Content uploaded by Isabel Tarling
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Isabel Tarling on Sep 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teachers pedagogical change framework: a diagnostic tool for
changing teachers’ uses of emerging technologies
Isabel Tarling and Dick Ng’ambi
Isabel Tarling is a researcher at the University of Cape Town’s Educational Technology Inquiry Lab (ETILAB). Her
research interest include individual and organisational change, educational technologies and teachers practices. Dick
Ng’ambi is an associate professor at the School of Education, and a project director of the ETILAB. His research
interest is in scaling innovative practices of teaching with emerging technologies for wider education impact. Address
for correspondence to: Dick Ng’ambi, School of Education, Private bag X3, Rondebosch, Cape Town 7700, South
Africa. Email: dick.ngambi@uct.ac.za
Abstract
One of the challenges facing education systems in general and the South African education
system in particular is how to understand ways that teachers change from nonusers of
technologies to becoming transformative teachers with technology. Despite numerous
initiatives, not limited to training, workshops and so forth, to bring about sustained and
wide-spread teacher change, transmission/delivery-based pedagogies and chalk-and-talk
methods continue to dominate. While policy directives and professional development
programmes aim to effect change in teachers’ practice, they tend to fail to create sustainable
change in teachers’ practice of using emerging technologies (ETs). This paper reports on a
study that sought to understand how teachers change their pedagogy of teaching with ETs.
Using a Design-Based Research approach, the paper reports on the teachers’ pedagogical
change framework (Teaching Change Frame -TCF) as a diagnostic tool for locating and
mapping how teachers’ change. The TCF maps teachers’ existing pedagogies and ET uses,
and designs a pathway of a change process to effect the desired change. The TCF was tested
and refined using data from 325 teachers drawn from rural, resource-constrained schools,
urban, well-resourced schools and from preservice teaching students in a decontextualized
environment. Following three iterations it was found that teachers’ use of ETs in regulated,
restrictive ways correlate with transmission pedagogies, unregulated, dispersed ways
correlate with transformative pedagogies. The use of TCF not only located teaching
pedagogies but also provide different pathways to ensure sustainable change. Findings
emphasize the need for teachers to encourage learners to build/create/construct with ETs
and for increased interaction in fostering nonregulated dispersed use of ETs.
Introduction
“In my school we have two computer labs. One has about 50 or 60 computers that all work but it is always
locked. Nobody ever uses it. On the other side of the school is another computer lab from ‘Group X’ and they
have people who come to work with the kids there every two weeks or so. The teachers send the kids there but
they never use our own lab. They just refuse. I am always telling them, ‘Come, let me show you how’ but
they just refuse. They don’t want to.” (Mrs K, a WCED Trainer attending our program)
Since the fall of apartheid in 1994 South African education has changed significantly to trans-
form what was a fundamentally unequal system. One of the most irrepressible challenges to
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016 554–572
doi:10.1111/bjet.12454
Practitioner Notes
What we know
•Education systems in general and the South African system, in particular, are in
crisis.
•The South African government has implemented the third curriculum reform in
two decades and is directing the use of Emerging Technologies (ET) in schools to
transform education in the country.
•Most teachers, trained in teacher-centric ways, make extensive use of transmis-
sions pedagogies themselves.
•Though the ET landscape has changed significantly, there has been little growth
in the pedagogical uses of ETs in schools in the past 10 years.
•The changes among teachers to teach with ET have been piecemeal and erratic,
and there have been no frameworks to help understand how teachers change in
this regard. The lack of a change framework means that while change can be
recognized, and celebrated, it cannot be accelerated because it is not fully
understood.
GAP
•How do teachers in diverse teaching contexts currently use ETs to support teach-
ing and learning practices?
•What pedagogical assumptions inform different types of uses of ETs?
•How do teachers integrate ET in current pedagogies?
•How can current pedagogical approaches be understood so that potential change
to uses of ETs in these practices can be explicit and deliberate?
•What this paper adds/contribution of this paper:
•The paper provides a framework for understanding how teachers change to
embrace ETs in their teaching practices.
•It addresses the current gulf in literature on the general lack of empirical evi-
dence that reports on how teachers’ pedagogical uses of ETs shift across rural
and urban, resource-rich or resource-constrained contexts.
•It provides a diagnosis of teachers’ pedagogical approaches across varying South
African education contexts.
Implications for practice
The Teaching Change Frame is developed as a diagnostic tool to analyze and
describe teachers’ existing uses of emerging technologies and the underlying peda-
gogical orientations. The paper argues that pedagogical orientations influence how
educators use ETs for teaching and learning. It therefore follows that diagnosing
educators’ pedagogical orientation is a critical first step in identifying the required
change, designing change drivers, and developing appropriate scaffolding of critical
self-reflection and creative thinking skills needed for seamless integration of emerg-
ing technologies in teaching practice. This is particularly relevant to the ongoing
vocational education of teachers, of teacher trainers and preparation of pre-service
teaching students toward transforming education.
Teachers pedagogical change framework 555
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
education reform has been changing teachers’ traditional pedagogic practices to those required
for teaching and learning in the 21st century. This led to an increased misalignment between the
acquired skills of school-leavers and graduates from institutions of higher learning, and those
required by employers. Needless to say, the skills required for employment are changing rapidly
while teaching approaches continue to be rooted in 20th Century pedagogies. Coupled with such
complex factors as low teacher content knowledge, poor retention rates and subject choices,
unequal educational opportunities and insurmountable learning deficits, among a variety of com-
plex factors, leads Spaull (2013) to classify South Africa as having “the worst education
system”(Spaull, 2013, p. 3) compared with similar education systems of middle-income countries.
This was reiterated by national minister of education, Angie Motshekga, when discussing the
Matric (final grade) results from 2015. She stated that the continued underachievement of learn-
ersisa“national catastrophe,” adding:
“If one learner fails, that’s a challenge. If two fail, that’s a problem. But if 25% of a cohort fails, then we
must have sleepless nights, as this is akin to a national crisis.” (Motshekga in Masondo, 2016)
Various measures aim to address this, among which is an increase in the provision of emerging
technologies (ETs) including Wi-Fi in schools, policy requirements and training workshops from
the national Department of Education (DoE) and provincial departments such as those in the
Western Cape and Gauteng. Given the compelling and salient pressure to bring about change,
reform efforts in many instances focus on teaching, teacher preparation and teacher training as
“the single most important element of the education system” (Spaull, 2013, p. 24). While addressing
such factors as poorly qualified teachers with low content knowledge, education policies
also advocate change across the system, requiring all educators to change and adapt or
innovate pedagogical practices that integrate ETs into classroom practice. Training and
upskilling/re-qualifying initiatives and professional development programmes support such solu-
tions, and focus among other on curriculum implementation, policy enactment and the
integration of ETs to affect change in classrooms. Despite these, teaching practices remain largely
unchanged. As in Mrs K’s example above, many teachers remain hesitant to use ETs in their
pedagogical practices instead preferring “proven” practices even though these consistently
reproduce poor learner results and in many instances alienate students from learning.
