligns with the ‘networking’ aspect of the leadership element
of the IDI school model
aligns with the pedagogical practices element of the IDI model,
and with the Digital Strategy’s ‘constructivist pedagogical
orientation’
aligns with the practices of the teaching community element of
the IDI school model

situation, no specific framework was used. Rather, the questions were guided by information
emerging from international research and the media at the time. Specifically, information was
sought on the extent to which the teaching and learning that occurred during this period was
predominantly synchronous or asynchronous, the specific tools and platforms that were used
and, in light of the significant role that terminal, summative assessment still plays in Irish
secondary education, on how schools conducted their summer examinations. Principals were
also asked to rate the quality of provision that occurred, the extent to which various factors
impacted on this and the extent to which the experience would be likely to influence future
policy and practice. All of the questions on the survey were closed; however, one open-ended
question was included at the end (‘Please describe any additional issues relating to your school’s
use of digital technology, or its response to the Covid-19 pandemic that you would like to
highlight’). The use of open-ended questions is thought to facilitate a ‘more holistic and
comprehensive look at the issue being studied’ (Allen, 2017). It also increases an instrument’s
potential to identify important themes that had not been considered by the researchers.

Sample
The second-level sector in the Republic of Ireland comprises 723 schools. Just over half of these are
voluntary secondary schools (privately owned and managed), a further one-third are vocational
schools (run by local Education and Training Boards) and the remainder are community/comprehen­
sive schools (run by Boards of Management that are representative of local interests). Although
voluntary schools have traditionally been associated with academic education and vocational
schools with practical education, these distinctions have become less pronounced over time, and
the vast majority of all schools now offer a range of academic and practical subjects. A small
proportion of voluntary schools are fee paying, and all other schools are either partly or entirely
funded by the government’s Department of Education and Skills (DES). It should be noted that,
within Ireland, the term ‘post-primary’ rather than ‘secondary’ is generally preferred when referring
to this sector as a whole, as the former encompasses all second-level schools, while the latter strictly
only refers to those which are privately owned and managed. In terms of the International Standard
Classification of Education (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012), however, all of the schools in this
study provide secondary education, and, for this reason, the term ‘secondary schools’ is used
throughout this article.
8 D. SCULLY ET AL.

Table 3. Proportion of various school characteristics observed in sample vs. population.

Sample % Population %
Location Urban 69 74
Rural 31 26
Type Voluntary (non-fee paying) 52 46
Voluntary (fee paying) 6 7
Vocational 27 34
Community/Comprehensive 15 13
Disadvantaged Status DEIS 28 27
Non-DEIS 72 73
Medium of Instruction English 91 93
Irish 9 7
Gender of Students Mixed 64 68
Male 11 14
Female 25 18
Religious Denomination Denominational 45 51
Multi-/non-denominational 54 49

Just over two-thirds of Irish secondary schools are co-educational, and around half are associated
with a particular religious denomination, most often Catholicism. Forty-nine schools are classified as
Gaelcholáistí, meaning that Irish (rather than English) is the primary language of teaching and
communication. Almost 200 schools receive intensive support from the government under the
Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme. These schools have high concen­
trations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and they are entitled to
smaller pupil–teacher ratios, access to a Schools Meals Programme and Home School Community
Liaison Services, among various other supports (Weir & Kavanagh, 2018).
Each school is headed by a principal and a deputy principal, whilst those with larger enrolments
may have up to three deputy principals. The National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals
(NAPD) represents a substantial proportion of these school leaders. Established in 1997, it has over
a thousand members from all school types across the sector and comprises several sub-committees
representing different areas of interest in secondary education. Given its respected status and its
large and inclusive membership, it was selected as the most suitable avenue through which to recruit
a representative sample of school leaders for this study. Following approval from Dublin City
University’s Research Ethics Committee, contact was made with the Chair of the NAPD’s Digital
Learning Committee, who agreed to circulate the survey link to all NAPD members and promote it
across the organisation’s social media.
The survey link was circulated on 11 June, and it remained active for a three-week window, with
a reminder issued at the halfway point. At this time, tuition had ceased for the summer break, and
schools had been engaged in emergency remote teaching for a period of nine weeks prior to this. No
decisions had been made as to whether and under what terms they would be permitted to re-open
after the summer break (typically the last week in August). Seventy-two school leaders responded to
the survey, providing data for approximately 10% of secondary schools nationwide. In comparison to
the underlying population, voluntary schools were slightly over-represented, and vocational schools
under-represented in the sample (Table 3). Aside from this, it can be considered generally repre­
sentative in terms of various school characteristics.
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 9

Findings
Overview
Not all respondents fully completed the survey, therefore the relevant n for the results presented
ranges from 60 to 72. Percentages in tables and figures have been rounded and thus may not always
sum to 100. In many questions, respondents were invited to provide an additional answer if
necessary (i.e. ‘other, please specify’). Often, it was possible to map these answers back on to one
of the options initially provided; however, in cases where the additional response represented a new
category, this has been acknowledged in the commentary.

Leaders’ technological orientations

To explore the factor structure of the data concerning leaders’ technological orientations, 13 relevant
survey items were entered into a principal components analysis with orthogonal (varimax) rotation.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure indicated that the sample was just about adequate for this analysis
(KMO = .65), and an initial attempt revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than one. However,
some communalities after extraction were less than .7, indicating the possible unsuitability of this
criterion for factor extraction. Furthermore, one of these factors had only one item with a high
loading. In light of these observations, the analysis was rerun, specifying that only three factors be
extracted. This solution explained 56% of the variance, and, based on the item clusters, the factors
were considered to represent (i) self-rated competence in using digital technology, (ii) negative

Table 4. Three-factor solution to a principal components analysis of 13 survey items measuring school leaders’ technological
orientations.

