Using ICTs in Teaching and Learning: Reflections on Professional Development
of Academic Staff
Markus Mostert and Lynn Quinn
Rhodes University, South Africa
Focussing on professional development of academic staff as higher
education practitioners, this paper reports on the relationship between ICTs
and teaching and learning in higher education, and on the way that that relationship
plays out in a formal staff development course offered at Rhodes University,
South Africa. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework
developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) is used as a theoretical lens for demonstrating
the undesirability of an unnatural separation of ICTs from teaching and learning
in dominant discourses within institutional and national environments. The
paper concludes by highlighting some implications of the TPCK framework for
staff developers and curriculum design in higher education.
Key words: information and communications technology (ICT);
learning technologies; professional development; academic development; educational
development; curriculum design.
Internationally the way in which higher education (HE) is conceptualised
is changing. Globalisation, massification, shrinking resources, the proliferation
of information and communication technologies (ICTs), increased demands for
quality assurance and greater public accountability, and increasing competition
among higher education institutions have all contributed towards changing
the traditional role of academics. Academics now operate in what Barnett (2000)
terms “a world of supercomplexity”, where the very frameworks
on which their professions are based are continuously in a state of flux.
Technological and economic changes, for example, have resulted in a reorganisation
of time and space (Giddens 1984, cited in Unwin 2007). Furthermore, the supercomplexity
and uncertainty of the postmodern world have caused people to be more reflexive,
which, in turn, has led to a heightened sense of ontological insecurity for
This changing context of higher education (HE) both internationally
and in South Africa presents new challenges for lecturers. In particular,
the expansion of the application of technology in teaching and learning has
been one of the most ubiquitous major recent changes in higher education (D’Andrea
and Gosling 2005). On the one hand the use of ICTs is presented as a solution
to many of the teaching and learning challenges brought about by the new HE
landscape, while, on the other hand, starting to use ICTs in their teaching
and their students’ learning often represents an almost insurmountable
obstacle to lecturers.
Some of the ways in which higher education institutions have
responded to the challenge of implementing ICTs in teaching and learning include
developing coherent institutional strategies to change (see for example, McNaught
and Kennedy, 2000 and Salmon, 2005), focussing on the impact of learning technologies
(Beetham et al., 2001, Timmis, 2003 in Conole, White and Oliver, 2007) and
the offering of models for representing and understanding organisational contexts
and change management (Morgan, 1986 and Mumford, 2003 in Conole, White and
Yet another strategy employed by higher education institutions
in response to such challenges and which this study reports on, focuses on
support and staff development issues (Smith and Oliver, 2000; Oliver and Dempster,
2003 in Conole, White and Oliver, 2007), placing greater emphasis on the professionalisation
of academic staff as teachers and assessors. Staff development units are tasked
with contributing to the professional development of academic staff in HE
through professional development workshops and courses leading to formal qualifications.
Through these initiatives Academic Development (AD) staff need to find ways
of not only helping academics cope with these changes, but also of assisting
them in developing appropriate strategies for preparing their students to
operate successfully in a world of “supercomplexity”.
With regard to the use of ICTs in teaching and learning, however,
a major problem is that staff developers themselves are often ill-equipped
for using ICTs in their own teaching and courses, let alone for assisting
academic staff to follow suit.
In response to these challenges, Unwin (2007) proposes a model
of professional development that entails the establishment of professional
learning communities as a way to counteract the sense of ontological insecurity.
Following from the “communities of practice” concept developed
by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998), such learning communities are
important as they could contribute towards lecturers reconceptualising their
professional identities. For Knight and Trowler a community of practice is
“a closely interacting group of practitioners within which contextualized,
situated learning is always happening and is legitimized” (2001, 9).
Such communities “have the potential to encourage teamwork, democratic
discourse, creativity and trust” (Unwin 2007, 298). Also, within a learning
community people bring along different resources and expertise which they
can share with members of the group. Wenger (1998, 85) argues that
These professional communities have allowed a sense of belonging
and confidence in shared decision-making when (often) external factors seemed
to be working against us … (in Unwin 2007, 296).
In an environment which is not always supportive of change,
Academic Development (AD) staff are challenged to design workable strategies
in formal professional development courses for promoting effective practice
in teaching with technology. Investigating the relationship between ICTs and
teaching and learning in higher education, this paper uses the Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) framework developed by Mishra and Koehler
(2006) as a theoretical lens for reporting on the practice in a staff development
course for academics at Rhodes University, South Africa.