Although change to teaching and learning is slowly occurring, these changes remain local-
ized to pockets of individual innovators and change drivers (Naidoo & Muthukrishna 2014;
Ngassam, Ntawanga, & Eloff, 2013; Spaull, 2013; Vandeyar, 2014). Those individuals who
are change drivers, such as Mrs K, often fulfil a guiding informal leadership role (Jameson,
2006; Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013), operating in challenging educational contexts sometimes
across vast geographic areas, and are frequently dependent on contextual factors and intrin-
sic motivation to inspire change (Hargreaves, 2009; Jameson, 2006). Commonly located in
positions of little authority, they face isolation, animosity from teachers deflecting their frus-
trations (with ETs for instance) onto them (Ng’ambi & Bozalek, 2013). As in Mrs K’s
example, they tend to emotionally support their colleagues’ change efforts without them-
selves receiving similar support, and risk burnout as a result. This is compounded by
intensified external pressure, both implicitly and explicitly, for schools to change in light of
the increased availability of ETs in and outside of school and shrewd marketing campaigns
that drive hype-cycles
1
to use ET tools (despite a lack of proven educational value). Whereas
anecdotal evidence suggests that in some schools teachers are changing and continuously
responding to these pressures, making adjustments, shifting their pedagogies to align curric-
ula, pedagogy, learner needs and ubiquitous technologies, many are not.
Amidst this complexity very little is understood about how or why some teachers choose to
change and others refrain from this. Change, whether internally or externally mandated, is rarely
556 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
easy and many find it difficult to change unthought-of practices, beliefs and assumptions, revert-
ing to “the way things were” despite their best intentions. We contend that understanding how
educators change is critical if change is to be sustained. Such an understanding of change will
enable more purposeful and effective designs of change policies, programmes and processes, and
could profoundly impact the acceleration and spread of system-wide change efforts. By addressing
this knowledge gap, we aim to assist teachers and teacher-trainers/practitioners, and pre-service
teaching students in formal academic and vocational higher education, in understanding ways of
changing internal pedagogical orientations or dispositions that inform (external) practices.
Diagnosing teachers’ existing pedagogical practices and orientations within situated contexts,
guided by their agendas and priorities, is a critical first step toward changing this. The framework
proposed in this paper is both a diagnostic and change design tool, premised on practical activities
intended to change teachers’ pedagogic orientations. Our assumption is that once change is
effected to dispositions, the integration of ETs into practices become relatively easier to achieve.
Bourdieu’s (1990, 1977, 2000) thinking tools help us to understand how change to core disposi-
tions can inform change to pedagogical practices and beliefs, to potentially (externally) change
how things are done. Thus, the development of a teaching change frame as a diagnostic tool sets
out by plotting teachers’ existing practices and maps these against their pedagogic orientations
(dispositions). Using the Teaching Change Frame (TCF), we locate teachers in quadrants reflect-
ing their general pedagogic approach and their appropriation of ET tools in teaching and
learning. We also elaborate ways in which the framework may inform understanding of changes
to teachers’ existing pedagogical approaches and how this could impact on their appropriation of
ETs in teaching and learning practices.
Transforming education in South Africa: setting the context
Learner achievement is critically affected by factors involving the school, classroom and home
background (Hoadley, 2012). By implication, these same factors affect teachers’ practices and
achievements including other pressures not limited to curricula, throughput and performance
ratings. South Africa’s education landscape is one of dramatic diversity and egregious inequality:
while some schools lack such basic necessities as running water, flushing toilets or electricity,
others are exceptionally well-resourced. These factors may affect both learners and teachers’
practices and achievements. Learner-to-teacher ratios, eg., differ substantially across contexts:
55–60 learners or multi-grade classes in one classroom are the norm in many schools compared
to resource-rich schools with 15–20 learners per class. These diverse contexts not only influence
teachers’ pedagogical choices but how they are able to appropriate ETs in their teaching and
learning. It may also impact the focus of what needs to change and how change should occur,
foregrounding the need for an empathetic, personalized approach and to desist from one-size-fits-
all-with-technology approaches. However, as the New Media Consortium Horizon report notes,
widespread, sustained teacher change is a ‘wicked problem’, being most difficult to solve and
“complex to define, ... [requiring] additional data and insights before solutions will be possible” (John-
son et al., 2015, p. 20).
Attempting to bring about large-scale systemic and organizational transformation, the provincial
Western Cape Education Department (WCED) in South Africa, launched an e-Learning and
Smart-Schools Strategy (2015) aimed at providing Internet connectivity to schools across the
province. At the University of Cape Town (UCT), the Educational Technology Inquiry Lab (ETI-
LAB
2
) is engaged in ongoing “ICT Integration Sandpit Sessions” for teachers, subject advisors
and teacher-trainers in the province. Nationally the Department of Basic Education (DBE) imple-
mented various policy-led initiatives to target classroom practice and increase curriculum
coverage and pacing (Hoadley, 2012). The Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS)
Teachers pedagogical change framework 557
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
was the third major curriculum overhaul in a series of curriculum changes. This national curric-
ulum and assessment policy statement serves as:
...a single, comprehensive, and concise policy document, which has replaced the Subject and Learning
Area Statements, Learning Programme Guidelines and the Subject Assessment Guidelines for all the
subjects listed in the National Curriculum Statement Grades R-12. (Department of Basic Education,
2012)
CAPS aims to standardizes the content delivered throughout South African schools while the
Annual National Assessments (ANAs) measure performance across schools and increases the
urgency and pace of coverage. The DBE Action Plan for 2019 prioritizes the provision of ETs to
improve, diversify and individualize learning, and encourage innovation (DBE, 2015, p. 18).
CAPS mandates teachers to move beyond transmission-based pedagogies characterized by rote-
learning and drill-and-practice activities, toward learner-centric pedagogies that develop higher-
order cognitive skills such as identifying and solving problems using critical and creative thinking
(1.3.d. General aims of SA curriculum). It also encourages the use of formal and informal testing.
