Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrt20

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

ISSN: 1539-1523 (Print) 1945-0818 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

Moving beyond enhancing pedagogies with digitaltechnologies: Frames of reference, habits of mindand transformative learning

Christopher Blundell, Kar-Tin Lee & Shaun Nykvist

To cite this article: Christopher Blundell, Kar-Tin Lee & Shaun Nykvist (2020) Moving beyondenhancing pedagogies with digital technologies: Frames of reference, habits of mind andtransformative learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52:2, 178-196, DOI:10.1080/15391523.2020.1726235

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1726235

Published online: 18 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 366

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Moving beyond enhancing pedagogies with digitaltechnologies: Frames of reference, habits of mind andtransformative learning

Christopher Blundell , Kar-Tin Lee , and Shaun Nykvist

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACTDigital technologies are a part of schooling, however, given the significantfocus on using of digital technologies in teaching and learning, there is lit-tle evidence of wide scale transformation. It is within this context that thispaper reports on a qualitative, explanatory case study of six teachers, withexperience in enhancing pedagogies in a well-established ubiquitous tech-nologies environment, consciously seeking to transform their practice toenact personalized digital learning. The findings indicate three interactingfactors contributed to the degrees of transformation: teachers’ frames ofreference (beliefs and attitudes), habits of mind (prior experience), andmodes of transformative learning. This paper highlights how diversificationof classroom roles, relationships and actions created challenges for teach-ers with experience integrating digital technologies in teachingand learning.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived: 26 August 2019Revised 22 January 2020Accepted 25 January 2020

KEYWORDSDigital technologies; ICT;teacher belief; technologyintegration; teachertechnology use

Introduction

Digital technologies, including information and communication technologies (ICT), are posi-tioned as tools for reforming teaching and learning (Hammond, 2014), yet research suggests thatthey are more commonly used to enhance pedagogy rather than transform it (Zheng,Warschauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016). Transformed approaches that make integral use of digital tech-nologies are typically constructivist in nature and involve student-centric pedagogies (Ertmer,Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Prestridge & de Aldama, 2016), andremain unrealized on a wide scale (Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, Bernard, & Saadi, 2015). Arange of so-called barriers (Ertmer et al., 2012) influence the integration of digital technologies inschooling, and influences intrinsic to teachers are considered “true gatekeepers” once issues oftechnology provision have been resolved (Ertmer et al., 2012, p. 433). This includes teachers’technological competence as well as attitudes and beliefs about the integration of digital technolo-gies in teaching and learning (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer et al., 2012; Prestridge & de Aldama,2016). Tondeur, Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2017) argue that the interaction betweenteachers’ pedagogical beliefs and uses of digital technologies needs to be better understood toimprove professional learning. Furthermore, studies of the integration of digital technologies inschooling and the associated barriers commonly focus on the initial phases of deployment of newtechnologies or new models of technology provision (Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, Bernardet al., 2015). There is limited research of teachers, with experience using digital pedagogies in

CONTACT Christopher Blundell christopher.blundell@qut.edu.au Faculty of Education, Queensland University ofTechnology (QUT), QUT Kelvin Grove campus, Victoria Park Road, Brisbane, QLD 4059 Australia� 2020 ISTE

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION2020, VOL. 52, NO. 2, 178–196https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1726235

well-established ubiquitous technology environments, consciously seeking to transform their prac-tice, and hence, the intrinsic influences relevant to this context are not well understood.

This paper presents the findings of an eight-month case study of teachers with experienceusing digital technologies to enhance pedagogy in a well-established and well-supported ubiqui-tous technology environment. In acknowledgement of the importance of teachers authoringinnovative pedagogies for digital learning (Fullan, 2013), the participants designed and imple-mented new pedagogies that were transformations of prior practice. The findings highlight theintrinsic influences associated with consciously seeking to transform practice to enact constructiv-ist, student-centric digital learning. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from semi-structuredinterviews and researcher observations (Braun & Clarke, 2006) indicates the teachers’ frames ofreference (attitudes and beliefs), habits of mind (prior experience) and modes of transformativelearning influenced the degrees of transformation of practice.

Background literature

Integration of digital technologies in schooling has been rationalized in terms of positive impacton standards, vocational preparedness, economic advantage, and as a catalyst for reform(Hammond, 2014). These rationales can be found in curriculum and policy documents, forexample the Australian Curriculum ICT General Capability (ACARA, 2019) and the UnitedStates Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan (Office of EducationalTechnology, 2017), and are emphasized by large-scale government-supported educational technol-ogy programs (Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, & Bernard, 2015; Zheng et al., 2016). Learning-focused rationales emphasize student-centric constructivist paradigms for higher-order thinking(Ertmer et al., 2012; Orlando, 2013; Yang, 2012) and so-called deep learning (Fullan, Quinn, &McEachen, 2018). Authors such as Fullan (2013) provocatively claim that digital technologiesallow for innovative reformation of outdated education systems.

The effect of integrating digital technologies in schools is mixed and evidence of wide-scaletransformation is limited (Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, Bernard et al., 2015). Student use of ubi-quitous digital technologies is associated with improved engagement and confidence (Bray &Tangney, 2016), positive achievement (Zhai, Zhang, Li, & Zhang, 2019), more authentic learningexperiences and environments (Geer, White, Zeegers, Au, & Barnes, 2017; Martin & Ertzberger,2013), and activation of inquiry-based (Svetlana & Olga, 2017) and self-directed learning(Lindsay, 2015). According to Tamim, Borokhovski, Pickup, Bernard et al. (2015), higher effectsize outcomes (0.68) involve enactment of student-centric learning experiences. These outcomesare dependent on changes in teachers’ classroom practice (Cochrane, Antonczak, Keegan, &Narayan, 2014). The transformation of pedagogy with digital technologies involves either signifi-cant redesign of learning experience or creation of new learning experiences, and associated ped-agogies (Prestridge, 2017). For example, situated learning (Lindsay, 2015), social constructivistlearning (Bray & Tangney, 2016), independent learning (Geer et al., 2017) and so-called learner-centered approaches (McKnight et al., 2016) as well as leveraging the opportunities created bynew technologies such as augmented reality, online collaboration and social media (Cochraneet al., 2014; Keane, Keane, & Blicblau, 2016). Such transformations are associated with changes inclassroom roles (McKnight et al., 2016). Although teacher acceptance is increasing, digital tech-nologies are more commonly used to enhance existing practices rather than transform them(Geer et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2016).

The challenges of integrating digital technologies in schooling have been the subject of consid-erable research, and a range of extrinsic and intrinsic influences on teacher practice have beenidentified (Ertmer et al., 2012; Francom, 2019; Hew & Brush, 2007). Extrinsic factors, also calledfirst-order barriers, include access to resources, institutional factors, and subject curriculum andassessment (Ertmer et al., 2012; Fu, 2013; Orlando, 2013). These factors can be conceptualized as

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 179

aspects of teachers’ activity systems, with emergent challenges forming as a result of contradic-tions in those systems (Blundell, Lee, & Nykvist, 2016; Tay, Lim, & Lim, 2013). Intrinsic factors,also called second-order barriers, include teachers’ knowledge and skill, attitudes and beliefs,established routines, and vision (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Prestridge, 2012; Somekh,2007). All of these factors can act as either enablers or barriers (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,2013). Assuming appropriate provision of digital technologies in a supportive context, the so-called intrinsic barriers are considered the “true gatekeepers” (Ertmer et al., 2012, p. 433) todeeper integration of digital technologies in pedagogy and learning (Prestridge, 2017), requiringnew knowledge and skills that are influenced by attitudes and beliefs (Ertmer et al., 2012).