ICTs AND HIGHER EDUCATION
Many have regarded ICTs as the solution to a range of educational
problems. In South Africa, much of the discourse on using ICTs in HE teaching
and learning, however, seems to focus on access to technology; that is, on
the availability of computers, the Internet and bandwidth rather than on the
way ICTs are being used in support of teaching and learning. In many contexts
this focus on access has resulted in pedagogically poor applications of technology
where ICTs are only used in transmission modes of teaching and learning. Following
some spectacular failings of eLearning projects globally, (see, for example,
Latchem, 2005) there now seems to be a growing concern about the application
of those technologies in teaching and learning to investigate how they can
and are being used to support teaching and learning (see for example, Czerniewicz
and Brown, 2006).
In addition, there has been a growing recognition that technology
used in the absence of a sound theoretical framework or pedagogy is generally
not very effective in reaching programme goals. Laurillard (2002); Mishra
and Koehler (2006) and Unwin (2007), for example, have cautioned against the
use of ICTs without a conceptual framework or without a clear understanding
of why and how the ICT will contribute to students’ learning. These
insights have led some higher education institutions (HEIs) to realise that
pedagogically sound integration of ICTs in lecturers’ teaching requires
more than technical support; it also needs professional development for lecturers
to use ICTs in their teaching and learning.
There seems to be a wide variation in how HE practitioners conceptualise
the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in teaching
and learning. This implies a question concerning our understanding of learning
with ICTs and the implications for the professional development of academic
Discourses on ICTs in HE separate ICTs from teaching
Following Shephard (2004), we use the concept of ICTs in teaching
and learning to broadly include computer-based and online tools and resources
used to support student learning, but we also focus on the interactive use
of those tools to facilitate interpersonal communication and collaboration.
At Rhodes University, however, many of the discourses on the role of ICTs
in teaching and learning seem to conceptualise the use of computers in isolation
from lecturers’ teaching practice. Users of one such dominant discourse,
for example, believe that the use of ICTs only add value to those students
who are under-prepared for higher education studies. Such students should
therefore be sent to a computer laboratory to work through a computer-based
tutorial or other courseware product on a particular topic. This thinking
is in line with a model of computer-based education that emphasises learning
as the transmission of content over the construction of knowledge and seems
to be loosely based on behaviourist theories of learning, even though their
designers might profess constructivism as the underlying theory of learning
(Thorpe, 2002). In this model, students “learn” or supposedly
“construct their own knowledge” by working, often sequentially,
through courseware lessons such as computer-based “tutorials”,
drill and practice programs, simulations, tests and games (Alessi and Trollip,
Given the way in which ICTs are dealt with in isolation from
teaching and learning in official documentation pertaining to teaching and
learning, this separation of ICT-use from other teaching and learning endeavours
in South African Higher Education comes as no surprise. The same division
is, for example, reflected in the Higher Education Quality Committee’s
(HEQC) Improving Teaching and Learning (ITL) Resources (2005). Developed during
2003 in a series of workshops the ITL Resources was a collaborative project
between the HEQC and academics in private and public higher education institutions
in South Africa and other countries. Aimed at quality promotion and capacity
development these resources contain suggested good practice descriptors that
are consequently used as the basis for the institutional audits conducted
at various South African higher education institutions.
With regard to the use of ICTs in teaching and learning, the
ITL Resources contain the Unit Standards for a Web-based Learning elective
module, which forms part of a postgraduate qualification for higher education
practitioners, (the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education and Training
or PGCHET), aimed at providing professional development and recognition for
HET practitioners. However, apart from this elective, all of the references
to computer(s), IT (information technology), technology and the Web relate
to access and the provision of resources and services. Where the use of ICTs
is somehow connected to learning in these ITL Resources, references to ICTs
are used exclusively in relation to the development of computer literacy skills
for both students (2005, 112) and staff (2005, 141), despite a recognition,
in these very resources, that
… technology has revolutionised teaching and learning;
and academic staff members now face the challenge of introducing effective
ways of engaging technology for learning (HEQC 2005, 140).
Furthermore, in the unit standards for the PGCHET itself, the
use of ICTs in teaching and learning is dealt with in isolation from other
core modules such as curriculum development, assessment, evaluation and learning
design. While the unit standard for the elective module mentioned above, Design
and develop web-based learning, specifically focuses on the use of ICTs in
teaching and learning, none of the other seven compulsory core unit standards
or four elective unit standards addresses the issue of using ICTs in support
of teaching and learning. We believe that this separation of the use of technology
from other teaching and learning topics severely limits the potential of ICTs
to enhance teaching and learning.
