This article was downloaded by: [Oxford Brookes University]On: 29 September 2012, At: 13:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Curriculum JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjo20

Teachers' knowing how to usetechnology: exploring a conceptualframework for purposeful learningactivityTony Fisher a , Tim Denning b , Chris Higgins c & Avril Loveless da School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKb School of Education, Keele University, Keele, UKc School of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UKd School of Education, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

To cite this article: Tony Fisher, Tim Denning, Chris Higgins & Avril Loveless (2012): Teachers'knowing how to use technology: exploring a conceptual framework for purposeful learning activity,Curriculum Journal, 23:3, 307-325

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.703492

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Teachers’ knowing how to use technology: exploring a conceptual

framework for purposeful learning activity

Tony Fishera*, Tim Denningb, Chris Higginsc and Avril Lovelessd

aSchool of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; bSchool of Education,Keele University, Keele, UK; cSchool of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford,UK; dSchool of Education, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

This article describes a project to apply and validate a conceptualframework of clusters of purposeful learning activity involving ICTtools. The framework, which is based in a socio-cultural perspective, isdescribed as ‘DECK’, and comprises the following major categories ofthe use of digital technologies to support learning: distributed thinkingand knowing; engagement; community and communication; andknowledge building. Small-scale research to test the framework wascarried out with 12 teachers in English primary and secondary schools.The methods involved mind mapping, ‘think aloud’ procedures andinterviews. The framework was modified in the light of teachers’responses and offers a way of describing and thinking about the diverseuses of digital technologies to support learning in various contexts.

Keywords: DECK framework; ICT; mind maps; socio-cultural;teaching and learning

Introduction

Many teachers make use of new digital technologies in their teaching, andsuch technology-using teachers ‘increasingly see themselves as facilitatorsof learning’ (Hennessy et al. 2005, 268). This article reports thedevelopment and validation of a conceptual framework of ‘clusters ofpurposeful learning activity’ relating to teachers as users of technology intheir practice with learners. Motivation for the study arose from aninterest in how a critical knowledge of purposeful activity with digitaltechnologies might be used to support teaching and learning, and how abetter understanding of teachers’ knowledgeable use of these technologiesmight support practice in both initial teacher education and thecontinuing professional development of serving teachers.

The framework under consideration here arose from earlier theoreticalwork by the authors (Fisher, Higgins, and Loveless 2006), in which we

*Corresponding author. Email: tony.fisher@nottingham.ac.uk

The Curriculum Journal

Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2012, 307–325

ISSN 0958-5176 print/ISSN 1469-3704 online

� 2012 British Curriculum Foundation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.703492

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

discussed models which portrayed the complex, dynamic, situated,individual and social nature of teacher knowledge and learning (Putnamand Borko 2000). As teacher educators we felt that if it were possible toidentify some general categories of ‘purposeful learning activities’undertaken by teachers as users of technology, then these might provideuseful ways of thinking about and discussing diverse uses of digitaltechnologies across different contexts of subject and age group. In thisarticle we outline the categories comprising the framework and give anaccount, with examples, of our use of the framework in a validationexercise with a small number of individual teachers.

Purpose and rationale

The focus on ‘purposeful learning activity’ draws attention to therelationship between ‘what is taught’ (content), ‘how it is taught’(pedagogy) and ‘why it is taught’ (rationale and relevance). The question‘Why?’ connects learning activity not only to immediate learningobjectives and teaching schemes, but also to goals of activity and thetransformation, creation and sharing of knowledge within widercommunities, networks, contexts and cultures. Hence, this study wasprompted by a concern to develop a descriptive framework that mightencompass the underlying purposes of learning activities which aresupported by digital technologies in classroom practice. Such a frame-work could then prove useful in supporting explorations of, andconversations about, the use of ICT tools to support learning.

The PALM project (Somekh and Davies 1991) demonstrated howteachers could develop knowledge of the classroom use of newtechnologies through small-scale action research projects. While suchprojects are of great value, we suggest here that much of teachers’knowledge about the use of ICT in learning and teaching is developedlocally, experientially, and to some extent informally, through personalpractice in the context of their own classrooms and working with suchtools as are available to them and their students. However, as noted byShulman (1999, 62), ‘Teachers themselves have difficulty in articulatingwhat they know and how they know it.’ What teachers know includesprocedural knowledge (or ‘know-how’) which is highly situated (specificto the contexts in which it is developed) and is not articulated – whatPolanyi (1997) refers to as ‘tacit knowledge’.