Although these pedagogical aims are foregrounded, the document does not prescribe how teach-
ers should affect change or adapt existing pedagogical practices. It also does not provide
pedagogical guidance for the integration of ETs into teaching and learning, nor consider the
appropriation of ETs for assessment purposes. It appears to assume that if teachers are exposed to
ETs, they will innovate appropriate pedagogies (Gundy & Berger, 2016) to use ETs in their teach-
ing and learning (and that assessments would be done using pen-and-paper methods). Ironically,
while the DBE Action Plan laments the lack of wide-spread changes in teachers’ pedagogies and
the limited access to ETs among learners (DBE, 2015) it too is mute on addressing change proc-
esses and fails explicitly to support pedagogical innovation.
To address this vacuum, a three-step process is suggested: (a) identify teachers’ existing pedagogi-
cal practices; (b) understand how ETs are currently used in schools; and (c) develop a framework
to map and shift existing practices toward transformative pedagogies where ETs are seamlessly
integrated.
Theoretical underpinning
Traditionally teachers’ professional development initiatives or training programmes provide
rational arguments to convince participants of the need to change beliefs and activities, and intro-
duce and/or reinforce alternate methods or skills. Such a framework does not necessarily affect
change to core dispositions but is premised on the assumption that if someone sees the need to
change and has the tools to change, they will make the change. Once training sessions conclude,
anecdotal evidence suggests participants return to “the way things were”; like a stretched rubber
band returns to its shape after stretching. Bourdieu refers to this as an effect of hysteresis, where
the primary conditioning of core dispositions remain more durable than the intended change. He
uses this to explain why, despite an individual seeing the need to change, wanting to change, or
seeing themselves ‘left high and dry’ by changing circumstances, they may be unable to effect
change (Bourdieu, 1990). In order to address this, one would need to target and effect change to
the structuring dispositions of the habitus which suggests a long-term, deliberately designed
process.
Changing the pedagogical practices of teachers from transmission to transformative, and from
low/no use of ETs to full integration, is not as straightforward as it may appear. As we have
argued, the change from a transmission to a transformative pedagogical orientation requires fun-
damentally altering the role of the teacher in the learning process: changing from the sage-on-
the-stage to that of a guide-on-the-side. This role change inherently affects teachers’ identity,
their position of authority and their perceived levels of control over the learning process. This
558 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
change cannot be assumed or taken-for-granted, but needs to be carefully understood and delib-
erately and empathetically designed. A socio-cultural lens is “particularly powerful”toresearch
the introduction of ETs and innovations that accompany this (Somekh, 2007, p. 2). It provides a
frame for analysis and interpretation with which to “go beyond the individual agent when trying to
understand the forces that shape human action” and explicate relationships between “action, including
mental action, and the cultural, institutional, and historical contexts in which these occur”(Wertsch,
1998, p. 24; see also Somekh, 2007). Bourdieu’s work, in particular, breaks with dichotomous
notions of theory and practice. Instead, he argues that practical sense and scientific explanation
form different aspects of human endeavour (Bourdieu, 2000, 1990; Wacquant & Deyanov,
2002). This argument supports how descriptions of classroom practice are understood and ana-
lyzed, and how change to this is conceptualized in this study.
Teaching and learning in South African schools
Classroom practices are part of much greater historic, economic and socio-cultural factors that
influence and are in turn influenced by the activities in the classroom. Christie (1998) reminds us
that educators operate within social discourses, power relations and informal logics that form the
complex texture of schools. Hoadley’s (2012) meta-analysis of research in South African primary
schools foregrounds the prevalence of transmission-based pedagogies and the dominance of oral
discourse, with teachers emphasizing behaviorist practices such as chorusing oral drill sequences
or whole-class reading of fragmented sentences or texts from the board. In many instances, the
language of teaching and learning differs from learners’ home language(s); thus while learning
an entirely new language in which to study, learners receive very limited feedback from teachers
who focus instead on assessment and on the group rather than the individual. While very few
learners access and/or use textbooks or bounded texts individually, fewer still are given the oppor-
tunity to move beyond basic literacy in terms of technical decoding of single texts to unpack and
synthesize broader concepts towards individual meaning making. Teachers also tend to pitch
texts or cognitive tasks well below the standard expected. This results in “averylowlevelofcogni-
tive demand in classrooms,” coupled with a slow pace of curriculum coverage and severely eroded
instructional time (Hoadley, 2012, p. 196).
Addressing such pedagogical limitations, CAPS encourages problem-solving and critical and crea-
tive thinking, including collecting, analyzing, organizing and critically evaluating information
and effectively communicating this in various modes (CAPS forward, 1.3.d General Aims). It fur-
ther promotes evaluation and assessment according to lower, middle and higher order cognitive
thinking skills. Although not directly referenced, for the majority of school subjects these cogni-
tive skills refer in language arts to Barrett’s 1968 taxonomy (Barrett, 1968) and more generally
to Bloom’s taxonomy (1956): see Figure 1.
“Knowing” and “comprehending” as lower order knowledge orientations in CAPS corresponds to
“remembering” and “understanding” in Bloom’s. This includes rote learning, chorusing and
drill-and-practice, which Bloom describes as Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS) as these empha-
size retaining static knowledge. In contrast, pedagogical practices that favor critical thinking
skills and problem-solving is encouraged by CAPS and correlates to Bloom’s Higher Order Think-
ing Skills (HOTS). Ideally HOTS actively involves the learner in creating, evaluating and
analyzing knowledge. This supports constructivist pedagogies where learning is understood as a
creative, active, social experience that leads to meaning making and the construction of different
kinds of knowledge (Ng’ambi & Lombe, 2012).
Using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Churches, 2008), we mapped teachers’ pedagogic approaches
on a continuum (see Figure 2. Transmission-based pedagogies focus on the transfer of informa-
tion from educators to learners, what Freire terms the “banking method” (Freire, 1970).
Teachers pedagogical change framework 559
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Information is seen as discreet or limited elements, bits of content that can be remembered and
reproduced parrot-fashion, and relationships identified between these. Information or content-
centred transmission pedagogies focus on LOTS: remembering, understanding and applying.
These are located towards the left of the continuum as supporting “Information Centric”
approaches where the teacher’s role is that of “sage-on-the-stage,” controlling the pace and con-
tent to be disseminated and testing the retention of the valued information. This type of pedagogy
supports the need for productive manual workers who, Drucker (1999, 2001) notes, could suc-
cessfully operate production equipment.