Fortunately, due to the widespread use of the Web and the increasing
pervasiveness of ICTs as experienced by university educators and students,
the practice of isolating educational technologies is increasingly being challenged
in favour of practices based on social constructivist learning theories that,
for example, emphasise interpersonal interactivity over interaction between
a student and a courseware program. Consequently, computers are assuming a
more central role in mainstream teaching and learning.
This shifts the location of learning beyond the confined spaces
of “the lecture” and student computer laboratories with limited
“opening hours” towards learning anytime and anywhere, with profound
implications for the everyday practices of teaching, learning, research, administration
Since “there is no single technological solution that
applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching”
(Mishra and Koehler 2006, 1029), the appropriate and pedagogically accountable
integration of ICTs into teaching and learning, however, presents many challenges
which have to be addressed in professional development courses.
Implications for professional development
Due to the relative newness of the field as well as the increasing
pace of technological change, much of the work being done in relation to the
use of ICTs in teaching and learning can be described as exploratory and thus
is often implemented in the absence of well developed theoretical frameworks
(Unwin, 2007). Practice that develops slowly and theory hardly at all (Laurillard,
2002) severely limits the potential of ICTs to enhance teaching and learning.
It is therefore unsurprising that ongoing debate seems to characterise discussions
about the most appropriate way of supporting academic staff in using ICTs
in their teaching and in their students’ learning. Shephard (2004, 67),
for example, distinguishes between the provision of technological support
to describe an orientation of “let us help you to develop and use these
learning resources” and professional development to signify the scaffolding
provided to lecturers to help them develop the theoretical understandings
and skills that they will need “to find, develop, and use these learning
resources” in ways which contribute to the kind of learning that is
valued in higher education.These different orientations to assisting academic
staff to integrate ICTs in their teaching and learning have very specific
implications for educational technologists and academic development practitioners
With regard to the support model, the term “instructional
designer” is often used to describe the role of educational technologists.
In supporting staff (“let us help you to develop and use these learning
resources”), both an instructional designer and a lecturer (as content
expert) would often be part of a courseware development team which might include
one or more of the following: a project manager, a graphics or web designer,
a programmer, a web developer, etc. Instructional designers would therefore
engage in specific projects (e.g. developing a piece of courseware), with
target and sign-off dates, often following well-established software development
models such as the modified ADDIE model as described by Kruse and Keil (2000).
In a professional development context, however, educational
technologists increasingly fulfil the role of “curriculum designer”
alongside one or more academic staff members in a curriculum development team
(Littlejohn and Peacock, 2003). In this context, educational technologists
are more likely to play the role of “curriculum designers” (rather
than that of instructional designers), resembling the function of academic
development practitioners more closely. Here emphasis moves away from specific
ICT-based interventions (for example as in the case of developing a piece
of courseware) to a series of consultations over a longer period of time,
in a whole module or course that is presented over anything from a few weeks
to an entire academic year. Lecturers starting to use a learning management
system usually make small incremental changes to their courses and teaching
as they adopt various tools or features of a learning management system (LMS)
over a period of time. In this process they would be assisted by an educational
technologist (acting as a “curriculum designer”) who would work
alongside them to negotiate the pedagogical implications of various options
of using ICTs (Oliver, 2002).
The support model described above might have a more direct and
radical impact on the teaching and learning in a particular course. However,
this is also exactly the reason why this approach attracts fewer academics:
… the historic constancy of lecturing methods on campus
may make it hard for faculty to imagine strategies that take them outside
an intuitive core of shared assumptions and beliefs about teaching methods
(Daniel 1996, 137).
The combination of increased use of LMSs in higher education,
inflexible course structures, time tables and the dominance of the “performance”
model of teaching (Morrow, 2007) therefore seem to have shifted the role of
educational technologist from “instructional designer” to “curriculum
After outlining the context and some of the challenges involved
in the integration of ICTs within a Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education
(PGDHE) course we will use Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model as a lens through which to view our own
ICTs in a Professional Development Course
Since 2000 Academic Development (AD) staff members at Rhodes
University in South Africa have offered a Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education
(PGDHE) aimed at professionalising the practice of academic staff in the Institution.
Although the curriculum for the PGDHE was developed by a team of AD practitioners,
the team did not initially include an educational technologist. At the time
the application of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to teaching
and learning was addressed in the PGDHE through stand-alone presentations
by an educational technologist. These stand-alone presentations did however
not seem to lead to either successful learning about ICTs in teaching and
learning, or to significant implementation of ICTs in participants’
teaching and courses. According to Mishra and Koehler (2006) this de-contextualised
practice is indicative of the knowledge structures that underlie much of the
current discourse on educational technology that separates technology from
pedagogy and content.