Such tacit knowledge is recognised as being of enormous value from a‘human capital’ perspective, which recognises that organisations canbenefit from the knowledge, developed through experience, of those whowork in the organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). However, tacitknowledge is not readily available for communication to others, since it isnot immediately expressible – it is not easily made explicit in the way that

308 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

declarative knowledge (‘know that’) is. Yet tacit knowledge is animportant guide to further action; it is, as Eraut puts it, ‘not a sideshowbut central’ (2000, 14).

Opinion differs as to whether tacit knowledge can ever be accessed andmade explicit. A knowledge management perspective would propose thatif teachers can be assisted in making explicit some aspects of their tacitknowledge about their purposeful use of digital technologies for learning,this offers possibilities for the second stage – ‘externalisation’ – of Nonakaand Takeuchi’s (1995) ‘socialisation–externalisation–combination–inter-nalisation’ (SECI) model. Based on Nonaka and Takeuchi’s studies of‘knowledge creating’ companies, SECI is identified as a process whichincludes making knowledge developed and held by individuals availablefor sharing, wider discussion and potentially for more general use.

Here we are concerned to use and refine a conceptual framework of theuses of digital technologies in learning and teaching around which theremight be a degree of interpretive agreement, and which might provide ameans of supporting useful conversations among teachers and others byaiding teachers in the articulation of their individual ‘know-how’regarding the use of digital technologies among learners.

Describing educational uses of digital technologies

The framework elaborated in this article builds on a tradition of ways todescribe the nature of meaningful activities with ICT in learning. In thissection we briefly review some of these earlier attempts to identify andclassify educational uses of new technologies.

Kemmis, Atkins, and Wright (1977) developed a ground-breakingmodel of the ways in which computer assisted learning could bedescribed. Although their work was with higher education students usingmainframe computers in the 1970s, the focus on the types or ‘paradigms’of learning that were observed still has relevance today. The four types ofcomputer use described in their model were characterised as: instruc-tional; revelatory; conjectural; and emancipatory.

Following this early work, further attempts have been made to describepurposeful learning activities with ICT. Squires and McDougall (1994,1996) took a situated approach, looking at the use of ICT in context. Theirmodel looked at the interactions between the three actors in the educationalsetting of the classroom, concentrating on the contributions made activelyby the teacher and student, and passively by the designer of the ICTpackage being used. Jonassen et al. (1998) and Jonassen and Carr (2000)developed a discussion of computer applications that could function asintellectual partners to amplify a learner’s thinking – cognitive tools that‘when used by learners to represent what they know, necessarily engagethem in critical thinking about the content they are studying’ (Jonassen

The Curriculum Journal 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

et al. 1998, 24). These cognitive tools become knowledge construction toolsand are used to facilitate higher-order thinking such as analysis,interpretation, organisation, evaluation and representation of information.A comprehensive overview of descriptive frameworks for ICT in teachingand learning is provided by Twining (2008).

In curriculum terms, HMI in England published a thoughtful discussionof an approach to thinking about the use of computers in teaching andlearning (HMI 1989). In particular, they emphasised the potential of IT asan educational tool (Benzie 1997), leading to an emphasis on that aspect inthe English National Curriculum where, in 1995, ICT capability wasdescribed as being characterised by: ‘an ability to use effectively IT toolsand information sources to analyse, process and present information andto model, measure and control external events’ (DFE 1995).

International frameworks also engage with descriptions of thepurposeful use of ICT by drawing attention to the complexity of teachers’knowing the potential of digital technology tools in learning and teaching:Krumsvik (2008) discusses digital literacy and the Norwegian NationalCurriculum; Nonaka et al. (2004) compare Japanese and English teachertraining for using ICT; and Starkey (2010) introduces a ‘digital age learningmatrix’ for the evaluation of learning activities with Australian teachers.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) have conducted important work onteachers’ use of technologies, bringing together insights into the educa-tional use of new technologies and Shulman’s (1986) ‘pedagogic contentknowledge’ (PCK) to produce the concept of ‘technological pedagogiccontent knowledge’ (originally abbreviated as TPCK but now referred toas ‘TPACK’). In this they show how teachers need an understanding notonly of how to teach what they teach in a given subject domain (Shulman’soriginal PCK), but also of how to use the technological tools at hand to doso. In the same way that Shulman’s PCK lay at the intersection of contentknowledge and pedagogical knowledge, Mishra and Koehler’s TPACKlies at the intersection of those two and a third – ‘technology knowledge’.Hence, ‘intelligent pedagogical uses of technology require the developmentof a complex, situated form of knowledge’ (Koehler et al. 2007, 741).TPACK offers an understanding not only of the range of ICT tools thatmight be used for a particular task, but also of how to employ teachingstrategies to use them to greatest effect:

Clearly this knowledge is different from and greater than that of adisciplinary expert (say a mathematician or a historian), a technologyexpert (a computer scientist) and a pedagogical expert (an experiencededucator). (Koehler et al. 2007, 743)

Mishra and Koehler’s contribution is significant and has led to furtherwork (e.g. Starkey 2010). However, it is important to clarify that although

310 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

understandings and critical developments of TPACK inform thetheoretical background to this study, our focus here is primarily uponteachers’ understandings of the purposes of the learning activities, andnot on subject-based pedagogical strategies per se.