The economy and society of the 21st century, however, is based on knowledge, the production of
knowledge work and knowledge workers. Knowledge, Drucker (Drucker, 2011, p. 242) notes, “is
information that changes something or somebody – either by becoming grounds for action or by making
an individual (or an institution) capable of different and more effective action.” Pedagogies that concep-
tualize knowledge in this way orientate learning to be generative and transformative. As a
catalyst for change, it leads to action or makes the learner capable of different or more effective
action (Drucker, 2001, p. 2). Such transformative pedagogies actively include the learner or stu-
dent in the analysis, evaluation and creation of knowledge through action, encouraging life-wide
and life-long authentic learning. The role of the teacher becomes that of knowledgeable guide-on-
the-side who guides students as they learn how to interact and work with knowledge. These
Figure 2: Continuum of Pedagogic Approaches using Bloom’s Revised Digital Taxonomy
Figure 1: Bloom’s Original Taxonomy (left) and Revised Digital Taxonomy (right)—Drawing by a Churches
(2008)
560 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
dynamic, generative pedagogies are thus considered to be “Learning or Knowledge Centric,”
incorporating HOTS and located towards the right of the continuum.
While this continuum may appear to imply determinism in the sense that transformative pedago-
gies capture the epitome of learning, while transmission pedagogies fail to achieve this, ie, not
our intent. It would be irresponsible to discard such vital skills as remembering and understand-
ing of established knowledge. In keeping with Bloom’s original intent, this continuum “represents
the process of learning” and while learning may start at any point, analysis, for instance, typically
requires prior elements and stages, such as understanding and applying (Churches, 2008, p. 5).
The continuum represents various pedagogies that can and should be used in different contexts
to achieve deep and meaningful learning.
This continuum forms the first part of the diagnostic tool with which to diagnose a teachers’
pedagogic practices. A second layer of diagnosis seeks to understand teachers’ varying use of ETs
for teaching and learning.
The appropriation of emerging technologies in schools
It can safely be said that learners and students no longer learn in the same way their educators
did when they attended schools and tertiary institutions (Ng’ambi, 2013). Whether this applies
to desktop computers, tablets or mobile phones, uses of ETs have impacted education and will
continue to do so. The ubiquitous availability of ETs, the integration of technology into teacher
education and increasing use of Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) approaches in schools (Johnson
et al., 2015) are transforming not only how and when learners and teachers engage with
knowledge, each other, leaders, and others, but also how they learn, their performance and
achievement.
Notwithstanding the affordances offered by ETs, when these are initially introduced in classes,
they are often treated as an “add-on” or tool to support “the way students learn from classroom
teachers”(Wanget al., 2014, p. 101) rather than a tool to “learn with” (Salomon, Perkins &
Globerson, 1991). Learning from technology perpetuates transmission, through information-
centred pedagogies. In contrast, users learning with ETs exploit the affordances thereof to access
and engage with distributed intelligence and expertise (Ng’ambi, 2013), hence, transforming
learning experiences beyond the limitation of a single teacher, book or curriculum. This learner-
centric approach, if suitably designed, has potential to actively engage learners in constructing,
creating and evaluating knowledge using Bloom’s HOTS. It further incorporates the development
of new literacy skills beyond basic abilities with ETs: to identify and locate information and evalu-
ate and synthesize this “to answer, question and communicate the answers to others”(Wanget al.,
2014, p. 103). This does however not exalt technology as the silver bullet but instead harnesses
the potential of technology to “redefine and enhance performance as students work in partnership...
with atechnology,” that equips them with thinking skills and strategies to “reorganize and enhance
their performance even away from the technology”(Salomonet al., 1991, p. 8; original emphasis).
Various frameworks have been developed as diagnostic tools to describe how teachers use ETs,
with Gundy and Berger noting that at least 50 models are available (Gundy & Berger, 2016).
One of these, Kuehler and Mishra’s TPACK, suggests that integrating ETs into teaching practices
requires technological skill and content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical knowledge to teach with
technologies (TPK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to teach specific content regardless
of the tool being used (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009a,b; Koehler et al., 2011). Although this is
not made explicit, the technological knowledge referred to in TPACK is not about computer skills
but a high awareness of the affordances (Bower, 2008) of emerging technology tools for learning.
It refers to knowledge about the affordances of ETs that impacts teachers’ existing priorities and
agendas, their concerns, motivations and incentives for use. In Anderson’s (2003) seminal work
Teachers pedagogical change framework 561
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
on the six types of interactions in education (student–student; student–teacher, student–content,
teacher–teacher, teacher–content and content–content), he argues that deep and meaningful
learning increases when a learning activity fosters an increased level of any one of the six interac-
tions. It follows that ETs may be used to achieve deep and meaningful learning experiences if the
affordances of a task are aligned with the affordances of the chosen technological tool (Anderson,
2003; Bower, 2008). It can thus be inferred from this argument that mapping different
technology-mediated interactions using Anderson’s Model (2003) on one hand, and, on the other
tracing pedagogical goals according to Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (Churches, 2008) on the con-
tinuum (transmission to transformative), provides a useful diagnostic framework. The challenge
with this approach is that it is difficult to capture teachers’ existing pedagogies, their use of ETs,
or how to affect change to these. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Gundy & Berger,
2016; Hord et al., 1987) offers an alternative as a means to improve on this limitation.
The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) gauges the level of ET use and maps the change
process when an innovation is introduced. Although this work is pre-internet, it remains relevant
as its seven stages of concern capture the interaction of individuals with innovations and maps
different levels of use (Gundy & Berger, 2016; Hord et al., 1987). The levels of use of an innova-
tion can be used as a diagnostic tool to gauge not only teachers’ adoption and integration, but
also their progress in changing their practices (Hord et al., 1987, p. 7). We mapped these levels of
use onto the Continuum of Pedagogic Approaches, to create the first Teacher Change Frame (see
Figure 3). However, while this frame depicts teacher-centric practices in quadrants A to D, it does
not effectively represent transformative learner-centric practices using ETs, which theoretically
could be located in quadrant C (integrated use of ICT; learner/learning centric, transformative
approaches).