Teachers’ knowledge and skill includes not only technological competency (Prestridge & deAldama, 2016) but also an understanding of how to integrate content, pedagogy and technology(Koehler & Mishra, 2009), which is linked to prior experience using digital technologies in spe-cific curriculum areas (Howard, Chan, Mozejko, & Caputi, 2015; Howard & Mozejko, 2015;Orlando, 2013). Developing requisite knowledge can be time-consuming (Koehler & Mishra,2009) and is complicated by the constantly changing nature of digital technologies (Pegler,Kollewyn, & Crichton, 2010). The depth of teachers’ knowledge of the affordances of digital tech-nologies influence use (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Fu, 2013) and self-efficacy (Hew & Brush,2007; Prestridge, 2012). Much of the literature about the integration of digital technologiesfocusses on acquisition of knowledge and skill (see Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Ertmer &Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Harris & Hofer, 2011; Jimoyiannis, 2010), however, the process is crit-ically related to teachers’ attitudes and beliefs (Ertmer et al., 2012).

Attitudes and beliefs have a stronger influence than knowledge and skill (Prestridge, 2012)because they are complex and susceptible to change (Galvis, 2012; Glassett & Schrum, 2009) andare subjective in nature (Petko, 2012). They interact with to technology use (Tondeur et al., 2017)and are linked to perceptions about the value of digital technologies in learning (Buabeng-Andoh,2013; Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman, 2018) as well as teacher confidence and self-efficacy(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Prestridge, 2012). Teacher beliefs incorporate epistemicbeliefs that range from the certainty of knowledge learned from an expert through to tentativeand developmental models of knowledge constructed by the learner (Prestridge & de Aldama,2016). Epistemic beliefs are expressed as pedagogical beliefs about teacher-centric and student-centric practices (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer et al., 2012), including whether digital technolo-gies are servants for existing strategies, partners in existing strategies and/or opportunities fornew strategies (Prestridge, 2017). Pedagogical beliefs have a complex relationship with educationalinnovation with digital technologies (Tondeur et al., 2017). Degrees of transformation are alsolinked to teachers’ attitudes to innovation and adopter characteristics as described by Rogers’(2003) Diffusion of Innovations (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ag�elii Genlott, Gr€onlund, & Viberg, 2019;Khalid & Nyvang, 2014; Pegler et al., 2010). Problematically for transformative agenda, there canbe a difference between teachers’ espoused beliefs and enacted beliefs (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mama& Hennessy, 2013), which highlights the importance of considering attitudes and beliefs whenseeking to make transformative uses of digital technologies.

Theoretical framework

Statements about transformative uses of digital technologies focus on personalized learning aswell as problem- or project-based learning (Fullan et al., 2018) that are predicated on changes inroles, relationships and actions for students and teachers (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer et al.,2012). Existing practice, knowledge and skill, and attitudes and beliefs are central to teachers’identities (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007) and are challenged by new pedagogies(Admiraal et al., 2017), which suggests teachers are engaged in transformative learning. Mezirow’s(2012) Transformative Learning Theory theorizes how adults’ can learn in response to challenges,

180 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

so-called disorienting dilemma, that emerge when new experiences are inconsistent with framesof reference and habits of mind. Frames of reference, which form through experience, are used tocategorize experiences and interpret new information (Mezirow, 2012). These become the basisfor habits of mind, which are broadly orientating ways to think, feel and act that inform teacherpractice even if the basis of those habits is not ideal (Cranton & King, 2003). Frames of referenceand habits of mind are articulated as points of view that can be expressed but may not reflect thecomplexity of beliefs and attitudes (Mezirow, 2012), for example, the disjuncture between teach-ers’ espoused beliefs (points of view) and enacted beliefs (habits of mind) (Ertmer et al., 2012;Mama & Hennessy, 2013). Transformative learning occurs when, through dialogical reasoningabout a disorienting dilemma, adults elaborate existing frames of reference, learn new frames ofreference, transform habits of mind or transform points of view (Mezirow, 2012). In addition todeveloping new knowledge and skills, it is acknowledged that teachers need professional learningopportunities that allow them to engage with challenges created by their attitudes and beliefs(Ertmer et al., 2012; Prestridge, 2012) and thereby engage in personal, transformative learning.

Materials and methods

The findings reported in this paper are from a case study of a team of six teachers, who workedin a well-established and well-supported ubiquitous technologies environment, consciously seek-ing to move beyond using digital technologies to enhance their practice. Rather than adopt strat-egies used by others, the teachers’ goal was to author and implement personalized digitallearning. Consequently, this paper presents a unique focus on transformation. The two researchquestions are:

RQ1: What frames of reference influence teachers when approaching transformative practices fordigital learning?

RQ2: What habits of mind influence teachers’ transformation of pedagogy for digital learning?

The research design was a qualitative, explanatory local knowledge case study (Stake, 1995;Thomas, 2011). In recognizing that the integration of digital technologies in teaching occurs atthe nexus of interacting extrinsic and intrinsic influences (Ertmer et al., 2012), a qualitativeapproach was used to engage in-depth with the phenomena from within its context (Creswell,2013). A case study methodology was used because the “boundaries between phenomenon andcontext are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). The diachronic approach allowed for changesin the case to be revealed as it proceeded (Thomas, 2011).

Context and participants

The research context was a large independent (fee-paying) Prep to Grade 12 (6 to 17 years ofage) day school in Queensland, Australia, with a co-educational population of 1291 students(boys ¼ 572, girls ¼ 719) of predominantly English-speaking backgrounds (n¼ 94%) from ahigher than Australian average socio-economic background. The school had a well-establishedubiquitous digital technologies program. Each student and teacher had an iPad, connectedthrough a campus-wide WiFi network, high-speed internet connection and cloud-based product-ivity solutions, and supported by a five-person IT Support team and a specialist e-learningcoordinator. The six volunteer teachers (given the pseudonyms Belinda, Charlette, Fiona, Ian,Jacinta and Mae) had an average of 12 years teaching experience; they had worked at the schoolfor an average of four years, teaching in the students in grades 6 to 12 (11 to 17 years old) – referTable 1. Each participating teaching had previously used digital technologies in classroompractice – refer to the Findings and Discussion section.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 181

The participating teachers were joined by the school’s e-learning coordinator, who had 17years’ teaching experience; his role was to support the teachers’ technological knowledge, whenneeded. The first author, who had 26 years’ teaching experience and was an executive-level leaderin the school at the time, engaged as participant-observer researcher (Punch, 2009). Three keymeasures were established to minimize the potential influence of the first author’s leadership rolein the school. Firstly, a colleague well-known to and trusted by the participating teachers wasappointed as a project ombudsman to provide advice, if needed. Secondly, the first author didnot visit the teachers’ classrooms during the period when the new pedagogies were implemented.Thirdly, the participating teachers understood they could withdraw from the project at any timeand without penalty. Both the e-learning coordinator and the participant-observer researcherrefrained from shaping the new pedagogies.