Item Component
Item 1 2 3
I am NOT comfortable using technology –.83
I use digital technology for a wide range of purposes in my professional life .82
Others consider me to be highly competent in the use of digital technology .80
I use digital technology for a wide range of purposes in my personal life .79
The advantages of using digital technology to support teaching and learning outweigh the disadvantages –.76
It is NOT possible to teach certain subjects using digital technology .73
Digital technology is harmful to student learning .70
Whether or not a post-primary school uses digital technology for teaching and learning purpose is irrelevant .66
Some skills are best developed using digital technology –.62
Significant changes need to be made to curricula if digital technology is to be successfully integrated into .69
teaching and learning
Teachers need to adopt a different set of pedagogical approaches if digital technology is to be successfully .66
integrated into teaching and learning
The potential benefits of digital technology for teaching and learning are exaggerated .6
Many teachers use digital technology ‘for the sake of it’ with no real gains in learning achieved .55

Table 5. Descriptive statistics (expressed on a common scale ranging from 0 to 10) and reliability indices for the three technology-
related attitudinal scales.

Scale No. items m sd α

Self-rated competence in using digital technology 4 7.8 1.8 .83
Negative disposition towards technology in teaching and learning 5 2.6 1.4 .75
Belief that certain pre-requisites must be met before technology integration can be achieved 4 5.5 1.3 .5
10 D. SCULLY ET AL.

Table 6. Responses to questions regarding school technological infrastructure.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree (%) (%) Agree (%)
(%)
. . . the school was well equipped with digital technology hardware (e.g., 3 13 33 51
computers, laptops, tablets, projectors)
. . . the digital technology hardware in the school was up-to-date 0 10 45 45
. . . there was good internet connectivity in the school 1 7 26 65
No (%) Yes (%)
. . . did your school provide devices (e.g., tablets, laptops for every student 10 90
in the school?)

disposition towards technology in teaching and learning, and (iii) the belief that certain prerequisites
must be met before technology integration can be successful (Table 4).
Following reverse scoring where appropriate, respondents’ composite scores on each of these
three scales were calculated. Descriptive statistics and reliability indices for these scales are provided
in Table 5. Generally speaking, school leaders rated themselves highly in terms of their own
technological competence and expressed positive attitudes towards the potential for technology
in teaching and learning. Beliefs were slightly less clear cut regarding the third factor, but overall,
leaders tended towards the opinion that certain curricular and pedagogical perquisites must be met
before digital technology integration can be achieved. Leaders with higher self-rated technological
competence were less likely to express negative attitudes towards the use of technology for teaching
and learning (r = –.27, p < .05).

School technological infrastructure

School leaders were positive about the hardware situation in their schools, with most indicating that
they had good internet connectivity (91%) and an adequate supply of digital hardware (84%) that
was up to date (89%) (Table 6). However, only 23% reported that students were allocated devices on
a one-to-one ratio.

School visions
Responses relating to school visions of digital technology use, including the extent to which staff had
input into the content or development of this vision, are provided in Table 7. The vast majority (90%) of
respondents reported that their school had a Digital Learning Plan, which requires the inclusion of

Table 7. Responses to questions relating to the theme ‘Visions of the school’.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . No (%) Yes (%)

. . . did your school have a Digital Learning Plan? 10 90
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree (%) (%) Agree (%)
(%)
. . . digital technology integration was a priority area of focus in the school 3 12 45 41
. . . we regularly discussed the use of digital technology for teaching, 0 23 43 34
learning and assessment, as a staff
. . . teachers were encouraged to participate in CPD relating to digital 4 6 41 49
technology integration
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 11

Table 8. Response to questions relating to the theme ‘Leadership Practices’.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . No (%) Yes (%)

. . . did your school have an ICT co-ordinator? 11 89
. . . did your school have a digital learning team? 30 70
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
(%) (%) (%) (%)
. . . teachers were encouraged to integrate digital technology into their 3 4 37 56
practice
. . . I regularly discussed strategies for digital learning with other school 5 31 45 19
leaders in my professional network

a statement on the school’s vision for digital technology use (DES, 2017). Furthermore, 86% agreed or
strongly agreed that digital technology integration was ‘a priority focus area of the school’. There was
also evidence to suggest that these visions tend to be actively shared and developed among staff. For
example, 77% of principals indicated that they regularly discuss digital technology use with their staff,
and 90% reported that they support their staff’s engagement with CPD. Leaders with more negative
attitudes towards technology were significantly less likely to report that they encouraged their staff to
participate in CPD related to technology integration (rs = –.37, p < .01). This finding remained significant
following a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Leadership
Responses to questions relating to leadership and its sub-themes suggested that digital technology
integration in Irish secondary schools is largely supported by a model of distributed leadership. For
example, 89% of respondents reported the appointment of an ICT coordinator in their school to help
with the implementation of the Digital Learning Plan, and 70% reported that they had a Digital
Learning Team in place to develop the content of their plan (Table 8). In terms of networking, many
respondents (64%) indicated that they regularly discussed digital strategies with other school

Table 9. Responses to questions relating to the theme ‘Practices of the teaching community’.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . No (%) Yes (%)

. . . did your school have teacher email accounts for school-related use? 0 100
None or More All or
hardly any Less than than almost
half half all
%
. . . what proportion of the teachers in your school used digital technology 2 31 36 31
to collaborate with other teachers?