The Western Australian Department of Education and Training’s Self-Evaluation Guide (2003),
in contrast, describes different phases of transformative pedagogies that teachers employ when
integrating ETs. However, while the Self-Evaluation Guide expands the levels of ET integration in
terms of transformative pedagogies, it does not effectively account for teachers’ use of ETs in non-
transformative ways. Mindful of the dangers of technological determinism, ETs can play a useful
catalytic role in transformative pedagogies, as much as they can also be used to support transmis-
sion pedagogies. Notwithstanding the role of ET, both transformative and transmission
Figure 3: The first Teaching Change Frame
562 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
pedagogies might take place without a catalyst. We argue that a teacher change framework
should account for all such possibilities in order to diagnose existing practices and design for
change. It was this quest for a comprehensive framework that led to a further revision of the
framework.
Mapping teachers’ use of emerging technology tools
Combining the strengths of the CBAM, the Self-Evaluation Guide and Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy,
the revised Teaching Change Frame (see Figure 4) is proposed. The framework has permeable
borders, illustrating a less rigid, more fluid model. The CBAM’s transmission/information-centric
approach correlated with the left of the continuum, and the Self-Evaluation Guide aligns with
transformative, learner-centric approaches on the right of the continuum.
At a theoretical level we described the potential uses and pedagogic practices of teachers in each
quadrant:
•Teachers in Quadrant A either avoid or make very limited use of ETs. They focus on LOTS
and learners engage in pen-and-paper activities, worksheet completion, copying off the
board and writing in notebooks. Interaction is mostly between teacher and learner, or
learner and content, regulated by the teacher.
•While teachers in Quadrant B employ learner-centric transformative pedagogies and focus
on HOTS, they make little use of ETs, relying instead on pen-and-paper. They deliberately
foster interaction.
•Teachers in Quadrant C employ transformative pedagogies that focus on developing HOTS
and integrate ETs into learning activities that require students’ active engagement in
knowledge production. They foster high levels of interaction.
•Teachers in Quadrant D display far greater use of ET than teachers in Quadrant A. Teach-
ers in this quadrant see ETs as an extension of teacher-centric transmission practices and
as a tool to learn from. Interaction is mostly between teacher and learner, or learner and
content.
Having developed in theory a diagnostic tool, we incorporate this into a theoretical understand-
ing of change.
Figure 4: Teaching Change Frame (Theory driven)
Teachers pedagogical change framework 563
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Understanding change
Using the Teaching Change Frame (TCF) developed above, one can map the movement teachers
would need to make toward changing either or both their pedagogic orientation and/or their
degree and type of ET use. Teachers in Quadrants A and D need to change deeply ingrained trans-
mission pedagogies, while those in Quadrants A and B need to adopt ETs and integrate these into
classroom practice. This necessitates change to often unthought-of perceptions, practices or
beliefs about teaching. Bourdieu (1990) describes such perceptions, practices and beliefs as dispo-
sitions of the habitus, structures that function below the level of consciousness and that structure
how individuals view the social world and, in turn, use these dispositions to structure the world
they live in. Dispositions are formed in childhood and “treat the body as a living memory pad... and
as a repository for the most precious values” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 68). Early childhood experiences
act as the primary conditioning of the habitus. Primary conditions create structures in the indi-
vidual, which we term core dispositions. Core dispositions are the structuring structures of the
habitus and shape how perceptions, beliefs and embodied actions are formed. Unthought-of per-
ceptions and embodied actions of the habitus are guided by core dispositions that function below
the level of consciousness to structure practices, perceptions and actions. The influence of the pri-
mary conditioning the form of core dispositions is most durable, transposable to different contexts
and resistant to change (Bourdieu, 1990), and affecting change to this is critical if change is to
become sustained and self-perpetuating.
Methodology
The development of the Teaching Change Frame (TCF) formed part of a larger teacher change
study following a Design-Based Research (DBR) approach (Amiell & Reeves, 2008; Reeves &
Reeves, 2015; Reeves et al., 2011). DBR was chosen as it allows researchers and practitioners to
work together and to collaboratively to identify, analyze and clarify practical problems, and
develop potential solutions informed by existing theory, solutions or technological innovations.
Solutions are tested, refined and retested through iterative cycles to find optimal solutions and,
lastly, to identify design principles that may enhance future study and implementation. DBR
aligns well with Bourdieu’s fundamental assertion that practice and theory cannot stand alone as
antithetical poles but are different aspects of human behaviour (Bourdieu, 1990, 2000)
Framed by DBR, the Teaching Change Frame (TCF) as a diagnostic tool was developed and
tested.
Phase 1: Developing the teaching change frame
In the first part of the DBR process, the research team based at the University of Cape Town’s Edu-
cational Technologies Inquiry Lab (ETILAB) worked closely with teachers who had approached
the ETILAB to help them integrate ETs into their classroom practices. Three separate sandpit ses-
sions with between 10 and 15 teachers in each were held in the ETILAB on three Fridays in May
and June 2015. Ten (10) Grade 8–12 teachers from the same Cape Town High School came the
first Friday and (9) Grade 10–12 teachers from the same school the next Friday. In June a mixed
group of 11 (eleven) Gr 8–12 teachers from different high schools joined the sandpit session. This
allowed the researchers and practitioners to collaboratively identify, analyze and clarify the prac-
tical everyday problems they experience with/without ETs. Informed by literature and framed by
Bourdieu’s thinking tools, the TCF was developed and refined as a diagnostic tool (as discussed
above).
Phase 2: Testing the teaching change frame
Following the iterative nature of the DBR process and to establish the validity of the TCF as a
diagnostic tool, it was tested and refined with vastly different participants in three varying
564 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
contexts: under-resourced rural schools, resource-rich urban schools, and with decontextualized
pre-service teaching students. The TCF had to:
a. Diagnose the pedagogical approaches of teachers across a range of contexts; and
b. Diagnose how teachers appropriate the affordances of various ET tools in their classroom
practices.
Participants & contexts:
The TCF was tested with three groups of experienced and novice educators in diverse contexts as
indicated in the accompanying table (see Table 1).
Group 1: resource-deprived rural schools
The ETILAB conducted a baseline assessment of rural Western Cape schools as part of a larger
longitudinal study that would empower and upskill Grade 7–9 teachers to integrate ETs in Math-
ematics, Science and Language teaching. All but one teacher indicated that they had limited
access to the internet when outside of school either on their smartphones, laptops or tablets. The
group had almost even amounts of experienced (20 years1) and novice (less than 4 years) teach-
ers, of which the majority were 45 years and older, indicating a high degree of sustainability.