Project overview

The teachers engaged in an eight-month collaborative inquiry project that was guided by a specif-ically-developed professional learning framework (see Blundell, 2017). In acknowledgement of theextrinsic and intrinsic influences on teachers’ use of digital pedagogies, the framework synthesizesthe extrinsic focus of Expansive Learning (Engestr€om & Sannino, 2010) and the intrinsic focus ofTransformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, 2012) to re-position emergent challenges as profes-sional learning opportunities through collaboration and dialogic reasoning. Many professionallearning models focus on improving teachers’ knowledge about technology and either assume aknown outcome or are predicated on the existence of an expert (for example Angeli & Valanides,2009; Groth, Spickler, Bergner, & Bardzell, 2009; Harris & Hofer, 2011; Jimoyiannis, 2010;Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). This framework positioned the teachers as authors of theirpractice (Fullan, 2013) and, due to the constantly changing nature of digital technologies, consid-ered transformative digital pedagogy to be complex, unknown objects in the teachers’ collectiveactivity systems (Engestr€om, 2016).

During the project, the teachers would meet on campus, typically after school hours or duringstudent-free days allocated by the principal for professional development for staff. The firstauthor guiding the teachers’ participation in the specifically-developed professional learningframework (see Blundell, 2017) by scheduling mutually convenient times for team meetings andexplaining each of the stages. In the first two months of the project, the teachers identified a cata-lyst for change (using digital technologies to facilitate personalized digital learning) and then crit-ically analyzed their practice relative to that catalyst using theoretical frameworks presented bythe first author (see Blundell, 2017). For the next four months the teachers explored and tested arange of digital pedagogies, and collaboratively authored, without input from the e-learning coachnor the first author, the characteristics of personalized digital learning (see Findings andDiscussion section). For the last two months, the teachers then worked in smaller groups(Belinda; Charlette, Fiona and Ian; Fiona and Mae) to collaboratively develop the new digitallearning pedagogies. In the final two months of the project, the teachers implemented andreflected on those pedagogies.

Table 1. Participant information.

Teachers Teaching Experience Number of Years at School Grades Taughta

Belinda 9 years 4 years Grades 6 to 12Charlette 9 years 3 years Grades 6 to 9Fiona 27 years 4 years Grades 6 to 9Ian 6 years 3 years Grades 6 to 9Jacinta 13 years 5 years Grades 6 to 12Mae 8 years 5 years Grades 6 to 9aGrade levels taught at the school: grade 6 (11 years), grade 9 (14 years) and grade 12 (17 years).

182 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Data collection and analysis

Each teacher individually participated in two semi-structured interviews with the first author. Thefirst round of interviews (SSI1) was conducted after the first month of the project and prior todevelopment of the new pedagogies (average 37minutes in duration). The second round of inter-views (SSI2) was conducted at the end of the project (average 57minutes in duration). Refer toAppendix A for the prompts. During both interviews, each teacher was encouraged to reflect on:uses of digital technologies in pedagogy; how ubiquitous technologies interacted with routines;perceptions, attitudes and beliefs; and the challenges of using digital technologies in pedagogy. Inthe first interview, the teachers were also asked to describe examples of prior practice usingdigital technologies, including common and innovative practices. In the second interview, theteachers reflected on the new pedagogies and associated experiences. When describing degrees oftransformation, the teachers referenced the SAMR (Substitution-Augmentation-Modification-Redefinition) model for describing how pedagogy is enhanced (Substitution and Augmentation)or transformed (Modification-Redefinition) through the use of digital technologies (Puentedura,2015). The teachers used a tool that included a summary of Puentedura’s descriptions and exam-ples to self-assess degrees of transformation – refer to Appendix B. Although the SAMR modelhas acknowledged limitations (Geer et al., 2017; Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016), SAMRwas used because it was part of the school’s shared language, and has been used in other researchstudies (for example Bray & Tangney, 2016; Geer et al., 2017; Seifert, 2016). To confirm consist-ency in judgement, the teachers’ self-assessments were triangulated with independent assessmentsby e-learning coordinator and researcher based on observations, descriptive and reflective notesfrom meetings, and artifacts collected from meetings (notes, diagrams and drawings by participat-ing teachers).

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) because the data setwas largely composed of spoken statements, and themes were developed using deductive coding(Simons, 2009). The audio recordings were transcribed by the first author for familiarization pur-poses, and during multiple re-readings, the data were coded using two theoretical perspectives:Mezirow’s (2012) Transformative Learning Theory and Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations.Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, 2012) was the primary theoretical perspective becauseit was the presupposition for intrinsic aspects of the professional learning framework. The codingnodes, which were defined by the work of Mezirow (2012), were: frames of reference, includingstatements about predispositions (meaning perspectives) and attitudes, beliefs and mindsets(meaning schemes); habits of mind, including statements about thinking, feeling and acting (rou-tines); points of view, including statements about overt beliefs, positions and interpretations; andstatements about roles, relationships and actions. In response to an emergent pattern in theteachers’ comments about innovation and change, Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations wasused as a complementary theoretical perspective for coding. The nodes were based on Rogers’(2003) description of the personal characteristics, prerequisites and social context of each of thefive adopter categories: innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority and laggard. Afrequency analysis (Salda~na, 2013) was used to identify the range of adopter characteristics foreach teacher. After the initial coding, the themes were collated and reviewed (Braun & Clarke,2006), leading to three main themes: frames of reference, habits of mind, and modes of trans-formative learning.

Findings and discussion

Through a novel and unique approach to professional learning, the teachers defined the charac-teristics of personalized digital learning: a clear set of concepts for students to learn; a set ofactivities to support learning of these concepts; students working collaboratively but without

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 183

direct instruction by the teacher; opportunity for students to choose the order in which toapproach activities; and students having choice of how to demonstrate their learning. They thenauthored and implemented new pedagogies that they self-assessed to be transformations of priorpractice. Table 2 includes the teachers’ self-reported prior practice. Table 3 identifies the subjectfoci and grade level for the new pedagogies. As a condition of ethics approval and to avoidpotential or perceived recognition of the teachers who participated in this research, the subjectmatter for the new pedagogies has not been identified; instead each subject has been identified byits core learning foci. Table 4 includes teachers’ descriptions of transformation. Tables 2 and 3include analysis of whether those practices were teacher-centered or student-centered usingErtmer et al. (2012) as well as the teachers’ self-assessed degree of transformation(Puentedura, 2015).

Enactment of the teachers’ model for personalized digital learning resulted in changed roles,relationships and actions (refer Table 5) that were associated with emotive and strong disorient-ing dilemmas (Mezirow, 2012) about roles. For example: “I was scared to do it. I had to changewho I was as a teacher” (Jacinta, SSI2), “I was worried” (Belinda, SSI2), “I felt like I wasn’tteaching” (Charlette, SSI2) and “I was nervous… are they learning?” (Charlette, researchernotes). Previously reliable strategies for monitoring student engagement did not work; newapproaches were needed, though not easy: “That was hard to manage within myself and to putthe trust in the kids.” (Belinda, SSI2). Ian implemented the new pedagogies but found it difficultto resolve the changes in roles, relationships and actions.

Normally I’m an in-your-face sort of person. I’m there, I’m leading at the front. (During the digital learningexperience) I actively pulled back. I wasn’t sure what position to take. (I was) feeling a little insecure as Ihad left it up to them. (Ian, SSI2)

The changed roles, relationships and actions appeared to conflict with Ian’s frames of referenceand habits of mind about the nature of teaching and learning, and identity as a teacher (Cranton& King, 2003).