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
. . . we regularly discussed the use of digital technology for teaching, 0 23 43 34
learning and assessment as a staff
. . . teachers were encouraged to participate in CPD relating to digital 4 6 41 49
technology integration
. . . teachers had sufficient time to prepare lessons incorporating digital 7 40 39 11
technology
12 D. SCULLY ET AL.

leaders. Motivational practices were also evident, with 93% indicating that they encouraged their
teaching staff to incorporate digital technology into their practice.

Practices of the teaching community

‘Practices of the teaching community’ may be thought of as the extent to which teachers assume
some of the responsibility for school improvement in digital learning. In relation to communication,
collaboration and sharing of expertise, leaders universally reported that their staff had email
accounts for school use, and most (77%) indicated that email or other digital tools were used for
collaborative purposes by ‘more than half’ of teachers in the school (Table 9). Reports of informal
discussions surrounding technology use and participation in CPD are also relevant here, e.g., school
leaders reported that teachers were ‘encouraged to integrate digital technology into their practice’
(93%) and ‘encouraged to participate in CPD relating to digital technology integration’ (90%). There
was some evidence to suggest that teachers face practical challenges in experimenting with

Table 10. Percentages of respondents indicating the proportions of teachers in their school who used digital technology for
various pedagogical practices.

None or hardly Less than More than All or almost

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, please indicate to any half half all
the best of your knowledge, what proportion of teachers in
your school regularly used digital technology . . . %
. . . to present information 0 12 39 49
. . . to create resources 0 21 39 39
. . . to facilitate whole-class discussions 5 36 38 21
. . . to support inquiry-based learning 6 46 30 18
. . . to provide learning support to individual students 15 41 27 17
. . . to assess student learning 18 42 24 15
. . . to provide feedback to students 24 49 15 12

Table 11. Percentages of respondents indicating the proportions of teachers in their school who used various digital learning
tools for teaching and learning purposes.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, please None or hardly any Less than half More than half All or almost all
indicate to the best of your knowledge, what propor­
tion of teachers in your school regularly used . . . %
. . . presentation software (e.g., MS PowerPoint) 0 8 34 58
. . . word-processing software (e.g., MS Word) 2 11 42 45
. . . collaborative software (e.g., Google Docs, MS 5 30 27 39
Teams)
. . . quiz tools (e.g., Socrative, Kahoot) 5 38 48 9
. . . digital games 19 44 31 6
. . . video and photo software (e.g., iMovie) 16 48 27 10
. . . e-portfolios/digital portfolios 25 48 14 13
. . . concept-mapping software (e.g., Webspiration) 45 47 8 0
. . . simulations and modelling software (e.g., 58 38 6 0
Netlogo)
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 13

Table 12. Responses to questions related to the theme ‘School-level knowledge practices’.

Question: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic . . . Yes (%) No (%)

. . . did your school have an online management information system? 97 3
. . . did your school have student email accounts for school-related 94 6
use?
None or Less than More than All or
hardly any half half almost all
%
. . . what proportion of the teachers in your school used digital 17 39 21 23
technology to communicate with students?
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
. . . students were explicitly taught how to use digital technology for 1 27 41 30
various learning purposes

technology in the classroom, with almost half (47%) of leaders expressing the belief that their
teachers do not have sufficient time to prepare lessons involving technology.

Pedagogical practices
Most school leaders reported that ‘more than half’ of their teachers use technology to present
information (88%) and create lesson resources (78%), whilst slightly fewer did so in relation to the
facilitation of whole-class discussions (59%), inquiry-based learning practices (48%) and the provision
of learning support (44%). The use of technology for assessment and feedback practices does not
appear to be common, with the majority of principals indicating that ‘less than half’ or ‘hardly any’ of
their teachers do this (Table 10).
The types of digital learning tools favoured by most teachers also give some insight into
predominant pedagogical practices, with presentation software generally favoured over the likes
of e-portfolios and digital games (Table 11).

School-level knowledge practices

In terms of common knowledge practices, almost all (97%) respondents reported that their school
was using an online management information system prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. This tool
allows for communication and networking between members of the school community (school-wide
texts, parental access to timetables etc.) and provides important administrative support to school
management. In relation to students’ technology use, just over 70% school leaders indicated that
students were explicitly taught how to use digital technology for learning purposes. With regard to
students having an active online presence in the school community, 94% of leaders reported that
students have school-related email addresses; however, teachers’ use of email and other collabora­
tive software to communicate directly with students was not commonplace, with less than half of
principals indicating that most teachers did so (Table 12).

Digital resources
Virtually all (97%) respondents indicated that their school had access to digital support services.
Sixty-two per cent reported that their schools were ‘well equipped with digital resources that can be
used offline’. Given the quality of internet connectivity reported in Table 4 previously, it can be
14 D. SCULLY ET AL.

inferred that schools which do not have such resources can use what is available online. It is worth
noting, however, that students’ home learning environments are not always well resourced, with
sizeable minorities of school leaders reporting that most of their students do not have internet access
(28%) or access to appropriate devices for learning purposes (37%) at home.
In terms of digital competence, over 80% of school leaders were of the opinion that most of their
teachers have sufficient information technology skills to support the use of technology for teaching
and learning. Less confidence was evident in relation to students’ digital competence, however, with
a considerably smaller proportion of principals (58%) indicating that most of their students were ‘tech-
savvy’. Finally, although the majority (80%) reported that students were encouraged to use digital

5%

Full timetable of live classes

29%
Predominantly live classes

Predominantly independent work

65%
Independent work only, no live classes

Figure 2. Methods used for teaching and learning during the pandemic.

24%
Exams conducted in all subjects
28%
Exams replaced with alternative
assessments in some cases
Exams replaced with alternative
assessments across the board
No exams or assessments conducted

46%

Figure 3. Implementation of school examinations during the pandemic.