The work reported in this article relates to Mishra and Koehler’s inthat, like them, we are interested in the ways in which teachers actuallyuse new technologies in their work. However, rather than exploringspecific relationships among specific pedagogical, content and technolo-gical knowledges, as proposed by the TPACK model, we are interestedhere in identifying some more general categories which might workacross, rather than within, subject disciplinary contexts. This is not adenial of the possibility of subject-specific TPACK – rather, it is adifferent focus of interest. Here we are interested in the ways in whichpedagogical uses of technology might cross notional subject boundariesand come to constitute some generalisable ways of using, thinking aboutand talking about uses of technology in teaching. Our research focus hereis on practitioner knowledge about the purposes and use of digitaltechnologies which is developed in the experiential domain, rather than afocus on the knowledge that teachers need to have in order to plan thosesame technology-using activities.

Theoretical contexts

One of the ways in which teachers develop knowledge about what they dois through activity – the practical work of teaching. Our work here adoptsa socio-cultural, situated perspective on the use of new digitaltechnologies to support learning. From the perspective of socio-culturaltheory in general, and cultural-historical activity theory in particular (e.g.Engestrom 1999), we may view new technologies as a complex set ofcultural tools or ‘mediational means’ (Wertsch 1998) with particularcontext-related affordances, enabling or assisting ‘subjects’ (teachers,students) to engage in purposeful activities related to learning. The natureof these affordances will depend upon what is seen as desirable ornecessary to achieve in a given situation (the purpose or ‘object’ ofactivity), together with the inherent possibilities perceived or discoveredin the technologies as tools to support or modify the achievement of thoseobjects. While, as with any activity, a unique combination of contextualfactors will be in play, reflecting specific aspects of the ecology of a localsetting, there may also be generic similarities with similar activities inother settings, and it is those generic similarities on which we focus here.

The ‘features’ of digital technologies which could make a distinctivecontribution to activities have been described as provisionality, inter-activity, capacity, range, speed, accuracy, quality, automation, multi-modality, neutrality and social credibility (DfEE 1998; Sharp et al. 2002).

The Curriculum Journal 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Conole and Dyke (2004) provided a similar list, arguing that making suchcharacteristics explicit would help practitioners to make informed choicesabout how they might use digital technologies. However, such descrip-tions locate the identified characteristics in the technologies themselves,and do not open up the understanding of the interaction between digitaltechnologies as tools and the people who use them purposefully withinactivity systems. It is therefore more helpful to consider the affordances ofdigital technologies in contexts of use in order to gain greater insight intohow these support purposeful learning activities within a range oflearning environments.

Finally, the notion of ‘ICT capability’ relates understanding andcompetence to the general processes of dealing with information. The word‘capability’ carries the meanings of having power or fitness for a task, beingqualified and able, being open to or susceptible to development, andimplies a knowledge or skill being turned to use, an ability which is usedactively, involving understanding and choice (Loveless 2003). The EnglishNational Curriculum for ICT identified key processes of such capability asfinding things out, developing ideas and making things happen, andexchanging and sharing information (DfEE 1999).

Methodology 1: developing the ‘DECK’ framework

The authors considered how the above descriptions of the features ofICT, the taxonomy of affordances, and understandings of ICT capabilityas purposeful and appropriate human activity, might be woven together.

The framework was developed by the authors, using a modifiedversion of the ‘nominal group technique’ (Cohen et al. 2007, 309), asfollows. Drawing on our experience as teacher educators and educationaltechnology researchers, we developed a comprehensive, computer-basedmind map of types of purposeful learning activities which are possiblewith ICT. Using the affordances of the mind-mapping software we thenmanipulated the activities into visual clusters representing conceptualcategories, in which we grouped together activities with some essentialsimilarity or underlying connection.

From this process we identified four major categories: distributedthinking and knowing; engagement; community and communication; andknowledge building, which we also refer to by the acronym ‘DECK’.

Underpinnings of the DECK framework

The four categories, while identified separately here for purposes ofdescription and clarification, are not to be regarded as mutually exclusive –rather, we felt, they may be seen as overlapping and interleaving aspects ofactivity, and this will more normally occur in association with one another,

312 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

rather than separately. The four main conceptual categories relate to, andwere informed by, a range of existing theoretical approaches.