The introduction of a learning management system into the PGDHE
in 2005 resulted in closer collaboration between the AD practitioners teaching
on the programme and the educational technologist in the department. This
has led to the formation of a “professional learning community”
(Unwin 2007, 295) comprising the AD staff and the educational technologist,
which has enabled an “integrated pedagogic approach to ICTs”.
Since ICTs are now used to support participants’ learning in the PGDHE,
the use of ICTs to enhance teaching and learning in Higher Education is modelled
for participants to use in their own teaching.
The Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE)
The curriculum for the PGDHE offered at Rhodes University is based on the
South African unit standards for the PGDHET, the competency-based national
qualification for lecturers in HE mentioned earlier. Since the curriculum
development team adapted the unit standards into a modular format, the curriculum
for the PGDHE displays a higher level of theoretical coherence than is usually
associated with unit standard-based programmes. Based on the curriculum development
team’s shared theoretical and philosophical beliefs about what constitutes
an appropriate approach to the development of academic staff in higher education,
the practice-based, two-year course was designed to meet the specific needs
of lecturers within the context of their disciplines, the university, and
the higher education context, nationally and internationally. The stated purpose
of the course is to encourage the professional development of lecturers by
assisting them to enhance their ability to facilitate, manage, and assess
their students’ learning, to evaluate their own practice effectively,
to develop their knowledge of higher education as a field of study, and to
provide professional accreditation (Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education
Course Guide, 2006). The programme is offered in the form of four core modules
(Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; Curriculum Development; Assessment
and Moderation of Student Learning and Evaluation of Teaching and Courses)
and one elective module.
Despite the positive evaluations on the programme as a whole
(see Quinn, 2003; 2006), the curriculum development team has always felt that
the add-on workshops on technology, although offered as part of specific modules,
were not successfully encouraging participants to use technology to enhance
their teaching and their students’ learning. This perception was borne
out by our analysis of participants’ teaching portfolios, the primary
method of summative assessment in the programme, which contained little evidence
of their using ICTs in their teaching, and from feedback we elicited from
Learning about ICTs in the PGDHE
At our institution the close relationship between ICTs and teaching
and learning has been recognised in that the position of the educational technologist
is based in the unit that is mandated to develop teaching and learning, rather
than in, for example, the division that is tasked to provide ICT infrastructure
and services to the institution. While the academic development staff members
have always recognised the importance of integrating ICTs into teaching and
learning, we were less certain about the most appropriate way in which it
could be integrated. Consequently, ICTs in teaching and learning were initially
treated as an “add-on” rather than central to teaching and learning.
This was also evident in the development of the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher
Education (PGDHE). Based on national unit standards this programme made provision
for the “teaching” of ICTs in teaching and learning through an
elective module worth 10 credits (initially called “Design and develop
web-based learning”) and one 90-minute session in each of the “Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education” and “Assessment and Moderation
of Student Learning” modules. While the elective, now called “ICTs
in Teaching and Learning”, provided PGDHE participants with the space
to investigate and report on an ICT-related intervention, take-up of this
elective was very low with only approximately 17% of participants taking this
elective over a 5-year period.
Following several years of experimenting with various web-based
learning management systems (LMSs), the institution adopted Moodle in 2004.
While the LMS initially had very little impact on the way that the PGDHE was
taught, the facilitators of the programme started using the LMS as a repository
for resources (in 2005), but later also more interactively by requiring PGDHE
participants to reflect on their learning in online journals (in 2006) and
in participating in online discussion forums (in 2007). The primary aim of
integrating ICTs into the PGDHE was to expose participants to the potential
of ICTs to enhance their teaching and their students’ learning by modelling
the use of ICTs. This is particularly significant as very few, if any, of
the PGDHE participants had any previous experience of being taught using ICTs.
While we do not claim that this integrated model of imbedding ICTs into the
curriculum was solely responsible for the increasing uptake of the LMS amongst
PGDHE participants for their own courses, we will assert that it is a more
pedagogically sound approach than the earlier practice of de-contextualised,
add-on presentations in two of the modules as described above.