(The baseline also surveyed the school management teams at each school and a total of 2022
Grade 7–9 learners for triangulation of data.)
Group 2: resource-rich urban schools
A group of private, resource-rich schools in Cape Town initiated a Bring-Your-Own-Device/Tablet
(BYOD/T) year of discovery to encourage ET integration into Grade 7–9 classroom practice.
Teachers attended professional development and teacher training sessions and were given the
freedom to “discover” and innovate pedagogies that integrate ETs. The ETILAB was commis-
sioned to evaluate the effectiveness of BYOD/T at the school.
The teachers in the Gr 7–9 section had all been given their own tablets and laptops from the
school, had interactive whiteboards in their classrooms, extensive broadband coverage and
worked in the cloud as part of the Google Schools project.
Apart from using ETs to complete schoolwork, teachers typically went online to access “social
media, send emails, look for resources, watch movies and series and listen to music” (CT34). Only one
teacher in the group did not access the internet outside of school. The number of experienced
teachers was more than double that of novice teachers, indicating a potentially low-degree of sus-
tainability when experienced teachers retire or leave. (In total 55 teachers and 199 Grade 7–9
learners participated in the survey and the school management teams at each of the campuses
were interviewed for triangulation purposes.)
Table 1: Comparison between participant groups
Group 1: 97
participants
Group 2: 55
participants Group 3: 173 participants
Description Experienced & Novice
Teachers
Experienced & Novice
Teachers
Education students (some with
teaching experience)
Average age 38.6 years 41.5 years 25.3 years
Average years’
experience
17.8 years 15 years Generally none, although some had
worked in schools before
Context Resource-deprived
rural schools
Resource-rich
urban schools
Decontextualized (without limits)
Teachers pedagogical change framework 565
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Group 3: decontextualized (without limits)
The researchers lectured approximately 180 education students who already held qualifications
and/or were in professional fields but wanted to qualify as teachers. Students participated in a
teaching practice session prior to the lecture series, in a range of Western and Eastern Cape
schools.
In general, the greater majority of teaching students rated their self-efficacy as either experts or
very confident users of, among other software, ICT systems and tools, Word Processors, Social
Media and Short Messaging Tools, PowerPoint and Prezi. The majority displayed positive beliefs
about the use of ETs in teaching. All students had ubiquitous access to the internet while on cam-
pus, although 11% reported no or rare access to the internet when off campus. Despite reporting
high personal use and predominantly positive views of ETs, they made limited use of ET tools in
their teaching (mostly showing YouTube videos at the start of their lessons or doing PowerPoint/
Prezi presentations) and did not transfer personal “expertise” to the classroom. From the 180, 22
students felt it was either too difficult to teach with ETs or felt scared to use ETs in classrooms
(age range of these 22 students: 21–33 years, average 24 years).
The transformative pedagogic approach was modeled: the flipped-classroom model was intro-
duced and interaction deliberately fostered online 10 days prior to the first lecture. In class,
students analyzed Anderson’s Model and Bloom’s revised Digital Taxonomy, having already read
content about this, and evaluated the potential affordances of some ET tools (based on Bower’s
Affordance Analysis). As an assignment, they designed a lesson using the ETILAB Learning
Design Template (see Figure 5) following this framework, to teach in the following term’s practice
teaching session.
Data collection
Data to test the TCF was collected by means of a survey that captured demographic information,
data regarding participants’ school and private use of ETs, their beliefs and perceptions regarding
the role of ETs in teaching and learning as well as their perceived self-efficacy levels. The research-
ers further requested that participants report on their classroom practices with ETs including the
Figure 5: Learning design template
566 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
frequency and degree of use. Teachers from Groups 1 and 2 were asked to include a description
of how, in an ideal situation, they might integrate ETs into classroom practice. Group 3 education
students submitted a detailed learning design (see Figure 5) set in a decontextualized “Smart
Classroom” with full internet connectivity and tablets for each learner (such as those provided by
the WCED in schools).
The DBR process fundamentally supports practitioner participation in the research process, thus
validating the use of a self-reported survey tool.
Analysis of results
Retrospective Data Analysis was used to analyze the full range of evidence and document the evo-
lution of the TCF design and rationale, and the iterative testing and refining cycles. Critical moves
that took place in this process were identified as the development of the Continuum of Pedagogic
Approaches using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (see Figure 2) and mapping this onto the CBAM in
the First TCF (see Figure 3). Piloting this with the three groups of teachers at the ETILAB was crit-
ical in identifying the limitations of other frameworks, including the CBAM and the Self-
Evaluation Guide. Driven by theory and participants’ contributions, the next critical move was
the development of the Teaching Change Frame (see Figure 4) that we set out to test with Groups
1–3.
The data collected from experienced, novice and pre-service teachers’ survey responses and lesson
designs was analyzed to identify emerging themes. Since this type of content analysis is typically
theory-driven, data was analyzed using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Anderson’s Interaction
Model, establishing teachers’ degree and type of ET use according to the TCF. The data analysis
placed teachers in Quadrants A-D of the TCF according to their predominant pedagogic approach
and type of ET use. (Table 2)
This pointed to a relatively low use of ETs in classrooms, despite these being available to teachers
in both urban and rural schools (Quadrant A & B). Rural teachers make higher use of ETs in
classrooms using transmission pedagogies, while urban teachers made significantly higher use of
transformative learner-centric pedagogies, but appear to use ETs less. This suggests that the
majority of rural teachers would need to change their pedagogic dispositions and employ more
transformative approaches to be located in Quadrant C. On the other hand, many of the urban
teachers and education students in this study already display transformative pedagogical
Table 2: Teachers’ self-reported Pedagogical Orientation and use of ETs
Pedagogic orientation & ET Use Quadrant A Quadrant B Quadrant C Quadrant D
Group 1: Resource-deprived rural schools
97 teachers
48% 13% 3% 36%
Group 2: Resource-rich urban schools 55
teachers
47% 29% 2% 22%
Group 3: Decontextualized (without limits)
173 Education Students (survey responses
before using ETILAB learning design
framework)
25% 71% 2% 2%
Group 3: Decontextualized (without limits)
173 Education Students (survey responses
after using ETILAB learning design
framework)
7% 7% 58% 28%
Teachers pedagogical change framework 567
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
dispositions but the data suggests that they need to change their pedagogical use of ETs to be
more learner-centric. The ETILAB learning design framework used for the students’ learning
designs appears to have changed their theoretical orientation, but whether this will be imple-
mented in their future classrooms will remain to be seen.