A. Distributed thinking and knowing

The theoretical approach that informed this category draws heavily uponideas of distributed cognition (e.g. Salomon 1993), particularly Perkins’sdescription of ‘Person Plus’. This proposes that we are knowledgeablethrough other people, the use of symbolic media, and the exploitation ofthe working environment, artefacts and tools (Perkins 1993). This isparticularly so in the ‘network society’ and the web of connectionssupported by the internet (Castells 2001).

B. Engagement

This category of engagement in learning activities is informed byCsikszentmihalyi’s discussion of the effects of ‘flow’. He identifies thisas the highly focused yet automatic and ‘effortless’ state of consciousnesswhen fully engaged in certain activities. These can often be risky ordifficult, and stretch a person’s capacity, while involving an elementof novelty, exploration, play or discovery (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi,Abuhamdeh, and Nakamura 2005).

C. Community and communication

The theoretical constructs informing this category included networks,communities of practice and social learning. Castells discusses networksand the new ‘informational society’, in which control of, and access to,information and the means of its creation, storage and distribution, arethe primary sources of power (Castells 2000). Commonality of purposeand a shared experience and discourse are elements of theories of‘communities of practice’ which are relevant here (Wenger 1998). Sociallearning focuses on knowledge in the world of social interaction betweenpeople and considers learning in its social context (e.g. Wertsch 1991;Vygotsky 1962).

D. Knowledge building

This category is informed by constructivist theories of learning – bothcognitive and social – in which knowledge is generated from experienceand in interaction. It contains understandings of learning through activeadaptation, representation, testing and evaluation.

The learning activities and their respective ‘conceptual categories’ areshown in Table 1.

The Curriculum Journal 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Methodology 2: validating the framework with teachers

In order to validate the framework, a research approach was designedwhich involved participating teachers in drawing mind maps of their useof ICTs for learning. These were then used as an agenda for a discussionconcerned with ‘learning purposes’ which concluded with the use of theframework to code their responses.

The research activity was initially piloted with two teachers; someminor amendments were made to the approach (Phase 1). The main data-collection activity was then conducted with 12 teachers – eight secondary,from a range of subjects, and four primary (Phase 2).

Data collection incorporated phenomenographic interview techniques(Marton 1988) involving the elicitation and discussion of concept maps.This approach, which is similar to that used with learners in the ImpaCT2study (Mavers et al. 2002) and Project REPRESENTATION (Pearsonand Somekh 2003), enabled the research team to develop an under-standing of teachers’ representations of ICT tools in use, through themedium of the teachers’ verbal and visual communication of theirrealities with ICT.

Phase 1 (pilot)

The data-collection activity was piloted with two invited teacherparticipants (one primary, one secondary), each of whom was interviewed

Table 1. The conceptual categories of purposeful learning activities (version 1).

Purposeful learning activities Conceptual categories

I. Accessing resources.II. Finding things out.III. Writing, composing and presenting with

artefacts and tools which may structureactivities in particular ways.

A. Distributed thinking andknowing

I. Exploring and playing.II. Acknowledging risk, uncertainty and

provisionality.III. Working with different kinds and

degrees of interactivity.IV. Responding to immediacy.

B. Engagement

I. Exchanging and sharingcommunication.

II. Extending the context of activity.III. Extending the participating community

at local and global levels.

C. Community andcommunication

I. Adapting and developing ideas.II. Representing understanding in multi-

modal and dynamic ways.III. Testing and exploring hypotheses.IV. Evaluating ideas and understanding.

D. Knowledge building

314 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

by a pair of researchers. Interviews and concept mapping were videoed inorder to support the process of reviewing, and possibly revising, the data-collection protocols and the language of the conceptual framework. Allfour researchers were involved in this workshop in order to ensurecommonality of approach later, in Phase 2.

The basic procedure for the pilot was:

. Each participant was asked to put ‘Learning’ at the centre of a largesheet of paper and, in the style of a mind map, to indicate the ICTsthat could be used for learning. Participants were asked to considerthis in the light of their experience as a teacher, and personally as alearner.

. Participants were then asked: ‘What are the learning purposes thatyou use each of these technologies for?’ They were then asked bothto label their mind map and to tell the interviewer about thesepurposes as a ‘think aloud’ process.

. The framework was then introduced to participants, who weresubsequently asked to:– use the letters and numbers on the framework to code the

components of their map, and ‘think aloud’ while doing so;– comment on the degree of ‘fit’ between the framework and their

map;– considerwhether any further ideas or thoughts hadbeenprompted.

This procedure remained unchanged for Phase 2. However, as aresult of the pilot, two main modifications were made to aspects of theprocess.