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AS THEORETICAL
The need to have conceptual lenses through which to explore
research data has been thoroughly argued (see for example, Mishra and Koehler,
2006 and Oliver, 2003). Such theoretical lenses allow researchers (and practitioners)
to make inferences about the world. May goes so far as to claim that the findings
of social researchers are meaningless unless they are situated in a theoretical
framework which must be made explicit: the “facts do not speak for themselves”
(2001, 30). Furthermore he argues that social theory and concepts are necessary
both for interpreting empirical data, but also as a basis for critical reflection
on the research process, and social life and social systems in general. The
main aim of our research was to use the available theory to help us begin
to uncover the mechanisms and processes at work in our context.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
There seems to be emerging consensus that the integration of
ICTs into teaching and learning requires balancing different sets of knowledge
and skills. Inglis, Ling and Joosten (1999, in Shephard, 2004), for example,
identify three zones of expertise: expertise in information technologies,
expertise in instructional design and expertise in a subject area. Based on
Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) Mishra
and Koehler (2006) developed a theoretical framework that not only corresponds
closely with the zones of expertise identified by Inglis et al., but also
identifies four additional sets of teacher knowledge bases by focussing on
the areas of overlap between each pair in this triad, as well as the interplay
of all of three of these primary knowledge bases (See Figure 1). For Mishra
TPCK represents a class of knowledge that is central to
teachers’ work with technology. This knowledge would not typically be
held by technologically proficient subject matter experts, or by technologist
who know a little of the subject or of pedagogy, or by teachers who know little
of that subject or about technology (ibid, 1029).
Claiming that this framework enables a deeper understanding
of a range of contextually bound and complex relationships, Mishra and Koehler
(2006) argue that
a conceptually based theoretical framework about the relationship
between technology and teaching can transform the conceptualisation and the
practice of teacher education, teacher training, and teachers’ professional
development (ibid, 1019).
Figure 1. The Technological Pedagogical Content Framework (Mishra
and Koehler 2006, 1025)
As explained above, much of the earlier theorising about the
use of technology in education involved viewing technology as being separate
from both content and pedagogy. A number of scholars have pointed to the failings
of traditional add-on methods for teaching the use of technology. Mishra and
Koehler, for example, regard these methods as “ill suited to produce
the ‘deep understanding’ that can assist teachers in becoming
intelligent users of technology for pedagogy …” (ibid,
1032) and suggest that it is necessary to integrate the use of educational
technology with sound pedagogy and that doing this requires the development
of “a complex situated form of knowledge that [they] call Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)” (ibid, p. 1017). TPCK
emphasises “the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints
between and among content, pedagogy, and technology” (ibid,
In practical terms, apart from looking at the three types of
knowledge in isolation, Mishra and Koehler suggest that it is necessary to
examine them in pairs: pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological
content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and the
three combined as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Substantially
expanded from Shulman’s initial three categories, this model is useful
for helping researchers to decide which research questions they need to ask
and what data it is necessary to collect. As will be described below, we were
interested in determining whether the participants on a professional development
course had developed TPCK. The following elements and relationships were considered:
Content knowledge. In the context of a professional
development course which is made up of lecturers from a range of disciplines
it is safe to assume that they have or are able to acquire the disciplinary
knowledge they require for teaching. In such a cross-disciplinary course for
lecturers it is therefore neither practical nor necessary to teach “content
knowledge”. Participants should however be encouraged to critically
examine their disciplines; to think about issues such as what counts as knowledge
in their disciplinary areas, and so on (see for example Quinn and Vorster,
Pedagogical knowledge. Mishra and Koehler define pedagogical
knowledge as “deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods
of teaching and learning and how it encompasses, among other things, overall
educational purposes, values and aims” (ibid, 1026). This kind of knowledge
is the focus of a professional development course for lecturers in higher
education. In addition, another purpose of such a programme is to encourage
participants not just to develop their disciplinary identities (e.g. lawyer,
historian, geologist), but also to develop their identities as teachers in
HE. For this to happen, participants need to be exposed to current theories
of teaching and learning generally and those applicable specifically to HE
Pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge linked to
the teaching of a specific discipline. PCK explores, for example, the difference
between teaching history and teaching chemistry or drama. It requires knowledge
of which curricula and teaching and assessment methods are most likely to
achieve the learning outcomes of specific disciplines and courses.
According to Mishra and Koehler, PCK “is concerned with
the representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge
of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’
prior knowledge, and theories of epistemology” (ibid, 1027). Pedagogical
content knowledge also includes the ability for disciplinary experts to make
explicit the academic literacies of their disciplines (Boughey, 2002) to enable
students to understand not only what counts as knowledge in their disciplines
but also how to express that knowledge. In the context of a cross-disciplinary
professional development course such as the PGDHE, much of this cannot be
explicitly taught but participants can be asked critical questions which encourage
them to transfer generic pedagogical knowledge and apply it to the teaching
of their specific disciplines.