This analysis revealed two significantly different ways in which teachers used ETs in class-
rooms based on who used devices and the degree of regulation with which devices were
used. Learner-centric uses placed devices in learners’ hands, scaffolding use to eventually
give them the freedom to choose the tools most appropriate to their needs; we referred to this
as nonregulated dispersed use. Alternatively with teacher-centric uses, the devices were pre-
dominantly used by teachers, and when learners’ used these the teachers prescribed which ET
tools they should use and how; we referred to this as regulated restricted use.We correlated
nonregulated dispersed use with the goals of transformative pedagogies and regulated
restricted use with transmission pedagogies. This supports the OECD report (2015) findings
that ICT use in and of itself does not lead to significant increases in educational outcomes or
higher student performance, stating:
Overall, the evidence from PISA, as well as from more rigorously designed evaluations, suggest that
solely increasing access to computers for students, at home or at school, is unlikely to result in signifi-
cant improvement in education outcomes. (OECD, 2015, p. 163).
The OECD report foregrounds the importance of ET use that integrates technology tools with
high quality teaching, especially in mathematics and literacy, and improved social equity. This
underscores the critical role of increasing interaction as part of nonregulated dispersed uses of
ETs in a transformative pedagogical approach. Nonregulated dispersed use may, eg, create the
impression that learners are free to do as they please, free to get lost in cyber-space or social net-
working. Concurring with the OECD findings, such an approach would have disastrous effects on
learning.
This further refined our understanding of Anderson’s interaction model. While teachers using
transmission pedagogies may foster interaction through group- or pair-work, teacher-to-
learner interaction, or learner-to-content, this was regulated and restricted to the priorities of
the teacher. Teachers employing transformative pedagogies fostered less regulated and more
dispersed interaction, in and outside of the class, encouraging learners to collaborate and cre-
ate shared meaning. Thus, although interaction was fostered, the degree to which this was
regulated varied, being dispersed or restricted: teacher-centric pedagogies favored regulated
restricted interaction whereas learner-centric pedagogies favored nonregulated dispersed inter-
action. This does not negate the role of the teacher to that of a disinterested observer, quite
the contrary. Using Anderson’s model, the role of the teacher to increase meaningful interac-
tion between teacher and student, student and student and student and content, is critical.
The teacher fulfils a crucial role as guide-on-the-side to facilitate and guide learners’ choices
regarding the types of ET to use, effective learning strategies, and the responsible use of ETs
and the internet, while the learner actively engages in using ET tools to critically evaluate
and create knowledge and meaning. Over time this role may diminish and change as learners’
become more self-directed and independent.
Accordingly themes emerged from teachers’ descriptions of use. These were collated as descrip-
tions to characterize use in each of the quadrants as indicated in Figure 6.
(In general, we were concerned about teachers’ appropriation of tools for learning that was
repeatedly set below the standard expected of learners’. The most extreme case required Gr 10
learners to complete an online Gr 3-4 level Mathematics game. This corroborates Hoadley
(2012) and others’ findings.)
568 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Discussion
The use of the Teaching Change Frame to describe how ETs are used in classroom practice, and
mapping it onto teachers’ pedagogical approaches, is crucial in identifying the starting point from
where change can be affected and plotting the change journey. As stated previously, we do not
believe the TCF calls for an antithetical polarized description, where transformative pedagogies
are pursued and transmission pedagogies villainised. Both approaches may address priorities in
different contexts. CAPS, however, proved to be a constraining factor in the choice of pedagogy.
Its highly regulated content coverage and pacing compel teachers to ‘get through the CAPS’,
skewing their pedagogy toward transmission pedagogies in a regulated, restricted way. Accord-
ingly, the majority of teachers following CAPS are positioned in Quadrant D or A, predominantly
using transmission pedagogies, which indicates a skewing towards LOTS and ignorance of HOTS.
Urgent change is required. Very few teachers were located in Quadrant C, but those who were
employed transformative pedagogies and allowed learners to make nonrestricted dispersed use of
ET tools. They design learning that foster unregulated, dispersed interaction and require learners
to actively engage with the learning process by creating, evaluating and analyzing knowledge.
Teachers operating in Quadrant D predominantly use transmission-orientated teaching practices
where learner engagement and use of ETs in the classroom is restricted and regulated. To change
their practice would require changing this restricted regulated use of ETs to nonrestricted dis-
persed ways, fundamentally informed by a change of pedagogical dispositions towards
transformative pedagogies. Teachers in Quadrant B employ transformative pedagogies and
change for them would primarily focus on changing how they perceive and use ETs in learner-
centric ways. Changing teachers in Quadrant A’s dispositions necessitates change to their peda-
gogical orientation towards learner-centric pedagogies as well as encouraging the use of ETs. The
ETILAB is fundamentally driven by the need to empathize with participants and works to find sol-
utions for their immediate needs. Thus whatever change process is applied the immediate needs
of teachers in Quadrant A must be central to this process.
Change is possible, as we noted with the education students. Although not intended as an inter-
vention, our lecture series equipped these pre-service teachers with the necessary tools to design
Figure 6: Teaching Change Frame descriptions of quadrants
Teachers pedagogical change framework 569
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
learning using a different pedagogical approach. Students predominantly situated in Quadrants A
or D before the lecture series, showed significant movement towards transformative pedagogies
or greater dispersed, nonregulated use of ETs by learners. Content analysis of lesson plans situated
58% in Quadrant C compared to 29% in Quadrant D. This was a significant improvement on
their limited use of ETs in their first teaching practice session a few weeks before the lecture series.
What particularly surprised us was the lessons designs of the 22 pre-service teachers who indi-
cated in their initial surveys that “Technology scares me!”orfelt“It is too difficult to teach with
Technologies.” The majority of these students’ learning designs were situated in Quadrant C and a
few in Quadrant D. This shows that this framework of scaffolding learning design that integrates
ETs into classroom practices is potentially valuable to bring about change to pedagogy.
In conclusion
Data from this study has answered the DBE’s call for verifiable data (DBE, 2015, p. 15), indicating
how ETs are currently being used in many South African rural and urban classrooms. There is
evidence to support international trends that that many teachers employ teacher-centered trans-
mission pedagogies and use ETs to support this. However, as has been shown, teachers are
changing their pedagogic dispositions, some slower than others, and it is encouraging to see that
the education students are predominantly favoring transformative pedagogies. Changing how
they appropriate ETs using the ETILAB framework for learning design had a significant effect on
their lesson planning and one can only hope that this will affect their practice in future.