Thematic analysis indicates that, within the context of this case, three influences contributedto each teacher’s transformation of practice: frames of reference, habits of mind and mode oftransformative learning.

What frames of reference influence teachers when approaching transformative practicesfor digital learning? (RQ1)

In recognition of attitudes and beliefs as intrinsic influences (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;Ertmer et al., 2012; Pegler et al., 2010; Tondeur et al., 2017) both semi-structured interviewsasked the participating teachers about their perceptions of digital technologies in schooling to elu-cidate their frames of reference. In the first semi-structured interview, all teachers expressed posi-tive attitudes toward digital technologies in personal use, but their attitudes about the role ofdigital technologies in schooling were more diverse. Attitudes included development of skills forpost-school life and work (Fiona), curriculum-specific uses (Jacinta and Mae), pedagogical affor-dances as a tool for learning (Belinda, Ian and Charlette) and opportunities for different teachingand learning experiences (Charlette, Fiona and Mae). According to Hsu and Kuan (2013), teach-ers’ attitudes are predictors for engaging with digital technologies, and in this case, this was alsoevidenced by their willingness to volunteer for and participate in this project.

The teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (Tondeur et al., 2017) were more diverse, and demonstratedalignment with the degrees of transformation. The teachers who redefined their practice (Jacintaand Mae) also explicitly articulated pedagogical beliefs about the role of digital technologies: “Therole of the technology in our subject area is basically it’s probably putting everybody on the sameplaying field.” (Jacinta SSI1) and “it is necessary to have ICT, especially when you’ve got a subject

184 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Table 2. Teachers’ descriptions of prior practice.

Project Teachers’ Descriptions of Common and Innovative Prior Practice TCa SCa SAMR Levelb

Belinda Common prior practice: digital handouts and inquiry guides “electronichandouts, resources … normally we structure it as a step-by-stepguide. But these days it’s just an electronic book. It goes through allthe stages of inquiry; it’s quite structured actually.” (Belinda,transcript SSI1)

Y Prt –

Innovative prior practice: collaborative activities to explore texts andshare knowledge

“I would get them (students) into groups and assignment each a topic,and ‘you are going to teach us the topic’… I gave them somepoints to mention and ideas, but otherwise it was up to them.Some students used iMovie for a rap; some did little cartoons withapp on the iPad for little stories.” (Belinda, transcript SSI1)

Y Y A

Charlette Common prior practice: PowerPoint, digital handouts“I actually turn it (slide presentation) into a PDF and give it to the kids.

… and they’re reading their textbook in their iPad because it’s aneBook… it has that multimodal. They can go that little step furtherand go and watch a video.” (Charlette, transcript SSI1)

Y N –

Innovative prior practice: Google suite for collaboration and feedback“I also use Google docs a lot to share information … we’ve got a

shared document – each group has a shared document with me –so I can see what they’re doing. We’ve got a planning schedule soas they do things, we’re ticking them off in that planning schedule.… I can see what they are working on and how they are goingand give them feedback on-going.” (Charlette, transcript SSI1)

Y Prt M

Fiona Common prior practice: subject specific apps, YouTube resources“We use [app that is focused on a specific aspect of the course]. I

showed them a couple of YouTube clips of how the app works.They just watched to see what it’s all about and then … and thenonce they are all good to go, we kind of practice the [skill].” (Fiona,transcript SSI1)

Y N –

Innovative prior practice: problem-solving using app“I’m going to try to let them explore on their own. Whereas, in the

past I would have said to them ‘okay let’s do this together’ andshow it to them and do everything. Some of them might get it, soonce they’ve got [the first function], move on to the next one, andthey can move on.” (Fiona, transcript SSI1)

Y N A

Ian Common prior practice: research tool - sources and note taking“I’m teaching students, primarily, how to research and how to use this

organism that’s behind this machine [referring to iPad and onlineinformation sources]. … I use ICT to teach how to interact withthis organism, the internet.” (Ian, transcript SSI1)

Y N

Innovative prior practice: exploring ways to share research notes withothers

“I can take notes using Evernote … I can use those notes and interactwith others with those notes.” (Ian, transcript SSI1)

Y N A

Jacinta Common prior practice: subject-specific technology, digital handoutsand booklets

“Basically we are in a computer, ICT, rich subject area so we usecomputers for almost every lesson. … we have a booklet that weuse for class. … I made all mine PDF and … kind of editable.There were spaces for the kids to put the name in. There werespaces to tick off as they went through their classwork.” (Jacinta,transcript SSI1)

Y N –

Innovative prior practice: asking students to research and select appsfor use in class (folio generation)

“they (the students) searched for apps that would help them with theirresearch assignment. … Some of them even came back andshowed me an app that we hadn’t even talked about and showedme what it could do, which was really interesting. There are a fewkids are using them (apps) for their project that I haven’t evenseen.” (Jacinta, transcript SSI1)

N Y A / M

Mae Common prior practice: digital theory booklets; subject-specifictechnology

“They can access [digital books and online materials] … they canaccess all their information booklets, tasks sheets and pretty much

Y Y –

(continued)

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 185

Table 2. Continued.

Project Teachers’ Descriptions of Common and Innovative Prior Practice TCa SCa SAMR Levelb

everything is through iPad. … [subject-specific application] itenables them to [do a subject-specific activity] so they put theirtheory skills into practice and it’s a bit more meaningful rather thaninto the book and actually [creating a subject-specific product].”(Mae, transcript SSI1)

Innovative prior practice: teacher-created YouTube tutorials for self-paced learning

“[subject-specific software] tutorials (videos on YouTube channel) that Ihave developed for them has made it a lot easier for them to workthrough [creating with software].” (Mae, transcript SSI1)

N Y M / R

Prt¼ partial.aResearcher assessment based on Ertmer et al. (2012).bTeachers’ self-assessment of innovation based on SAMR (Puentedura, 2015), confirmed by e-learning coordinator andresearcher: S¼ substitution, A¼ augmentation, M¼modification, R¼ redefinition

Table 3. Teachers’ transformed digital pedagogies.

Teachers GradeaLearning Focusof Subjectb

Pedagogy for PersonalizedDigital Learning Duration TCc SCc

Self-AssessedSAMR Leveld

Belinda 11 Research,interpretation &extendedexpression

Students independentlyengaged with a range ofcontent materials thoughself-paced activitiesavailable via iTunes U.

6 weeks N Y Modification

Charlette 8 Conceptual processes& drill

Collaborative student-directed exploration of aconcept using a range ofactivities (experimentsand exercises) andsupport materials(animations, videos, text)available via iTunes U.

1 week N Y Modification

Fiona 8 As above As above N Y Modification withsome reservation,preferred to use asan extensionactivity

Ian 8 As above As above N Y Modificationuncomfortable withroles, preferredteacher-centricparadigm

Jacinta 10 Design-basedcreativity

Collaborative, student-directed research andlearning about a conceptfollowing instructionsmade available viaiTunes U.

1 lesson per week for6 weeks

N Y Redefinition

Mae 9 Performance-basedcreativity

Students collaborativelycreated their own iTunesU course about specifictopics for use by otherstudents in the class.