First, we decided to present participants with a ‘Venn diagram’ of thefour main clusters when introducing the framework. This was to drawattention to the main conceptual categories, and to emphasise visually thepoint that we are proposing overlapping rather than discrete categories.This diagram is shown in Figure 1.

The second modification took account of discussion with the twoteachers involved in the pilot, resulting in some changes to the moredetailed elements of the framework shown in Table 1.

Phase 2

The researchers each interviewed a number of teachers using the interviewprotocols, diagram and framework revised during Phase 1. The interviewswere recorded in preparation for Phase 3. Twelve individuals took part inthis phase representing eight secondary subject teachers involved inscience, art, ICT, RE, geography and modern languages with careers, andfour primary school teachers.

The Curriculum Journal 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Phase 3

The recordings, mind maps and contemporary notes were reviewed andanalysed collaboratively by the research team in order to establish towhat extent the framework provided a useful basis for eliciting thelearning processes associated with ICT use as part of teaching andlearning.

Mindful that the sample used was limited in size, the analysis soughtonly to identify:

. The extent to which the framework could be mapped againstlearning activities reported by the teacher respondents; were anyactivities or learning processes ‘unmapped’?

. Whether the language and style of the framework were accessibleand appropriate; did the teachers understand the way in which thelearning processes were described?

Results: the teachers’ responses

The data from the maps, the use of the framework for coding, and the‘think aloud’ discussions were considered across the responses of the 12teachers, to examine how the framework might relate to their descriptionsof activities and learning purposes. This basic analysis revealed that each ofthe ‘clusters’ had been associated with a number of learning purposes, andthat all of the elements of the framework were coded at least once on themaps. This observation was supported by discussion during the interviews:the participants confirmed that the components of their maps could beaccommodated in and accounted for by the framework.

Figure 1. A Venn diagram of overlapping clusters of purposeful activity relating toteachers as users of technology.

316 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Three extracts from these 12 cases are presented here as vignettes toillustrate the range and type of data used in the process.

Vignette 1: Alice

Alice1 is a primary school teacher. In this extract from her mind map sheis describing research activities when children use the internet. Her codingfor the learning purposes and activities was recorded on a separate sheetnot shown here.

After brainstorming a variety of areas of the internet that she used forthe children to research and find resources, Alice reflected on the purposesof the activities. She produced the following list of intended learningpurposes:

. Children experience possibilities of access to a range of resources viaBBC websites, publishers’ material, Google Earth, Espresso, searchengines in general.

. Development of skills to enable information gathering.

. Development of higher-order skills of evaluation of variety ofinformation.

. Experience of real world material.

. Engaging with the multi-sensory nature of material.

Then she related her ideas to the framework, finding someimmediate matches and, after reflection, uncovering some less obviouscorrespondences. She summarised the discussion of how her workrelates to the framework (alphanumeric codes relate to the componentsof Table 1):

Figure 2. Extract from Alice’s mind map.

The Curriculum Journal 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

. ‘Definitely accessing resources (AI)2 and finding things out (AII).’

. ‘This is also about finding things out (AII).’

. ‘Evaluation is DIV evaluating ideas and understanding, but alsoresponding to immediacy of it (BIV) because straightaway as youread it you are engaging with it.’

. ‘Engaging with the real world is extending the context of activity(CII).’

. ‘Multi-sensory is probably representing understanding in multi-modal and dynamic ways (DII).’

Vignette 2: Sophie

Sophie is a secondary science-trained teacher now working in a smallsuburban primary school.

The creation of Sophie’s mind map went through a number of distinctstages. In this example, the internet was a starting point for a number ofactivities that included image collection, pupil research and access tointernet-based learning programmes targeted specifically at primary agedpupils. Prompted by looking at the framework, Sophie then readilyidentified a range of learning processes associated with the activities inthis branch. These included eight different elements from the framework,spanning all four clusters of activity. Note that the codings she chosefrom the framework are alongside branches on the mind map:

. ‘I’ll start with the ‘‘internet’’ and with ‘‘image collection’’. . . wouldthat come under A1?’

. ‘Image collection would come under accessing resources, findingthings out. . . I’d consider that to be exploring and playing. . . theywould be exchanging and sharing. . . I think they would probably beadapting and sharing ideas as they were doing the process.’

Figure 3. Extract from Sophie’s mind map.

318 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

. ‘Mmm – and they might be evaluating their ideas about the thingsthey were looking at as they went along.’

. ‘OK and I could probably put all of those for pupil research aswell. . . I’ll move on to ‘‘access internet learning programmes’’.Again that’s going to be accessing a resource. They would befinding. . . mmm. . . they’d be finding things out as in finding out howto do something and they would definitely be composing andpresenting with a tool which would structure their activity.’