 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 15

13%

28%

Severely compromised
Somewhat compromised
About the same
A little better

58%

Figure 4. School leaders’ ratings of the quality of teaching, learning and assessment occurring during the closures.

technology use for learning purposes, as mentioned in the previous section, slightly fewer (71%) said
that they were explicitly taught how to do so. School leaders who exhibited more negative attitudes
towards technology were less likely to report that students were encouraged to use digital technology
for learning purposes (rs = –.44, p < .01).

Response to the pandemic

Continuity of teaching, learning and assessment during the enforced closures
All respondents indicated that their schools had made provisions for the continuity of teaching and
learning during the enforced closures. In the majority (65%) of cases, this was achieved through pre-
recorded teacher presentations and independent assignments, supplemented by a small number of
live online classes. Approximately one-third of school leaders indicated that provision during the
closures was predominantly or fully live, and only a very small proportion (~1%) did not engage in
any live teaching (Figure 2). Schools in urban areas were more likely than those in rural areas to have
provided a predominantly or fully live timetable (46% vs 10%, χ2 = 7.71, p < .01), and voluntary
schools were more likely than vocational and comprehensive schools to do so (44% vs 18%, χ2 = 4.17,
p < .05). Leaders’ technological orientations were not associated with differences in the nature of
provision during the closures.
Virtually all (99%) school leaders indicated that they had typically conducted formal summer
exams before the pandemic. Of these, 28% reported that students were provided with exams in all
subjects during the closure and given a specific window in which to complete them. However, the
majority (70%) indicated that they replaced exams with alternative assessments for some or all
subjects. Rural schools were more likely than urban schools to continue with the traditional
examination format (48% vs 17%, χ2 = 6.51, p < .05). Less than 2% of schools reported that they
did not conduct any exams or assessments during the pandemic (Figure 3).
With regard to the platforms used to facilitate remote teaching, learning, and assessment,
Microsoft for Education was the most commonly used (mentioned by 63% of school leaders),
followed by Google Classroom (40%) and Edmodo (18%). A range of other platforms, namely
Schoology, Zoom, Apple Classroom, SchoolWise, Loom, Moodle, Screencastify and Webex, were
mentioned by a few (< 10%) respondents.
16 D. SCULLY ET AL.

Table 13. Respondents’ perceptions of the extent* to which various factors acted as barriers to teaching and learning during the
closure.

Not at all Marginally Moderately Significantly

%
Students’ willingness to engage with the continuity plan 0 35 38 28
Students’ access to a device OR the internet in their homes 5 42 32 21
Teachers’ proficiency in appropriate pedagogic approaches to support 12 37 35 17
technology-based teaching and learning
Teachers’ proficiency in digital technology 7 47 33 13
Personal circumstances of teachers related to Covid-19 7 48 37 8
Parental willingness to support the continuity plan 7 48 37 8
Personal circumstances of students related to Covid-19 3 60 27 10
Students’ proficiency in digital technology 12 58 20 10
Teachers’ access to a device OR the internet in their homes 27 48 22 3
Teachers’ willingness to engage with the continuity plan 48 28 17 7
*Note: respondents were instructed to interpret ‘marginally’ as ‘problematic for about half of teachers/students’ and ‘signifi­
cantly’ as ‘problematic for almost all teachers/students’.

In comparison to regular circumstances, the quality of teaching, learning and assessment occur­
ring during the closure was considered to be ‘somewhat’ or ‘severely’ compromised by an over­
whelming majority (85%) of school leaders (Figure 4). None regarded the emergency remote
teaching as having been ‘much better’.
Leaders of DEIS schools were more likely to describe the quality of provision as ‘severely’
compromised (50% vs 19%, χ2 = 6.22, p < .05), as were those whose schools relied predominantly
on asynchronous methods (35% vs 10%, χ2 = 4.47, p < .05). Furthermore, leaders with more negative
attitudes towards technology tended to give poorer ratings to the quality of teaching and learning
during the pandemic (rs = – .3, p < .05), whilst those with higher levels of personal competence in
technology tended to rate the quality of provision more favourably (rs =.25, p < .05).
Various challenges were encountered during the closures, the most noteworthy of which were
poor student engagement, lack of internet and/or device access in students’ homes, and teachers’
lack of proficiency in pedagogic approaches that support technology-based learning. These issues
were regarded as having ‘moderately’ or ‘significantly’ threatened the continuity of teaching and
learning by more than half of school leaders. Teachers’ willingness to engage, and their access to
necessary infrastructure, on the other hand, posed problems for fewer schools (Table 13).
Responses to the open-ended question provided further insights. The most prominent theme to
emerge from the qualitative data was that the greatest challenges faced by schools during the
pandemic were not technology related, per se. Many spoke instead of existing difficulties becoming
exacerbated due to the lack of face-to-face contact with students:

students who would typically be poor engagers in class became non engagers at home

Some respondents commented that the skills and tools needed to support technology-based
learning were already in place within their school community, but even where this was not the
case, principals were quite positive about the ‘learning-by-doing’ that occurred in relation to
technology use:

overall, most people – students and teachers – made significant advances in skills development. It is no longer
‘scary’.

That said, technology-related issues were considered to be the main source of difficulty for certain
schools, with these emerging as a secondary theme from the qualitative data. Poor internet
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 17

Table 14. School leaders’ beliefs regarding the extent to which their schools’ practices in various areas would change in the
future, as a result of experiences during the pandemic.