1-2 lessons per weekfor 6 weeks

N Y Redefinition

aGrade level of students participating in new pedagogies: grade 8¼ 13 years of age; grade 9¼ 14 years of age; grade10¼ 15 years of age; grade 11¼ 16 years of age.

bRather than list subject names and potentially identify the participants, the subjects have been described in terms of thecore learning foci.

cResearcher assessment based on Ertmer et al. (2012).dTeachers’ self-assessment based on SAMR (Puentedura, 2015), confirmed by e-learning coordinator and researcher.

186 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Table 4. Teachers’ descriptions of transformation.

Project Teachers’ Descriptions of Transformed Pedagogy and Practice

Belinda “previously I guess was ultimately a mix of instructionism with some activities thatare based on a constructivist approach. With the iTunes U course, we were aimingto transfer some of our previous group discussions and class discussions online.… The students were probably more creators of their own knowledge becausethroughout the term there was almost a complete lack of instruction, compared toprevious terms especially. They were much more on their own, so-to-speak. So,they really had to self-direct their own learning.” (Belinda, transcript SSI2)

Charlette, Fiona & Ian “We set up an iTunes U for the children to explore [identified a key concept]. Thatincluded You Tubes they could watch, websites they could access to read. Theywere able to choose which ones they wanted to use and when they wanted touse them.” (Charlette, transcript SSI2)

“We were definitely modifying … we were doing what we had to do curriculumwise but how we were doing it was definitely modified from how I wouldnormally run that class because they were independently working rather than mestanding up the front to teach and then (they) do. That was changed. … whenthey were doing it (the course), my practice was similar because I was still goingaround scaffolding and that sort of thing.” (Charlette, transcript SSI2)

“I think also just learned that I can trust the kids to learn. I don’t have to lead themevery step of the way which I tend I think I need to. I think it’s just anappreciation that children can be let loose, if you like. They can achieve and learneven if I’m a bystander, I’m not the primary source of everything; I sometimesthink I am.” (Fiona, transcript SSI2)

“I’d normally start the lesson with, ‘this is what we are going to do.’ … startedthem with the basics and they worked up … Whereas (the new pedagogy) thesekids had to choose an activity. They didn’t have to go in a proscribed order.” (Ian,transcript SSI2)

Jacinta “So basically, I developed an iTunes U course and it had instructions to make[object]. They were to follow 5-6 instructions that were then broken down intosmaller instructions, and then put it together in a folio of their own thinking. Theywere supposed to get together once per week in a collaborative group so theycould discuss the questions and then decide how they were going to take of thechunks how who they were going to do the course – they didn’t have to do themin order – they just had to get them done. … students don’t do a lot ofcollaborative stuff in my subject, at all. That (the change) was huge because it wasuncomfortable for them because they (normally) are in their own space doingtheir own work. … Normally they are quietly working, but (in this) this was a bitnoisier and they were allowed to talk. That was a new task that they have neverdone before.” (Jacinta, transcript SSI2)

Mae “I guess the pedagogy that I have used is pretty much doing the flipped learningapproach with doing the iTunes U courses. So instead of me creating thesecourses, I decided to have the students create those courses. They had to research[a topic] and create a little course they could share with their peers and also withme. They are demonstrating their knowledge with me. … They finished that andpresented to the class. It kind of showed that they actually learnt something andthey were educating others in the class what they learnt.” (Mae, transcript SSI2)

Table 5. New roles, relationships and actions for digital learning pedagogies.

Roles Relationships Actions

Teacher Pre-designed activities; nodidactic pedagogies.Teacher relied on less.

Trusted students toindependently engage.

Collaboratively developednew pedagogies andresources with colleagues.

Worked with individualstudents.

Sought feedback aboutpedagogy.

Needed to balance studentindependence withteacher intervention.

Student Led own learning;collaboratively engagedwithout contentinstruction from teacher.

More independent; moreresponsible forown learning.

Repositioned as co-learners.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 187

that is highly dependent on ICT, that most people have to train for” (Mae SSI1). The teacherswho modified their practice articulated beliefs about the role of digital technologies that includedstatements of reservation. Belinda questioned the overall benefit, “sometimes I would have reser-vations about it” (Belinda, SSI1). Charlette expressed concerns about engaging in practices thatwere different to those used by colleagues, “you don’t want to do something that’s outrageouslydifferent, you want to fit in” (Charlette, SSI1). Fiona indicated concerns about spontaneous activ-ity, “I am always scared if I am just doing. If I’m only remembering some things and there’s(other) things I would like to include but because I haven’t had time to think it through, I havenot included them.” (Fiona, SSI2). Ian questioned the students’ competence based on priorexperience, “They can barely use Pages. They don’t understand the fundamentals of keepingassignments in different folders. They don’t understand what you and I would use it for” (Ian,SSI2). These teachers’ statements indicated pedagogical beliefs were informed by their valuebeliefs (Vongkulluksn et al., 2018), risk analyses (Howard, 2013), confidence (Prestridge, 2012),previous technology use (Tondeur et al., 2017), and negative experiences (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Although all teachers specifically identified curriculum and assessment con-straints as extrinsic barriers to the integration of digital technologies (Ertmer et al., 2012), thepedagogical belief statements of teachers who modified but did not redefine their practice moreovertly foregrounded these concerns. Ian’s statements also indicate teacher-centric pedagogicalbeliefs (Admiraal et al., 2017; Ertmer et al., 2012), “I’m a teacher who likes to be the center ofattention maybe. I like teaching. I like teaching from that point of view” (Ian, SSI2) that informedhis stated reservations about personalized digital learning.

Within the literature, teachers’ attitudes to innovation are acknowledged to influence integra-tion of digital technologies in schooling (Ag�elii Genlott et al., 2019; Khalid & Nyvang, 2014;Pegler et al., 2010). Frequency analysis of the coded interview statements relating to Rogers’(2003) adopter categories for the diffusion of innovations (see Table 6) indicates the degree oftransformation was also influenced by each teacher’s attitudes to innovation. The teachers whoself-assessed their approach to personalized digital learning as redefinition (Jacinta and Mae) ormodification without reservation (Belinda and Charlette) also demonstrated adopter characteris-tics in the ‘innovator’-’early adopter’-’early majority’ range of Rogers’ (2003) adopter categories.This included willingness to try new approaches (Pegler et al., 2010), for example: “I’m just will-ing to make a change and see what happens; base it on my own observations” (Belinda, SSI1)and “I don’t want to be stagnant. I want to consciously move forward and be involved in pro-gressive, futuristic education for students” (Jacinta, SSI2). Belinda, Charlette, Jacinta and Maewere more positively pre-disposed to innovation and relatively more open to related risks(Rogers, 2003). Fiona and Ian demonstrated adopter characteristics in the ‘late majority’-’laggard’range. This included skepticism, “kids in the classroom that can’t help but be distracted” (Ian,SSI2), assessment their own resources, “how much of a time poor life can I afford to spend ondeveloping new routines or skills or whatever to keep up with it” (Ian, SSI1), and a need to feelsupported, “if I didn’t have Charlette … I probably wouldn’t have had such an easy experienceof this” (Fiona, SSI2). This indicates that Fiona and Ian were more negatively pre-disposed toinnovation and concerned with related risks (Rogers, 2003).

Table 6. Frequency analysis of statements consistent with Rogers’ (2003) adopter categories.