Technology knowledge. We would like to believe that
lecturers in higher education should come with some basic level of computer
literacy skills. They should, for example, be able to work with computers,
networks, the Internet and understand operating systems, computer filing systems
and so on, in the same way that they are able to work with books, pens, and
overhead projectors, for example. We are aware, however, that this picture
does not reflect the current reality at Rhodes University. Since all seven
parts of TPCK are necessarily integrated and should not be viewed in isolation,
participants’ potential lack of basic computer literacy skills might
jeopardise their development of TPCK. Since we do not see the development
of basic computer literacy skills as core to our function, these literacies
are being addressed by the Human Resources Division. Within the PGDHE course,
such skills are therefore only addressed on an ad-hoc, just-in-time basis
Technological content knowledge is “knowledge
about the manner in which technology and content are reciprocally related”
(ibid, 1028). Again, in the model which we propose for professional development,
TCK is not explicitly taught, but it is modelled through the use of technologies
to teach the programme. Due to the practice-based nature of the PDGHE, participants
are encouraged to reflect on how technology is used and to think about how
they could apply it in their contexts.
Technological pedagogical knowledge is made up of generic
knowledge regarding how technology can be used for general pedagogic aims.
While TPK is not directly addressed in the PGDHE, the educational technologist
offers hands-on workshops which focus on the potential of technology to support
teaching and learning in general and aim to develop participants’ TPK.
Technological pedagogical content knowledge emerges
from and goes beyond the three basic components of content, pedagogy, and
technology. For Mishra and Koehler,
quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding
of the complex relationships between technology, content and pedagogy, and
using this understanding to develop appropriate context-specific strategies
and representations (ibid, 1029).
In their framework, and in the way in we theorise our practice,
separating the components is only for the purposes of analysis. In reality
all seven are necessarily integrated and should not be viewed in isolation
from one another; they exist in dynamic tension. It is obvious then that content
neutral, add-on generic courses or workshops to train lecturers to use ICTs
in teaching and learning, while they have a valid place and purpose, are unlikely
to lead to integrated knowledge which will enable lecturers to take full advantage
of the potential of educational technologies to enhance their teaching. TPCK
is more likely to help academic staff to develop the kinds of curricula, teaching
and assessment methodologies that will ensure that their students engage in
the kind of learning appropriate for their context.
Further Reflections on our Programme
Mishra and Koehler found that the TPCK framework helped them
to articulate “a clear approach to teaching (learning technology by
design), but also served as an analytical lens for studying the development
of teacher knowledge about educational technology” (1041).
Their framework has enhanced our understanding of the practices
which we are implementing intuitively. Using the framework enabled us to analyse
evaluation data and to critically reflect on the relationship between content,
pedagogy and technology and on how we were developing the range of different
knowledges in our programme. It enabled the “development of deeper understandings
of the complex web of relationships between content, pedagogy, and technology,
and the contexts in which they function” (ibid, 1043). Assisting us
in building metacognitive understandings of our practices, the TPCK model
will in future enable us to consciously integrate the development of TPCK
in a more deliberate and theorised way.
Our analysis of course evaluations and our own critical reflections
show that we as educational developers and other lecturers as participants
on the PGDHE, have made shifts towards developing TPCK, that is, a more nuanced
understanding of the relationships between the three types of knowledge and
how to develop TPCK in a way which is commensurate with the aims, purposes,
underpinning philosophy and outcomes of the PGDHE. Lecturers who attended
our professional development programme in 2007 are beginning to acquire the
appropriate knowledge which will enable them to use ICTs in their own teaching
in ways which will lead to the kind of learning valued in higher education.
It is our contention that the formation of a curriculum development
team which included an educational technologist and our using of ICTs to teach
the PGDHE enabled us to powerfully model ways of integrating ICTs into teaching.
Participants were thus able to experience firsthand the potential of using
ICTS in this way for their own learning in the PGDHE. Most of the participants
believe that their learning was significantly enhanced by having access to
a LMS. Pointing to some specific features of the LMS, other participants described
their experiences in the following ways:
The journals have been a very useful way to record my thoughts
about the learning tasks … it’s been a very good way of receiving
comments back from my course facilitator. I think this system works very well,
and it’s a very convenient way of exchanging information, and then storing
it in one place. … The journals are also a ‘safe’ space
to record your thoughts when you’re not necessarily on top of the material
yet – it is then very useful for reflective purposes to go back later
and see how your own views and understandings have changed.
I found the … journal entries to show progression
in my thinking and allow me to ‘build’ a piece of work. Forum
discussions have been really great – as we can easily share our thoughts
at a convenient time and refer back to what has been said.