Vignette 3: Harry

Harry has recently moved into teacher education, having been asecondary teacher of ICT as a discrete subject. In this extract, he focusedon the use of particular kinds of software and the learning purposes of theactivities. Note that the codings which he chose from the framework arecircled on the mind map.

Harry drew the map with particular examples of software andhardware in one corner, representing the range of ICT resources used inteaching ICT as a subject in secondary school. The use of MS Officewas associated with accessing resources and learning new techniquesand procedures for particular ‘daily life skills’ involving distributedthinking and knowing (category A). Other software resources such asAdobe Suite, Garageband and iMovie afforded opportunities forexperimentation, play, creativity and surprise. The purpose of theseactivities was related to exploring and playing, acknowledging riskand uncertainty, as in category B – engagement; representing under-standing in multi-modal ways (category D – knowledge building); andextending the context of the activity (category C – community andcommunication).

Figure 4. Extract from Harry’s mind map.

The Curriculum Journal 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Modification of the framework

As we analysed the data and considered the reflections of the researchers,we found that the issues which arose, that might require modifications ofthe framework, could be categorised in one of two ways. In the firstcategory came those occasions when the participants had requiredclarification of particular terms used in the framework. This was usuallydealt with in the interviews by the researchers giving some exemplificationof what had been intended. We addressed these issues by modifying thelanguage of the framework, attempting to replace problematic words orphrases with clearer descriptions. So, for example, we had used the tersephrase ‘finding things out’ to represent a portmanteau of activities in theoriginal, and this was replaced by ‘searching for, accessing, selecting andretrieving information and resources’ in the modified version.

The second category of issues arose when participants had introducedlearning purposes that did not immediately seem to correspond toelements of the framework. As the discussions developed it was invariablyfound that the participants felt that these purposes did, in fact, fit into thefour basic clusters. However, as the researchers reflected on thesesituations, it was felt that again some modification of the frameworkwould make accommodating these fairly common learning purposeseasier in future. An example of this was the introduction of the purpose‘learning new techniques and procedures’ as a specific element of theknowledge building cluster.

In light of these amendments, a revised version of the framework wasproduced, as shown in Table 2.

Discussion and conclusions

We should stress that this has been a small-scale research project,undertaken with the main purpose of validating, and if necessaryamending, the DECK conceptual framework. In order to move towardsthis, we needed to speak in depth with a sample of teachers about theiruses of digital technologies, and we have reported the results of thatprocess in this article. However, we should stress that the teachers withwhom we spoke should not be seen as in any way representative of thewider constituency of teachers and they were not invited to participate onthat basis. Hence we are not making wider claims about how teachers usedigital technologies on the basis of this research.

We adopted a validation method for the DECK framework whichrecognised teachers as knowledgeable users of technologies. Ourapproach privileged the activities of teachers’ work as sites of knowledgeproduction about the use of new technologies for pedagogical purposes.Thus, in seeking to validate the DECK framework, we asked teachers torepresent, in the form of a mind map, their actual use of technologies to

320 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

support learning. This proved to be a successful means to scaffold adiscussion about the relationship between what the teacher hadrepresented and the DECK framework we subsequently introduced.These discussions, both in the research reported here and subsequently,have elicited what the teachers concerned thought they were doing andwhy, making explicit and codifying aspects of their practitioner knowl-edge that might otherwise have remained unarticulated.

Of course, ‘there is no guarantee that the knowledge generated at localsites is correct or even useful’ (Hiebert et al. 2002, 8). Thus, wider use ofthe framework with teachers, including investigation and clarification ofthe activities reported, would be necessary if the practitioner knowledgeidentified were to become consolidated as aspects of any widerprofessional knowledge.

As both a validated theoretical construct and a means of scaffoldingthe process of teachers making explicit aspects of their knowledge aboutICT tools in use for learning, we see our conceptual framework in itsempirically refined form as being of potential use to teachers, teachereducators and researchers. The interactive nature of the processes seemedto prompt additional insights articulated by the participants.

Table 2. The revised DECK conceptual framework of ‘clusters of purposeful learningactivity’ relating to teachers as users of technology.

A. Distributed thinking andknowing

I. Searching for, accessing, selecting andretrieving information and resources.

II. Writing, composing and presenting withtools which may structure activities inparticular ways.

III. Collaboration.

B. Engagement andmotivation

I. Exploring and playing.II. Acknowledging risk, uncertainty and

provisionality.III. Working with different kinds and degrees

of interactivity.IV. Responding to immediacy.

C. Community andcommunication

I. Exchanging and sharing communication.II. Extending the context of learning.III. Extending the participating community at

local and global levels.