Degree of Transformation Teachers Innovator Early Adopter Early Majority Late Majority Laggard

Modification without reservation Belinda 4 9Charlette 2 3 5 3

Modification with reservation Fiona 15 1Ian 3 11

Redefinition Jacinta 1 10Mae 15 1

188 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Although each teacher overtly expressed positive attitudes about digital technologies, theirindividual pedagogical beliefs as well as their attitudes toward innovation acted as frames of refer-ence (Mezirow, 2012). This influenced the degrees of transformation even though the teachersauthored the new pedagogies (Fullan, 2013) and openly engaged in dialogical reasoning about dis-orienting dilemmas (Mezirow, 2012). Positive pedagogical beliefs about the role of digital technol-ogies and positive attitudes about innovation were associated with greater degrees oftransformation of practice.

What habits of mind influence teachers’ transformation of pedagogy for digitallearning? (RQ2)

Within the team there was a range of prior experience using digital technologies for teaching andlearning (refer Table 2) that correlated to the degree of transformation (refer Tables 3 and 4).The teachers who redefined their practice (Jacinta and Mae) had previously made extensive useof subject-specific digital technologies for curriculum-mandated learning, which involved teachingstudents how to use specific digital technologies to achieve specific learning outcomes. The teach-ers who modified their practice without ongoing reservations (Belinda and Charlette) had previ-ously made intentional use of digital technologies for specific learning outcomes, as noted inTable 2. Whereas the teachers who modified their practice but expressed ongoing reservations(Fiona and Ian) had previously made relatively limited use of digital technologies, as noted inTable 2. The teachers’ technological competency (Prestridge & de Aldama, 2016) and technology-content-pedagogical knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) influenced the degrees of transform-ation. Teachers with more experience using digital technologies for teaching and learning,including relevant habits of mind, were more confident in their transformed practice(Prestridge, 2012).

Additionally, the nature of the subjects in which the new pedagogies were implemented alsocorrelated with the degree of transformation (Howard, Chan, & Caputi, 2015; Orlando, 2013).The teachers who redefined their practice (Jacinta and Mae) taught and implemented the newpedagogies in subjects focused on skills learned through creative endeavor (the application of keyideas and skills in a creative project) that was facilitated by a combination of teacher- and stu-dent-centric pedagogies (Ertmer et al., 2012). The teachers who modified their practice (Belinda,Charlette, Fiona and Ian) taught in subjects that were primarily pedagogically teacher-centric(Ertmer et al., 2012), and more focused on defined content (knowledge and conceptual skills thatwere assessed via written responses under examination conditions) related to specific outcomes.The link between the nature of the subjects and pedagogical practice (Howard, Chan, & Caputi,2015) indicates prior practice and associated habits of mind, particularly in relation to teacher-and student-centric pedagogies (Ertmer et al., 2012), shaped the teachers’ design for personalizeddigital learning.

The transformation of teaching and learning with digital technologies is commonly associatedwith diverse approaches (Ertmer et al., 2012; Prestridge & de Aldama, 2016), and evidence fromthis case study indicates that teachers’ prior experience with diverse classroom roles and relation-ships was influential. The teachers who redefined their practice (Jacinta and Mae) had previouslyenacted diverse roles and relationships. The subjects taught by Jacinta and Mae focused on cre-ativity, and incorporated a combination of teacher- and student-centric pedagogies (Ertmer et al.,2012) that started with teaching key concepts and modeling core skills, then transitioned tocoaching while students learned to apply those concepts and skills, and concluded with facilitatingstudents’ creative enactment (refer Tables 2 and 3). Their prior practice involved shifting rolesand relationships, including increased student independence (refer Table 4). Belinda, Charlette,Fiona and Ian all taught subjects that did not involve the creative enactment of concepts andskills. Belinda and Charlette, both of whom modified their practice without reservation, had

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 189

previously enacted instances of collaborative learning and student co-construction of understand-ing (refer Tables 2 and 3). These instances involved roles and relationships that were different tothe teacher-centric pedagogies (Ertmer et al., 2012) that they more commonly used (refer Table4). Fiona and Ian, both of whom modified their practice but expressed on-going reservations,described their prior practice as teacher-centric with themselves being the primary source ofinformation. For Fiona this related to established practice for monitoring engagement, “when Iam teaching (didactic pedagogies) I am aware they (students) are with me” (Fiona, researchernotes) and for Ian this related to a preferred role: “I’m a teacher who likes to be the centre ofattention maybe. I like teaching. I like teaching from that point of view” (Ian, SSI2). Theirongoing reservations also indicated uncertainty about the time required to develop new routines(Francom, 2019; Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & ten Brummelhuis, 2013). Institutionalized prac-tice and associated routines (Somekh, 2007) were challenged by changes in roles and relation-ships, resulting in disorienting dilemmas for all teachers. Although these dilemmas representedopportunities for transformative learning (Mezirow, 2012), the teachers with prior experienceenacting diverse classroom roles and relationships, and had developed the associated habits ofmind, were more positive about the transformation of their practice.

Mode of transformative learning

The teachers’ declaration of attitudes, beliefs and routines indicate frames of reference and habitsof mind developed through prior practice (Mezirow, 2012). Each teacher experienced disorientingdilemma, which provided an opportunity for transformative learning within the project’s socialcontext (Cranton & King, 2003). The teachers’ degree of transformation was linked to the modeof transformative learning. The teachers who redefined their practice (Jacinta and Mae) had priorexperience that included a range of teacher and student roles. Jacinta and Mae refined their strat-egies for monitoring engagement, which indicates established habits of mind were transformed(Mezirow, 2012). The teachers who modified their practice without ongoing reservations (Belindaand Charlette) expressed interest in and had previously attempted to modify their practice withdigital technologies, indicating frames of reference that valued exploration of new approaches.Belinda’s and Charlette’s transformative learning involved elaborating on those frames of refer-ence (Mezirow, 2012). The teachers who modified their practice but with ongoing reservations,expressed concerns about changed classroom roles. Fiona, despite clearly espousing the value ofpersonalized digital learning, stated a preference to use it to enrich didactic pedagogies ratherthan replace them, “I’d be more comfortable if this (mode of learning) was enriching learning,not the sole way” (Fiona, researcher notes), indicating a difference between espoused and enactedbeliefs (Ertmer et al., 2012). Ian implemented the new pedagogies but was unwilling to enact thechange in teacher’s role, “I stayed in a central position within the classroom, able to observe allgroups. … And I always told them if they needed assistance, they knew where I was” (Ian, SSI2).He expressed strong preference for didactic pedagogies and perpetuation of his epistemic andpedagogic beliefs, “normally I’m an in-your-face sort of person. I’m there, I’m leading at thefront. It’s very teacher-directed” (Ian, SSI2). Both teachers had strong points of view that valuedprior practice and well-established routines that were informed by subject-based practices(Prestridge & de Aldama, 2016; Somekh, 2007; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018). Both teachers exploredtheir points of view (Mezirow, 2012), however, habits of mind and frames of reference wereunchallenged.

Collaboration allowed for dialogical reasoning (Mezirow, 2012) helped the teachers to shareand discuss their epistemic and pedagogical beliefs (Prestridge & de Aldama, 2016) and to engagewith emergent personal challenges. The teachers whose experience included more diverse class-rooms roles or whose frames of reference valued diversification of classroom roles, experiencedtransformative personal learning. The teachers with more limited experience with diverse

190 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

classroom roles, experienced restricted transformative personal learning because of unchangedframes of reference and habits of mind.