Not at all Marginally Moderately Significantly

%
Development/application of a digital learning policy 4 14 34 49
Provision of CPD in the use of digital technology for staff 0 27 33 40
Communication (e.g., use of email, online meetings) 8 20 47 25
Use of technology for homework 5 25 41 28
Use of technology in the classroom 5 27 47 22
Purchasing of student and/or teacher devices for school work 17 25 32 27
Use of technology to facilitate remote teaching in certain circumstances 10 37 28 25
(e.g., when a teacher cannot attend school due to illness or injury)

connectivity in students’ homes posed an insurmountable challenge for some, whilst others noted
a lack of access to appropriate devices or concerns relating to digital competence:
we need CPD in both the technical aspects of . . . teaching remotely and the pedagogical aspects

Intentions for future practice

A large number of school leaders expressed the belief that their experiences during the period of
emergency remote teaching would impact on school policy and practice in a range of areas in the
future (Table 14). More than 80% stated that the school’s digital learning policy would undergo
‘moderate’ or ‘significant’ changes, and all principals reported that CPD for teachers in the use of
digital technology would receive focus in the future. Fewer indicated that there would be significant
changes in terms of purchasing devices or using technology to facilitate emergency remote teaching
in situations where teachers cannot attend school. However, on the whole it is clear that, according
to these school leaders, few areas of policy and practice will be unaffected by recent events.
Probable changes to school policy and/or practice in light of the pandemic experience were also
evident in a third theme identified within the open-ended responses. Indeed, many leaders noted
how the enforced closures had brought about positive changes (e.g., greater teacher collaboration).
It was evident that many of these were viewed as practices that could and should be maintained in
the long term:
returning to the old way would be a missed opportunity

Discussion
A key aim of this research was to provide an overview of digital learning in Irish secondary schools.
Although some recent reports have provided insights to this end (e.g., Cosgrove et al., 2019; DES,
2020a), this study also took into account school leaders’ technological orientations, and themes from
Ilomäki and Lakkala's (2018) research-informed IDI school model in doing so. In addition, it sought to
gather information on the emergency remote teaching period during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The foundations: leaders’ technological orientations and school infrastructure

In relation to Research Question 1, the findings of this survey suggest that secondary school leaders
in Ireland are confident technology users, and most believe in the potential of digital technology to
significantly enhance teaching and learning. Their beliefs do not appear to be overly techno-centric,
however, as there is also a reasonably strong sense amongst them that technology use will only be
successful if it is accompanied by certain pedagogical and curricular changes. This is promising in
18 D. SCULLY ET AL.

light of Claro et al.’s (2017, p. 51) observation that school leaders often express ‘fewer concerns about
the time and conditions required for learning about new practices’ than their teaching staff. If school
leaders in Ireland have a healthy scepticism about the transformative potential of technology and are
aware of the extent of training and development needs involved in supporting technology integra­
tion in their schools, they may be more likely to devote time and resources to these in the coming
years.
Research Question 2(a) was concerned with school technology infrastructure. It is evident that the
vast majority of secondary schools in Ireland are well equipped in this regard, with almost all
respondents indicating that their schools had an adequate supply of hardware and good internet
connectivity. Interestingly, although Cosgrove et al. (2019) reported a similar state of affairs, fewer of
their respondents were positive about the ‘age and condition’ of the devices in their schools. This
could mean that some schools have renewed their devices over the past year due to the ongoing
availability of funds in accordance with the government’s Digital Strategy for Schools (DES, 2015),
which is encouraging. However, it should not be overlooked that a modest proportion of schools are
reportedly still without these fundamental requirements.
Schools with the above characteristics (i.e., good technological infrastructure and a leader who is
positively disposed towards and well informed about technology integration) could be regarded as
having achieved the most basic level of readiness to engage with digital learning. To gain an
understanding of the extent to which Irish secondary schools were capitalising on this relatively
strong ‘starting position’, however, a closer look at their use of digital technology is required.

The building blocks: visions, leadership, resources and practices

Research Questions 2(b) and 2(c) sought to understand the nature of schools’ practices with
technology, and whether these differed according to school type and/or leaders’ orientations. In
terms of the visions and leadership elements of the IDI school model, the situation in Irish schools
appears to be quite well aligned with best practice. Evidence from the survey responses suggests
that clear plans, intentional development orientation, motivational and networking practices, and
distributed leadership in relation to digital technology are relatively commonplace. There was some
evidence to suggest that leaders’ beliefs may influence their tendency to engage in motivational
practices, with those exhibiting more negative attitudes less likely to report encouraging their staff
to engage in CPD. However, this effect was small, and should be interpreted with caution, especially
given the fact that few leaders in this sample held negative attitudes towards technology.
As Ilomäki and Lakkala (2018, p. 4) outlined, achieving consensus about vision and sharing
responsibilities can create an atmosphere that is conducive to ‘collaboration and experimentation’,
which assumes relevance in the third element of the model, ‘practices of the teaching community’.
Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that most school leaders also tended to report that their teachers
were inclined towards collaboration and the informal sharing of expertise. However, the fact that
many believe that their teachers do not have sufficient time to plan for technology integration is
concerning in this regard, as it may indicate that these collaborations are likely to be mostly
haphazard and opportunist in nature.
In terms of digital resources and pedagogical practices, the situation is more ambiguous.
Virtually all schools enjoy access to a range of online learning resources, and have sufficient
technical support services; however, the IDI school model also regards teachers’ and students’
‘digital competence’ as resources. Although the principals surveyed were generally confident that
their staff have good IT skills, this alone does not constitute digital competence, which, according
to Ilomäki and Lakkala (2018, p. 6), is ‘related to pedagogical understanding of using technology in
education’. Both the DLF and IDI models outline how this pedagogical understanding may
manifest itself, e.g., the DLF views teachers engaging students in ‘collaborative problem solving,
research, and/or artistic creation’ as an example of ‘highly effective practice’ (DES, 2017, p. 7), and
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 19