Some of the feedback from course participants provides evidence
that they began to acquire the appropriate TPCK to use ICTs in the design
of their own courses and modules:
... using Moodle in the course has made me aware of its
potential in my teaching – this has been the best way of demonstrating
it to us.
I have become so aware of it [need to integrate ICTs in teaching and learning]
that I have made it my elective to investigate the potential to use it at
… how I am currently using Moodle is that it is a resource site at the
moment, but it is an interactive resource site … I’ve sectioned
off stuff so as to lead people gently into what its all about and then added
the use of the calendar tool, where I keep updates on all sorts of useful
information …it’s really cool. I’ll be ready next year.
If, according to Mishra and Koehler (2006) educators have to
develop or maintain these seven sets of knowledge bases, what are the implications
for academic development staff who are tasked with the professional development
of these educators? Which sets of knowledge bases should they possess or develop
Implication for staff developers
As discussed earlier, due to the specificity of content knowledge
in various disciplinary contexts, it is neither feasible nor desirable for
academic development staff to be responsible for lecturers acquiring any of
the Content Knowledge, Technological Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content
Knowledge or Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for any disciplines
other than in the disciplinary area of Education and related fields (e.g.
Psychology, Adult Education, etc.), which is already represented as Pedagogical
Knowledge in the TPCK model. While educational developers would normally,
by virtue of the field they are working in, have already acquired Pedagogical
Knowledge, the possibility of them having developed Technological Knowledge
and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge is rather slim. This is often because
they too, have not experienced being taught with digital technologies, but
primarily because the structures in which educational technology operate frequently
perpetuate the undesirable split between the development of teaching and learning
on the one hand and the use of ICTs in teaching and learning on the other.
Assuming that staff developers have already developed their
Pedagogical Knowledge, they would be required also to develop their Technological
Knowledge as well as their Technological Pedagogical Knowledge so as to enable
them to become comfortable in advising lecturers on the potential role of
ICTs in their teaching and curricula and thus maintaining their professional
status and credibility as staff developers. Educational Technology will consequently
have to be perceived as less focused on technology and more orientated towards
effective teaching and learning. Working in teams which include an educational
technologist seems to be one way in which academic staff developers can begin
to gain the other types of knowledge that will enable them to help their “students”
Implications for curriculum development
In line with the ideas of many academic development practitioners
(see, for example, Toohey, 1999; Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Unwin, 2007) we
would like to argue for curriculum development to be a team-based activity.
Although this is certainly not a new idea, like many campus-based institutions,
lecturers in most departments at Rhodes University work in isolation from
their colleagues when developing their courses, resulting in academic processes
at this institution still resembling a cottage industry where all the major
teaching and assessment processes are managed and executed by a single individual
(Daniel, 1997). In cases where curricula are indeed designed by teams of colleagues,
the absence of an educational technologist (or “technology enthusiast”)
may perpetuate the perceived divide between teaching and learning on the one
hand, and technology on the other. It might therefore be worthwhile to promote
the idea that the curriculum design team should also include an educational
technologist (or enthusiast) and other specialists, for example an information
science specialist from the University Library.
Rather than acting primarily as an “instructional designer”
as described earlier, educational technologists have a role to play in identifying
areas of teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation that might benefit
from the use of ICTs and in assisting lecturers to use ICTs in pedagogically
sound ways. “Practitioners require support in moving from individual
development of learning resources and courses towards team-based collaborative
development and re-use within learning communities” (Littlejohn et al.,
2007, 144). The ICT enthusiast “will be there to mediate … the
potential of the technologies with the desired pedagogies. … they will
be able to reduce anxieties and allow the development of confidence within
the learning community with the technologies being used” (Unwin 2007,
In this paper we described the establishment of a professional
learning community within an academic development unit, the purposes of which
were to address both the lack of knowledge and experience of the AD staff
with regard to using ICTs in teaching and learning, as well as to model the
various ways in which lectures can integrate ICTs into the teaching and learning
of their disciplines. Through using technology to teach our course and through
forming the professional learning community we have tried to provide a professional
development experience for lecturers that might help them to develop the kind
of nuanced understandings called for in Mishra and Koehler’s TPCK framework
1.See also Shephard (2004) on the need for team-based approaches to curriculum development in higher education.
2.Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation plus a “Rapid Prototyping Phase”
3.As Mishra and Koehler (2006, 1026-7) acknowledge, these ideas are not new. They cite, for example, Keating and Evans, 2001; Zhao, 2003, Hughes, 2005 and Neiss, 2005 who have argued similarly.