Limitations

This case study highlights the intrinsic influences on teachers with experience using digital tech-nologies in a well-established and well-supported ubiquitous technology environment consciouslyseeking to transform their practice. The generalizability of the findings is limited by three factors.Firstly, the boundaries of context (Yin, 2009), which are important to this case study, also meanthat negative extrinsic influences on teacher practice, such as access to resources and limited/poorinstitutional support (Ertmer et al., 2012), were reduced. The ubiquitous nature of the technologyalong with institutional support, including the e-learning coordinator and IT Support team, mayhave acted as positively influences. As Hew and Brush (2007) note, these directly influence theuse of technology in classrooms as well as teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and skill. Schooland community culture may have also been influential. Secondly, the findings are limited by thenumber of participants (Thomas, 2011). Finally, although this case study relies on and is limitedto teachers’ self-reported experiences, semantic thematic analysis provides insight into the intrin-sic influences including latent assumptions and ideologies (Braun & Clarke, 2006) when teachersauthor their own innovations. The research design and findings provide a framework for furthercase studies involving larger numbers of teachers with a wider range of prior experience in amore diverse range of curriculum areas. This could include researching the influence of themodel of technology provision (ubiquitous and non-ubiquitous) on the interaction between atti-tudes and beliefs, prior experience and modes of transformative learning.

Conclusions

The study reiterates how the transformative integration of digital technologies in schooling allowsfor the enactment of student-centric pedagogies and personalization of learning. This case studyalso confirms that intrinsic influences on teacher practice are gatekeepers to transformation, evenfor experienced teachers working in a well-established and well-supported ubiquitous technologyenvironment. The findings highlight how changed classroom roles, relationships and actionsinteracted with the teachers’ frames of reference and habits of mind. Teachers who redefined theirpractice explicitly and positively articulated pedagogical beliefs about the role of digital technolo-gies, and had more experience with the diverse roles, relationships and actions associated withintegrating digital technologies. Teachers who modified their practice articulated pedagogicalbeliefs that included some reservations about the roles of digital technologies and had less experi-ence with integrating digital technologies. The teachers who more positively pre-disposed toinnovation expressed fewer reservations and were less skeptical in their reflections on the trans-formation process. The findings have implications for school-based practice: when seeking toenact student-centric pedagogies, it is important that school leaders support teachers when chang-ing established routines. This includes allocating time to explore changes in classroom roles, rela-tionships and actions, and creating opportunities for teachers to engage with disorientingdilemma linked to frames of reference and habit of mind. The process of making transformativeuse of digital technologies within other educational contexts, particularly in Grades 1 to 5 class-rooms (6 to 10 years old), requires further research. It is also important to research teachers’frames of reference and habits of mind, and their implications for transformative learning, inschool environments where digital technologies are not ubiquitous or are relatively new.

The findings also highlight that enactment of new pedagogies for personalized digital learningfor students required transformative learning for teachers. The teachers who transformed theirpractice with fewer reservations either created new habits of mind that built on prior experience

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 191

or they elaborated on frames of reference predisposed to diverse classroom roles and actions.Teachers who expressed ongoing reservations, explored new points of view but their frames ofreference and habits of mind remained largely unchanged. Transformative use of digital technolo-gies and the enactment of student-centric pedagogies are challenging, and in this case, dependedon transformative learning in response to disorienting dilemma due to changed classroom roles,relationships and actions. Consequently, it is important that teacher education and professionallearning models that are focused on transformative uses of digital technologies provide opportu-nities for teachers to engage with frames of reference and habits of mind via dialogical reasoningabout challenges that arise during the enactment of new practices.

Notes on contributors

Christopher Blundell (Doctor) is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, QUT. His research focusses ondesign-based professional learning and the challenges of integrating digital technologies in teacher practice.

Kar-Tin Lee (Emeritus Professor) is the former Head of the School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Facultyof Education, QUT. Her research focusses on organizational, strategic and pedagogical issues relating to digitaltechnology implementation at school and tertiary levels, and integration of STEM in teacher education.

Shaun Nykvist (Doctor) is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, QUT. His research focusses on pedagogyassociated with higher education teaching and learning, and digital media tools and emerging technologies inblended learning environments.

ORCID

Christopher Blundell http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8605-3338Kar-Tin Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5046-321XShaun Nykvist http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7988-2821

References

ACARA. (2019). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) capability. Retrieved from https://www.aus-traliancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/

Admiraal, W., Louws, M., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., … Kester, L. (2017). Teachers inschool-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers &Education, 114, 57–68. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.013

Ag�elii Genlott, A., Gr€onlund, Å., & Viberg, O. (2019). Disseminating digital innovation in school—Leadingsecond-order educational change. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3021–3039. doi:10.1007/s10639-019-09908-0

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, develop-ment, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK).Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

Blundell, C. N. (2017). A case study of teachers transforming pedagogical practices through collaborative inquiry-based professional learning in a ubiquitous technologies environment (PhD thesis). Queensland University ofTechnology.

Blundell, C. N., Lee, K.-T., & Nykvist, S. (2016). Digital learning in schools: Conceptualizing the challenges andinfluences on teacher practice. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 535–560. doi:10.28945/3578

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2016). Enhancing student engagement through the affordances of mobile technology: A21st century learning perspective on realistic mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal,28(1), 173–197. doi:10.1007/s13394-015-0158-7

Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2013). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communica-tion technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Developmentsing Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136–155.

192 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a frame-work for creative pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22(Special), 1–14. doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.24637

Cranton, P., & King, K. P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development goal. New Directions forAdult and Continuing Education, 2003(98), 31–38. doi:10.1002/ace.97

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (3rd ed.) LosAngeles, CA: SAGE.

Engestr€om, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Engestr€om, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges.Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence,beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required byJonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64(0), 175–182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and tech-nology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.com-pedu.2012.02.001

Francom, G. M. (2019). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research onTechnology in Education, 52(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/15391523.2019.1679055

Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal ofEducation and Development sing Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 112–125.

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere - Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto: Pearson.Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world, change the world. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin.Galvis, H. A. (2012). Understanding beliefs, teachers’ beliefs and their impact on the use of computer technology.

PROFILE, 14(2), 95–112.Geer, R., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 490–498. doi:10.1111/bjet.12381Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in technology-rich classroom environ-

ments. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138–153.Groth, R., Spickler, D., Bergner, J., & Bardzell, M. (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing technological peda-

gogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(4),392–411.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition(SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Hammond, M. (2014). Introducing ICT in schools in England: Rationale and consequences. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 45(2), 191–201. doi:10.1111/bjet.12033

Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Learning activity types wiki. Retrieved from http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/HOMEHew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps

and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology,Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995

Howard, S. K., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers’ integration of laptopsin secondary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 360–369. doi:10.1111/bjet.12139

Howard, S. K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices: Confirmatory factor analysis andexploration of teachers’ technology integration in subject areas. Computers & Education, 90, 24–35. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.008

Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Considering the history of digital technologies in education. In M.Henderson & G. Romero (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp.157–168). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Hsu, S., & Kuan, P.-Y. (2013). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration: he case of Taiwanesegrade 1–9 teachers and schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(1), 25–50. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9269-y

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledgeframework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 193

Keane, T., Keane, W. F., & Blicblau, A. S. (2016). Beyond traditional literacy: Learning and transformative practicesusing ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 769–781. doi:10.1007/s10639-014-9353-5

Khalid, M. S., & Nyvang, T. (2014). A change agent’s facilitation process for overcoming the barriers of ICT adop-tion for educational administration – The case of a rural-Bangladesh vocational institution. Australasian Journalof Educational Technology, 30(5), 547–561. doi:10.14742/ajet.626

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? ContemporaryIssues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. doi:10.1177/002205741319300303

Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar:Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012

Lindsay, L. (2015). Transformation of teacher practice using mobile technology with one-to-one classes: M-learningpedagogical approaches. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 883–892. doi:10.1111/bjet.12265

Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom useof ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380–387. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022

Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobiletechnology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021

McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age:How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,48(3), 194–211. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

Mezirow, J. (2012). Learning to think like an adult. In E. W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The handbook of trans-formative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 73–95). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National EducationTechnology Plan update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

Orlando, J. (2013). ICT-mediated practice and constructivist practices: Is this still the best plan for teachers’ usesof ICT? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(2), 231–246. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.782702

Pegler, K., Kollewyn, J., & Crichton, S. (2010). Generational attitudes and teacher ICT use. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 18(3), 443–458.

Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focusof the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58,1351–1359. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013

Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education,58(1), 449–458. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028

Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 367–381. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2016.1258369

Prestridge, S., & de Aldama, C. (2016). A classification framework for exploring technology-enabledpractice–FrameTEP. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 901–921. doi:10.1177/0735633116636767

Puentedura, R. (Producer). (2015, December 31). SAMR: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf

Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: SAGE Publishing.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Salda~na, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Seifert, T. (2016). Involvement, collaboration and engagement: Social networks through a pedagogical lens. Journal

of Learning Design, 9(2), 31–45. doi:10.5204/jld.v9i2.272Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London: SAGE.Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation [Kindle version]. Retrieved

from http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QMT6MO/ref=r_soa_w_dStake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Svetlana, T., & Olga, S. (2017). An enquiry-based approach to develop language skills in mobile-supported class-

rooms. Journal of Language and Education, 3(3), 39–49. doi:10.17323/2411-7390-2017-3-3-39-49Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., & Bernard, R. M. (2015). Large-scale, government-supported educa-

tional tablet initiatives. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/809Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., Bernard, R. M., & Saadi, L. E. (2015). Tablets for teaching and learn-

ing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/1012/2015_Tamim-et-al_Tablets-for-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

Tay, L. Y., Lim, S. K., & Lim, C. P. (2013). Factors affecting the ICT integration and implementation of one-To-one computing learning environment in a primary school – a sociocultural perspective. In L. Y. Tay & C. P.Lim (Eds.), Tales from a future school in Singapore (pp. 19–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study. London: SAGE Publications.

194 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evi-dence synthesis iteration [PDF]. Retrieved from http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES

Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teach-ers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers’ internalization of externalbarriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education,118, 70–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.009

Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT havea positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 4–11.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

Yang, H. (2012). ICT in English schools: Transforming education? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1),101–118. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659886

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.Zhai, X., Zhang, M., Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2019). Understanding the relationship between levels of mobile technol-

ogy use in high school physics classrooms and the learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Technology,50(2), 750–766. doi:10.1111/bjet.12700

Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments. Reviewof Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. doi:10.3102/0034654316628645

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Prompts

The following prompts guided Semi-Structured Interview 1 (SSI1).

� Describe how you currently use ICT in pedagogy. Present two artifacts of current practice: example of innova-tive practice and an example of common style of use.

� Describe your perceptions of the role(s) of ICT in schooling, including attitudes and beliefs.� How does ubiquitous ICT interact with your routines as a teacher?� Using the ideas that we discussed in the workshop, please identify any challenges you see/foresee to using ubi-

quitous ICT in your pedagogy: Challenges that surround your practice? Challenges within your individ-ual practice?

� Describe your journey to this juncture (reflections).

The following prompts guided Semi-Structured Interview 2 (SSI2).

� Reflection on new pedagogy: Describe the ICT-facilitated personalized learning pedagogy you used. How werethe team’s characteristics of personalized learning used? Was it successful? What were the outcomes for stu-dents? In relation to your practice as a teacher, what changed (extrinsically and intrinsically) and whatremained the same (extrinsically and intrinsically)? What did you need to learn to achieve teacher activatedICT-facilitated personalization of learning? Relative to the SAMR model, what is your self-assessment of thepedagogical change?

� Challenges: In the first interview you identified the following challenges to using ubiquitous ICT in your peda-gogy [based on first interview responses]. Do they still exist? Has anything changed, if so, what and how?What role did acknowledging these and other challenges play? Did the theory help?

� About your journey: did you have any ‘Ah-Ha’ (light bulb) moments? If so, please describe. Did the involve-ment of an ICT-in-learning expert and as a school leader in the meetings have an influence? If so, how? Howmuch of your journey have you shared with colleagues? If you have, what was their response or the outcome?

� In our first interview you described your perceptions [insert] of the role(s) of ICT in schooling. Has anythingchanged? If so, what? How did this occur?

� How does ubiquitous ICT interact with your routines as a teacher? Has this changed over the duration ofthe project?

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION 195

Appendix B. Degrees of Transformation SAMR Self-Assessment Guide

Mode Description (Puentedura, 2006, 2014a)Indicative examples cited by Puentedura

(2006, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c)

Substitution ICT used as a direct tool substitute forexisting tasks / pedagogies, with nofunctional change.

Teacher/student accessing and reading digitaltexts (e.g. PDF, digital textbooks, etc).

Use an online dictionary for key terms for atheme.

Sharing online content.ICT based drills to help learn knowledge /

procedures.Teacher accessing professional content on

social media (e.g. Twitter)Augmentation ICT used as a direct tool substitute for

existing tasks / pedagogies, withfunctional improvement.

Teacher/student using digital texts (e.g. PDF,digital textbooks, etc) with additionalfunctions like highlighting, annotating, andaccessing dictionary feature.

Use a word association / derivatives /thesaurus app to appreciate key terms fora theme.

Use apps to present information digitally (e.g.word clouds).

Using interactive presentations for explorationof concepts.

Modification ICT used to significantly redesign tasks/ pedagogies.

Teacher/student integrating digital texts andother apps.

Develop relationship map of novels/articles/movies that explore a theme.

Using apps that facilitate full classcollaboration.

Concept mapping using collated content.Interacting with colleagues via social media

to address a challenge.Students collect and organize different forms

of information (text, image, video etc) froma range of sources.

Redefinition ICT used to create new tasks / pedagogies,previously inconceivable to you.

Teacher/student creating own multimodalinteractive digital ‘texts’.

Develop a multimodal presentation that useselements from novels/articles/movies toanalyze the representation of a theme.

Using a range of apps to present detailedevidence of learning.

References for guide:Puentedura, R. (2006, 7/6/2014). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/part1.html

Puentedura, R. (2014a). SAMR: First Steps. Retrieved 6/12/2014, from Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog, http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/11/13/SAMR_FirstSteps.pdf

Puentedura, R. (2014b). SAMR for Leadership: Beyond the Basics. Retrieved 6/12/2014, from Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog,http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/10/29/SAMRForLeadership_BeyondTheBasics.pdf

Puentedura, R. (2014c). SAMR in the Classroom. Retrieved 6/12/2014, from Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog, http://www.hippa-sus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/08/27/SAMRInTheClassroom.pdf

196 C. BLUNDELL ET AL.