the IDI model describes a ‘focus on complex issues and activities like knowledge creation and
problem-solving’. School leaders seem aware of this, with most espousing the belief that a distinct
set of pedagogical approaches is needed to ensure successful technology integration. However,
the data indicate that only a minority of teachers are facilitating these sorts of activities with
technology, and that, for the most part, traditional teacher-centred pedagogies prevail. This
echoes findings from observational research in Irish classrooms (DES, 2020a) and international
trends (IEA, 2018; Livingstone, 2012), and it indicates that pedagogical development needs to be at
the forefront of efforts to further encourage technology integration in Irish schools.
Although the DLF has already been used to inform the content of both initial teacher education
(ITE) and CPD courses on the use of technology in secondary classrooms (e.g., Professional
Development Service for Teachers (PDST), 2020), it seems that this is not yet being reflected in
practice. This may be due to the relative infancy of these programmes, and it is possible that the
frequency of these types of practices will increase in the coming years. However, it is also possible
that there is still insufficient practical support being provided in how to apply these frameworks.
Indeed, Cosgrove et al. (2019) noted in their review of the DLF that schools needed ‘more explicit
guidance’ on how to address the DLF domains and statements of practice, using a wider range of
approaches.

The missing pieces: what emergency remote teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic
revealed
Following the announcement of the nationwide school closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the
Irish government released a set of guidelines regarding the continuity of education, in which schools
were urged to ‘ensure regular engagement of students in lessons, tasks and learning experiences
across the range of curriculum areas’ (DES, 2020b, p. 3). Research Question 3(a) sought to establish
the extent to which this occurred. The findings suggest that schools made a concerted effort to
adhere to these guidelines, with approximately a third of them conducting online lessons during the
closure, and the remainder providing pre-recorded lessons and assignments. This aligns with
findings from other Irish research conducted during the pandemic (Mohan et al., 2020) and also
with those from the secondary sector in England (Lucas et al., 2020).
It is clear, however, that this remote provision proved challenging, with most rating the quality of
teaching and learning that occurred as somewhat, if not severely, compromised. Given the global
scale of the emergency and the severity of disruption it caused to virtually all aspects of life, this is, to
some degree, unsurprising. As Hodges et al. (2020) pointed out, rapidly organised online classes
offered in response to a crisis or disaster are distinct from well-planned online learning experiences.
That said, the extent of the challenges faced by these schools during the closures was arguably
greater than what might have been expected, given their relatively strong alignment with many of
the best practice guidelines regarding technology use for teaching and learning as outlined by the
DLF (DES, 2017) and the IDI school model (Ilomäki & Lakkala, 2018). Research Questions 3(b) and 3(c)
sought to identify the nature and sources of these challenges.
Poor student engagement and lack of internet and/or device access in students’ homes were two
of the most prominent challenges encountered during the closures. Both were regarded as ‘mod­
erate’ or ‘significant’ barriers to the continuity of teaching and learning by more than half of all
school leaders, but they were especially pronounced amongst certain types of schools. Consistent
with Mohan et al. (2020)’s findings, leaders of DEIS (disadvantaged) schools were more inclined to
describe the quality of teaching and learning during the emergency period as ‘severely compro­
mised’. As the qualitative data revealed, these schools experienced the exacerbation of many
existing difficulties related to student motivation and wellbeing, which were further compounded
by the removal of supports such as the Home School Liaison Service and education welfare officers.
In addition, leaders of these schools frequently reported that many of their students did not have
20 D. SCULLY ET AL.

access to appropriate devices to engage in remote learning, whilst leaders of rural schools tended to
note that poor internet connectivity in students’ homes posed major problems.
Students’ home learning environments undoubtedly assume added importance during the
unusual circumstances of a pandemic. However, they are not insignificant during normal circum­
stances. Today’s technologies theoretically allow for ‘anytime-anywhere’ learning to occur, making
school walls porous. As Bulfin et al. (2016) explained, ‘from a logistical point of view, current uses of
digital technology are directed primarily by individuals rather than institutions’ (p. 240). With this in
mind, it should be recognised that a lack of internet access and/or a personal device could prevent
many students from engaging fully with technology-based learning, regardless of the situation in
their schools, and that this issue was simply amplified during the pandemic.
Certain elements of both the DLF and the IDI school model implicitly require students to have
access to the internet and to an appropriate device outside of school. The DLF (DES, 2017, pp. 5-6),
for example, envisages students developing ‘a sense of ownership’ of their learning, and highlights
students’ use of digital technologies to ‘collect evidence, record progress, evaluate and reflect’ and
to ‘creatively and critically develop their competence as autonomous, self-directed learners’ as
examples of ‘highly effective practice’. The extent to which students can be expected to achieve
these goals exclusively within the traditional timetable and confines of the school building is
questionable. Despite this, neither model explicitly foregrounds the facilitative role of students’
home learning environments. This is something of an oversight that appears to have been exposed
by the closures, and it helps explain why Irish schools, despite their apparent readiness to engage
with digital learning according to many elements of these frameworks, faced such challenges when
this readiness was put to the test outside of the school building.
These findings suggest that it may be worth revisiting these frameworks to include an explicit
acknowledgement of the importance of access to technology outside of school. It is helpful, as Bulfin
et al. (2016, p. 240) suggested, to distinguish between the notion of school as a setting for digital
technology use vs. as a purpose for digital technology use, i.e., ‘how young people use digital
technology in their role as students’, regardless of their physical location. There should be a strong
focus on actions that can provide opportunities for all students to engage in a more flexible form of
learning with technology, as without these, existing frameworks may reinforce barriers to realising the
transformative potential of technology in education. The Irish government’s National Broadband Plan
(Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment, 2019), which aims to deliver
high-speed broadband service to all households in Ireland over the course of the next four years, will be
important in this regard. That said, it is crucial that an appropriate home learning environment is
thought of as a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for ‘anytime-anywhere learning’. Indeed, if the
transformative potential of technology in this regard is to be realised, learners’ intrinsic motivations to
learn, and their capacity for self-regulation, also need to be developed.
Teachers’ lack of proficiency in appropriate pedagogic approaches to support technology-based
teaching and learning also emerged as a notable impediment to the continuity of teaching and
learning during the closures. This makes sense in light of the earlier finding that many were not
regularly engaging in these types of approaches prior to the pandemic. It may be possible for teachers
to ‘get by’ using technology in a predominantly teacher-led way within the traditional classroom.
However, competence in alternative pedagogical approaches, specifically those that challenge stu­
dents to take a more active role in their learning, becomes a real necessity in asynchronous contexts.
With this in mind, it is interesting that leaders of schools that used predominantly asynchronous
methods were more likely to rate the quality of provision during the pandemic as ‘severely
compromised’. On the surface, this is at odds with findings from the distance education literature
which suggest that neither method is superior (e.g., Means et al., 2013). Both synchronous and
asynchronous learning can and should occur, and it is arguably unhelpful to consider them as
separate entities. However, the available literature pertains mostly to planned online programmes in
higher education contexts in which the pedagogical approaches that best support technology-
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 21