Alessi, S.M. and Trollip, S.R. 1991. Computer-Based Instruction:
Methods and Development. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Barnett, R. 2000. Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
Beetham, H., Jones, S., & Gornall, L. (2001). Career Development
of Learning Technology Staff: Scoping Study Final Report. JISC Committee for
Awareness, Liaison and Training Programme, http://sh.plym. ac.uk/eds/effects/jcalt-project.
Boughey, C. 2002. “Naming' Students' Problems: an analysis
of language-related discourses at a South African university”. Teaching
in Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 295-307.
Conole, G., White, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). The impact of
e-learning on organisational roles and structures. In G. Conole and M. Oliver.
Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research. Routledge.
Czerniewicz, L. and Brown, C. (2006). The virtual Möbius
strip: Access to and use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
in higher education in the Western Cape. Cape Town: Centre for Educational
Daniel, J.S. 1996. Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology
Solutions for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Daniel, J.S. 1997. “Why Universities Need Technology Strategies”.
Change. July/August, 11-17.
D’Andrea, V. and Gosling, D. 2005. Improving Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education. A whole institution approach. Berkshire:
Open University Press.
HEQC. 2005. Improving Teaching and Learning Resource. Council
on Higher Education.
Hughes, J. 2005. The role of teacher knowledge and learning
experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, Vol. 13. No. 2. pp. 277-302.
Keating, T. and Evans, E. 2001. Three computers in the back
of the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of technology integration.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Knight, T. and Trowler P. 2001. Departmental Leadership in Higher
Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
Kruse, K. and Keil, J. 2000 Technology-Based Training. The Art
and Science of Design, Development, and Delivery. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Latchem, C. 2005. “Failure – the key to understanding
success”. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36, No. 4,
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking university teaching, a conversational
framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate
peripheral learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Littlejohn, A. and Peacock, S. 2003. “From Pioneers to
Partners: The Changing Voices of Staff Developers”. In J. Seale (Ed.).
Learning technologies in transition. From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional
Implementation. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Littlejohn, A., Cook, J., Campbell, L., Sclater, N., & Davis,
H. (2007). Managing educational resources. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.),
Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research (Open & Flexible Learning)
(1st ed.). Routledge.
May, T. 2001. Social research. Issues, methods and process.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
McNaught, C., & Kennedy, P. (2000). Staff Development at
RMIT: Bottom-Up Work Serviced by Top-Down Investment and Policy. Association
for Learning Technology Journal, 8(1), 4-18.
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. 2006. “Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge”. Teachers College
Record, Vol. 108, No. 6, pp. 1017-1054.
Morrow, W.E. 2007. Learning to teach in South Africa. Cape Town:
Neiss, M.L. 2005. Preparing teachers to tach science and mathematics
with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, Vol. 21, No. 5. pp 509-523.
Oliver, M. 2002. “What do Learning Technologists do?”.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 39, No 4, pp. 245-252.
Oliver, M. 2003. “Looking Backwards, Looking Forwards:
an Overview, Some Conclusions and an Agenda”. In J. Seale (Ed.). Learning
technology in transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation.
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education Course Guide. 2006.
Academic Development Centre, Rhodes University.
Quinn, L. 2003. “A theoretical framework for professional
development in a South African university”. International Journal for
Academic Development, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, pp. 61-75.
Quinn, L. 2006. A social realist account of the emergence of
a formal academic staff development programme at a South African university.
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy, Rhodes University, South Africa.
Quinn, L. and Vorster, J. 2004. “Transforming teachers'
conceptions of teaching and learning in a postgraduate certificate in higher
education and training course”. South African Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 364-381.
Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework
for elearning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions.
ALT-J, 13(3), 201-218. doi: 10.1080/09687760500376439.
Shephard, K. 2004. “The Role of Educational Developers
in the Expansion of Educational Technology”. International Journal for
Academic Development, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Shulman, L. S. 1986. “Those who understand: knowledge
growth in teaching”. Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 4-14.
Smith, J., & Oliver, M. (2000). Academic development: A
framework for embedding learning technology. International Journal for Academic
Development, 5(2), 129-137.
Thorpe, M. (2002). From independent learning to collaborative
learning: new communities of practice in open, distance and distributed learning,
in Lea, M. R., & Nicoll, K. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed Learning: Social
and Cultural Approaches to Practice (p. 131-51). Routledge/Falmer.
Toohey, S. 1999. Designing courses for higher education. Philadelphia,
Pa.: Open University Press.
Unwin, A. 2007. “The professionalism of the higher education
teacher: what’s ICT got to do with it?” Teaching in Higher Education,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 295-308.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning
and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, Y. (Ed.). 2003. What teachers should know about technology:
Perspectives and practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Original article at: http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=860