D. Knowledge building I. Learning new techniques and procedures.II. Representing understanding in multi-

modal ways.III. Adapting and developing ideas.IV. Testing and exploring hypotheses.V. Evaluating ideas and understanding.VI. Reflecting on ideas and understanding.

The Curriculum Journal 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

For example, some of the teachers commented on the experience ofthe mapping, coding and commentary activity itself. Alice remarked:

[The process] has made me realise when I plan something I’ve thought I’mplanning it for them to access a resource and find things out, but I can alsosee that at the same time they might be exchanging and sharing ideas. . . . Ithink it’s made me realise how much they are doing when they use an ICTapplication . . . it’s made me realise the deeper layers.

[In relation to planning] predominantly the knowledge building is whatwe’re aiming for, but I can see these other things going on at the same time.To have something like this when I’m planning I would find really useful.. . . It helps think about the deeper understanding and the deeper skills thatare being used that you might not necessarily think about.

With its potential to support reflective knowledge building and transferamong teachers, the validated framework could make a contribution tocontinuing professional development. We anticipate that the frameworkwould provide useful conceptual input on pre- and in-service courses forteachers considering the use of digital technologies to support learningpurposes, since it scaffolds and facilitates pedagogical reflection andconversations of the sort described in this article. The framework has beenshown to support discussion and reflection and can provide a bridgebetween planning for activities and identifying underlying learningpurposes. The framework could thus be used to assist curriculum designat the school or class level by providing a map of potential and/or actualactivities involving the use of ICT tools to support learning.

We stress that the framework should not be seen as a ‘stand-alone’resource, but rather as a tool which can be deployed in particular ways inparticular contexts similar to those outlined in this article, namely ascaffolded discussion with a ‘knowledgeable other’ supported by aprotocol involving activities such as mind mapping, thinking aloud anddialogue, as described earlier. It is an approach to investigation andreflection rather than a prescriptive taxonomy.

The DECK framework builds on a tradition of describing activity incurriculum and learning. The framework elaborated in this article builds onthe process begun by Kemmis et al. in 1977, and takes account of morerecent developments in technology (including the recent expansion of ‘Web2.0’ technologies), together with recent developments in understandings oflearning. Contexts and tools may have changed, and will continue to do so,but a process such as that outlined in this article enables teachers to groundtheir descriptions of activity in wider purposes, beyond the specifics ofparticular technologies in specified subject contexts: the frameworkprovides a vocabulary of higher-level descriptors of activity and, as such,has the potential to be more widely investigated and used.

322 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Acknowledgements

This project was conducted on behalf of the Association for Information Technology inTeacher Education (ITTE) and was supported by a grant from the Training andDevelopment Agency for Schools (TDA).

Notes

1. All names used in this account are pseudonyms.2. All alphanumeric codes used here and elsewhere relate to the components of Table 1.

Notes on contributors

Tony Fisher lectures at the University of Nottingham School of Education, and is a memberof the Learning Sciences Research Institute. He is involved in developing, and teaching on,several online courses, together with a range of doctoral supervision. A former schoolteacher,he has a particular research interest in teachers’ experiences as users (or not) of ICT, and hasinterviewed many teachers in the course of a number of national research and evaluationprojects. He has been Chair of the Association for Information Technology in TeacherEducation, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Technology, Pedagogy and Education.

Tim Denning is an Honorary Fellow of Keele University, where he was until 2012 the ProjectManager for the Keele Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and a member of the ResearchInstitute for Social Policy. During the last four years he has undertaken work funded underthe JISC/Higher Education Academy Open Educational Resources Programme concernedwith copyright and IPR and conducted research funded by the Teacher Development Agencyexploring frameworks for describing the ‘learning purposes’ associated with ICT use in theclassroom. He has presented keynotes and papers at a variety of conferences, most recently atthe 2010 European Education Research Association conference in Helsinki and the 2011Blackboard World Conference in Las Vegas.

Chris Higgins is a Principal Lecturer in Education at Oxford Brookes University. His researchinterests include the role of digital technologies in learning and teaching, particularly the use ofICT as a cognitive tool. Although originally awarded a doctorate in mathematics, he has beeninvolved in the use of ICT in UK schools since the first introduction of computers into theclassroom. He has lectured on both mathematics and the uses of ICT in teaching and learningfor all ages. He was a founding member of both the Association for Information Technologyin Teacher Education, and the editorial board of the international journal Technology,Pedagogy and Education.

Avril Loveless is Professor of Education at the University of Brighton. Her research interestsfocus on the role of digital technologies in learning and teaching, creativity, teacher knowledgeand constructions of ‘a digital age’. She has taught in primary schools and teacher educationand co-ordinated a Professional Doctorate in Education. She was a Chair of the Associationof Information Technology in Teacher Education and Editor of the international journalTechnology, Pedagogy and Education.