based learning are more established. Indeed, it is not surprising that a cohort of teachers whose use
of technology was, for the most part, embedded in more traditional pedagogical approaches,
struggled more in asynchronous environments.
This once again highlights the need for more professional learning opportunities focused on
pedagogic aspects of digital competence. Redecker’s (2017) DigCompEdu framework, which outlines
in detail a range of digital competencies that educators require, may be helpful in this regard. This
framework helped inform the development of the DLF; however, a focus on some of its individual
elements at a more granular level in the development of CPD for teachers may now be needed.
Moreover, it seems that teacher readiness for such learning has been enhanced by the forced
engagement with remote provision. Responses to the open-ended question revealed that, despite
the extent of the challenges faced over the course of the closures, many teachers made real gains in
terms of digital technology competence and confidence, to the point that technology-based learn­
ing was ‘no longer scary’. In this sense, it seems the pandemic experience was viewed as having
created opportunities to instigate lasting positive change.

Limitations and future directions

This study was a ‘rapid response’ piece of research conducted in relation to an unfolding global
pandemic. Its aims were to quickly and unobtrusively collect broad, reliable and representative data
pertaining to technology use in a particular educational setting, and to document the response to
the restrictions caused by the health crisis within this setting. The research design and methods used
reflect these aims; nonetheless, they were subject to a number of limitations.
The exclusive use of survey methods yielded what some might consider to be mere ‘surface-level’
data. Indeed, the maximum value of the IDI school model is only likely to be realised when it is applied to
in-depth case studies of individual schools in which many data collection methods are used and multiple
stakeholders are consulted. In particular, it is recognised that the information pertaining to some
elements of the model, such as ‘school-level knowledge practices’, was relatively sparse in this study.
Despite this, it is hoped that it has succeeded in highlighting the elements of the model that most
urgently need to be addressed at system level, most notably, digital resources and pedagogical practices,
and that this in turn may help individual schools in identifying areas of focus for their digital planning.
In addition, although every effort was made to ensure that the sampling frame for this study was
large and representative, it must be acknowledged that school leaders self-selected to complete the
survey, and that many of them may have done so on the basis of having a particular interest in digital
learning. Consequently, it is possible that they were slightly more positively disposed towards and
informed about technology integration than the underlying population, and this should be kept in
mind, particularly when interpreting the findings relating to leaders’ technological orientations. The
response rate was also somewhat lower than is typical for an online survey.
Overall, this study suggests that the digital technology integration in Irish secondary schools does
not yet embody the aspirational examples of ‘highly effective practice’ outlined in the government’s
Digital Learning Framework. It is clear that much progress needs to be made, particularly in relation
to the development of pedagogical expertise and achieving equity of access for all students, and that
both of these issues were made all the more visible during the pandemic-induced closures. With
respect to the former, school leaders seem hopeful that the emergency may have expedited
progress, in that it necessitated a degree of upskilling and experimentation and revealed new
opportunities for development. The latter, however, is a facet of broader educational disadvantage,
which continues to present a significant challenge to the advancement of digital learning.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
22 D. SCULLY ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Dr Darina Scully is an Assistant Professor of Child & Adolescent Learning and Development at Dublin City University’s
Institute of Education. She holds a PhD in Psychology from Trinity College, Dublin, and she is currently lecturing in
quantitative research methods and social, personal & health education. Her research interests span various assessment,
teaching and learning issues in primary, post-primary and higher education contexts.
Paula Lehane is a PhD candidate in Dublin City University at the Centre for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice in
Education. She previously worked as a primary school teacher and was the Special Educational Needs (SEN) coordinator
of a large urban primary school. Her research interests include SEN, educational and workplace assessment, and
technology-based assessments.
Conor Scully is a PhD candidate at Dublin City University at the Centre for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice in
Education. His doctoral work is focused on the reliability of nursing Objective Structured Clinical Examinations. He holds
a BA in Philosophy, Political Science, Economics and Sociology from Trinity College Dublin and an MSc in Sociology from
the University of Amsterdam.is a PhD candidate at Dublin City University at the Centre for Assessment Research, Policy
and Practice in Education. His doctoral work is focused on the reliability of nursing Objective Structured Clinical
Examinations. He holds a BA in Philosophy, Political Science, Economics and Sociology from Trinity College Dublin
and an MSc in Sociology from the University of Amsterdam.