Changing the way that teachers use ETs to foster deep and meaningful learning, requires more
than a drive to increase access to devices or policy directives to enforce use. It requires a process
that may simultaneously impact pedagogy and the use of ETs, and change teachers’ location
from Quadrants A, B and D towards Quadrant C, using ETs in teacher-supported highly interac-
tive learner-centric ways and employing transformative pedagogies that focus on developing
HOTS. The development of the change process was informed by a “pull” rather than the typical
“push” approach: traditionally teachers are pushed toward the change agendas of organizational
leaders or systemic policy directives. Creating environments that “pull” teachers toward change
is an alternative. Deliberately scaffolding the use of ETs, HOTS and fostering nonregulated dis-
persed interaction between learners, content and teachers, were identified as key drivers of
change and are pursued in the testing and refinement of the change process.
Notes
1
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3114217.
2
http://etilab.org/.
Statements on open data, ethics and conflict of interest
The authors are grateful to the schools and teachers who participated in this study. To protect
their confidentiality and privacy all names and geographic locations have been anonymised and
participants’ written permission received before they were involved in the data collection process.
Their data is therefore not available for open access. Ethical permission was received from the
University of Cape Town to conduct this study. There are no conflicts of interest that the authors
are aware of.
References
Amiell, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: rethinking technol-
ogy and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society,11, 29–40. Available at: http://www.
ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id541&a_id5887 [Accessed December 2, 2014].
570 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,4(2), 126–141.
Barrett (1968). The Barrett taxonomy of cognitive and affective dimensions of reading comprehension. Retrieved
October 29, 2014, from http://www.vdac.de/vdac/index.php?option5com_docman&task5doc_
view&gid5149.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. California, United States of America: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational
Media International,45(1), 3–15.
Christie, P. (1998). Schools as (Dis)organisations: the “breakdown of the culture of learning and teaching”
in South African schools. Cambridge Journal of Education,28(3), 283–300. Available at: http://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0305764980280303 [Accessed May 27, 2014].
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. 1–40. Retrieved June 16, 2015, from http://edorigami.
wikispaces.com/
DBE, R. of S. A. (2015). Action Plan To 2014: Towards the Realisation of Schooling 2025. Retrieved 16
August, 2015, from http://tinyurl.com/2019-DBE-Action-Plan.
Department of Education and Training, W. A. (2003). Teaching and learning with ICT: a self evaluation
guide what is effective practice in teaching and learning with ICT. Retrieved September 25, 2014, from
http://det.wa.edu.au
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-wroker productivity: the biggest challenge. California Management
Review,41(7), 79–94.
Drucker, P. F. (2001). The next society. The economist, 52. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct5true&db5buh&AN517065670&site5ehost-live.
Drucker, P. F. (2011). The New Realities. London & New York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition). New York & London: Continuum.
Gundy, M. S. & Berger, M. J. (2016). Towards a model supporting educational change. International Journal
of Information and Education Technology,6(3), 232–236. Available at: http://www.ijiet.org/show-64-
775-1.html.
Hargreaves, A. (2009). Change wars: a hopeful struggle. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Change wars
(pp. 1–10). United States of America: Solution Tree.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009a). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and
learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,41(February 2015), 393–416.
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009b). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and
learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Tech-
nology in Education,41(4), 393–416. Available at: http://www.jcu.edu/education/dshutkin/readings/
Harris_2009_TPCK.pdf.
Hoadley, U. (2012). What do we know about teaching and learning in South African primary schools?
Education as Change,16(2), 187–202. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
16823206.2012.745725.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G.E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Virginia:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Jameson, J. (2006). Leadership in post-compulsory education: inspiring leaders of the future. London: David Ful-
ton Publishers.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edi-
tion K-12th ed., Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Wolf, L.G. (2011).
Deep-play: developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology,
6(2), 146–163.
Masondo, S. (2016). Angie Motshekga reads riots act. City Press. Retrieved 25 January, 2016, from http://
city-press.news24.com/News/angie-reads-riot-act-20160123.
Teachers pedagogical change framework 571
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
Naidoo, D. G., & Muthukrishna, N. (2014). Teachers’ “Small Stories” about curriculum reform in South
Africa: “Square Peg in a Round Hole.” Journal of Social Sciences,38(3), 271–282.
Ng’ambi, D. (2013). Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: towards a transformative ped-
agogical model. British Journal of Educational Technology,44(4), 652–661. Available at: http://doi.wiley.
com/10.1111/bjet.12053 [Accessed November 24, 2013].
Ng’ambi, D., & Bozalek, V. (2013). Editorial: emerging technologies and changing learning/teaching prac-
tices. British Journal of Educational Technology,44(4), 531–535. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.
1111/bjet.12061 [Accessed May 27, 2014].
Ng’ambi, D., & Lombe, A. (2012). Using podcasting to facilitate student learning: a constructivist perspec-
tive. Educational Technology and Society,15(4), 181–192.
Ngassam, E. K., Ntawanga, F. F., & Eloff, J. (2013). A roadmap for rural area ICT solution deployment: a
case of Kgautswane community in South Africa. The African Journal of Information Systems,5(2), 49–64.
OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning: making the connection, Paris, France. Retrieved February 6,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Educational technology research in a VUCA world. Educational Tech-
nology, March-April, 26–30.
Reeves, T. C., McKenney, S., & Herrington, J. (2011). Publishing and perishing: the critical importance of
educational design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,27(1), 55–65.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N. & Globerson, T. (1991). Cognition: with intelligence technologies. Educational
Research,20(3), 2–9.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and Learning with ICT: researching the art of innovation. London, UK:
Routledge.
Spaull, N. (2013). South Africa’s education crisis: the quality of education in South Africa 1994-2011.
Report Commissioned by Centre for Development and Enterprise, South Africa.
Vandeyar, T. (2014). Policy intermediaries and the reform of e-Education in South Africa. British Journal
of Educational Technology,46(2), 344–359.
Wacquant, L., & Deyanov, I. (2002). Taking Bourdieu into the field. Berkeley Journal of Sociology,
46(2002), 180–186. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/41035575 [Accessed Febru-
ary 5, 2014].
Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Reeves, T. C., & Coster, D. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teach-
ers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons
learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education,79, 101–115. Available at: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514001572.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
572 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 3 2016
V
C2016 British Educational Research Association