ORCID
Darina Scully http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-717X
Paula Lehane http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0856-3505

References
Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopaedia of communication research methods. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781483381411
Bulfin, S., Johnson, N., Nemorin, S., & Selwyn, N. (2016). Nagging, noobs and new tricks – Students’ perceptions of school as
a context for digital technology use. Educational Studies, 42(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1160824
Claro, M., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Contardo, V. (2017). Differences in views of school principals and teachers
regarding technology integration. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 42–53. https://pure.hud.ac.uk/ws/portal
files/portal/10795576/Claro_et_al_2017_Differences_in_Views_of_School_Principals_and_Teachers.pdf
Cosgrove, J., Butler, D., Leahy, M., Shiel, G., Kavanagh, L., & Creaven, A. (2013). The 2013 ICT Census in Schools - Summary
Report. Educational Research Centre. http://www.erc.ie/documents/ict_cencus2013_summaryreport.pdf
Cosgrove, J., Moran, E., Feerick, E., & Duggan, A. (2019). Digital Learning Framework (DLF) national evaluation: Starting off.
Educational Research Centre. http://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/DLF-national-evaluation-baseline-
report.pdf
Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment. (2019). Delivering the National Broadband Plan.
https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/topics/Broadband/national-broadband-plan/high-speed-
broadband-map/Pages/NBP-Map.aspx
Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2015). Digital Strategy for Schools 2015–2020: Enhancing teaching, learning
and assessment. Stationery Office. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Digital-Strategy-for-
Schools-2015-2020.pdf
Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2017). Digital Learning Framework for post-primary schools. Stationery Office.
https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Information-Communications-Technology-ICT-in-
Schools/digital-learning-framework-secondary.pdf
Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2019). Statistical bulletin: Enrolments September 2019 – Preliminary results.
Stationery Office. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/enrolments/statis
tical-bulletin-enrolments-september-2019-preliminary-results.pdf
Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2020a). Digital learning 2020: Reporting on practice in early learning and care,
primary and secondary contexts. Stationery Office. https://assets.gov.ie/78007/a37413f9-7423-44bf-86df-
01762e04a408.pdf
Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2020b). Guidance on continuity of schooling for primary and post-primary schools.
Stationery Office. https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/guidance-on-continuity-of-schooling.pdf
Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K-12 students. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147
Hammond, M. (2014). Introducing ICT in schools in England: Rationale and consequences. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12033
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 23

Hatlevik, O. E., Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Examining factors predicting students’ digital competence.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.28945/2126
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching
and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-
remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Hohlfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A., Dawson, K., & Wilson, M. (2017). An examination of seven years of technology integration in
Florida schools: Through the lens of the levels of digital divide in schools. Computers & Education, 113, 135–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.017
Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: Innovative digital school
model. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0094-8
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2018). International Computer and
Information Literacy Study 2018. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/icils/2018
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology-integration: Adding pedagogy as a new
model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2
Kozma, R. (2008). Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International
handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 1083–1096). Springer Science.
Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. In D. Vannette & J. Krosnick (Eds.),
The Palgrave handbook of survey research (pp. 95–102). Springer Nature.
Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577938
Lucas, M., Nelson, J., & Sims, D. (2020). Schools’ responses to Covid-19: Pupil engagement in remote learning (Report 2).
National Foundation for Educational Research. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/schools-responses-to-covid-19-pupil-
engagement-in-remote-learning/
Marcus-Quinn, A., Hourigan, T., & McCoy, S. (2019). Winter). The digital learning movement: How should Irish schools
respond? The Economic and Social Review, 50(4), 767–783. https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/1332-Article
%20Text-3613-1-10-20191216.pdf
Means, B., Toyama, T., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the
empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16882
Mohan, G., McCoy, S., Carroll, E., Mihut, G., Lyons, S., & MacDomhnaill, C. (2020). Learning for all? Second-level education in
Ireland during COVID-19 (ESRI Survey and Statistical Report Series 92). Economic and Social Research Institute. https://
doi.org/10.26504/sustat92.pdf
O’Hagan, C. (2020, August 31). As a new academic year begins, UNESCO warns that only one third of students will return to school.
UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/new-academic-year-begins-unesco-warns-only-one-third-students-will-return-school
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the
connection. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
Pelgrum, W. J., & Voogt, J. (2009). School and teacher factors associated with frequency of ICT use by mathematics
teachers: Country comparisons. Education and Information Technologies, 14, 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-009-9093-0
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the
‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58, 1351–1359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011
Polizzi, G. (2011). Measuring school principals’ support for ICT integration in Paleremo, Italy. Journal of Media Literacy
Education, 3(2), 113–122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ985673.pdf
Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1258369
Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST). (2020). Digital Learning Framework. https://www.pdsttechnolo
gyineducation.ie/en/Planning/Digital-Learning-Framework/
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education,
50(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012) . International standard classification of education ISCED. UNESCO.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2020). COVID-19 impact on education [Data file]. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/
covid19/educationresponse
Weir, S., & Kavanagh, L. (2018). The evaluation of DEIS at secondary level: Closing the achievement gaps. Educational
Research Centre. https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Services/DEIS-Delivering-Equality-of-Opportunity-
in-Schools-/the-evaluation-of-deis-at-secondary-level-closing-the-achievement-and-attainment-gaps.pdf