References

Benzie, D. 1997. Information technology capability: Is our definition wide of the mark?In Information technology: Supporting change through teacher education, ed. D. Passeyand B. Samways, 55–60. London: Chapman & Hall.

Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Castells, M. 2001. The internet galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research methods in education. 6th ed.

London: Taylor & Francis.

The Curriculum Journal 323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Conole, G., and M. Dyke. 2004. What are the affordances of information and commu-nication technologies? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12, no. 2: 113–24.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., S. Abuhamdeh, and J. Nakamura. 2005. Flow. In Handbook ofcompetence and motivation, ed. A.J. Elliott and C.S. Dweck, 598–608. New York:Guilford Press.

DFE (Department for Education). 1995. Information technology in the NationalCurriculum. London: HMSO.

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). 1998. Initial teacher trainingcurriculum for the use of information and communications technology in subjectteaching. Annex B of DfEE Circular 4/98. London: DfEE.

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). 1999. The National Curriculum forEngland: Information and Communications Technology. London: DfEE.

Engestrom, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. InPerspectives on activity theory, ed. Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamaki,19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eraut, M. 2000. Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge inprofessional work. In The necessity of informal learning, ed. F. Coffield, 12–31.Bristol: The Policy Press.

Fisher, T., C. Higgins, and A. Loveless. 2006. Report 14: Teachers learning with digitaltechnologies: A review of research and projects. Bristol: Futurelab.

Hennessy, S., R. Deaney, and K. Ruthven. 2005. Emerging teacher strategies formediating ‘Technology-integrated Instructional Conversations’: A socio-culturalperspective. The Curriculum Journal 16, no. 3: 265–92.

Hiebert, J., R. Gallimore, and J.W. Stigler. 2002. A knowledge base for the teachingprofession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher31, no. 5: 3–15.

HMI. 1989. Information technology from 5 to 16: Curriculum Matters 15. London:HMSO.

Jonassen, D.H., and C. Carr. 2000. Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledgerepresentations for learning. In Computers as cognitive tools, Vol. 2: No more walls,ed. S.P. Lajoie, 165–96. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D.H., C. Carr, and H.-P. Yueh. 1998. Computers as mindtools for engaginglearners in critical thinking. Techtrends 43, no. 2: 24–32.

Kemmis, S., R. Atkins, and E. Wright. 1977. How do students learn? Working papers oncomputer assisted learning, Occasional Paper 5. Norwich: Centre for AppliedResearch in Education, University of East Anglia.

Koehler, M.J., P. Mishra, and K. Yahya. 2007. Tracing the development of teacherknowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology.Computers and Education 49, no. 3: 740–62.

Krumsvik, R. 2008. Situated learning and teachers’ digital competence. Education andInformation Technologies 13, no. 4: 279–90.

Loveless, A. 2003. The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT andtheir pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies 8, no. 4: 313–26.

Marton, F. 1988. Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating differentunderstandings of reality. In Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods, ed.R. Sherman and R. Webb, 141–61. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mavers, D., B. Somekh, and J. Restorick. 2002. Interpreting the externalised images ofpupils’ conceptions of ICT: Methods for the analysis of concept maps. Computers andEducation 38, nos. 1–3: 187–207.

Mishra, P., and M. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Aframework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108, no. 6: 1017–54.

Nonaka, Y., A. Loveless, K. Takeda, and M. Toyoda. 2004. Japanese and Englishcomparisons of teacher training for using ICT with special reference to the ICTcurriculum of University of Brighton. Bulletin of the Centre for Educational Researchand Training 14: 207–15.

Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanesecompanies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

324 T. Fisher et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Pearson, M., and B. Somekh. 2003. Concept-mapping as a research tool: A study ofprimary children’s representations of information and communication technologies.Education and Information Technologies 8, no. 1: 5–22.

Perkins, D. 1993. ‘Person Plus’: A distributed view of thinking and learning. InDistributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, ed. G. Salomon,88–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Polanyi, M. 1997. The tacit dimension. In Knowledge in organisations, ed. L. Prusak, 135–46. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.

Putnam, R.T., and H. Borko. 2000. What do new views of knowledge and thinking haveto say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher 29, no. 1: 4–15.

Salomon, G., ed. 1993. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considera-tions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sharp, J., J. Potter, J. Allen, and A. Loveless. 2002. Primary ICT: Knowledge,understanding and practice. 2nd ed. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher 15, no. 2: 4–14.

Shulman, L.S. 1999. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. InLearners and teaching, ed. J. Leach and B. Moon, 61–77. London: Paul ChapmanPublishing.

Somekh, B., and R. Davies. 1991. Towards a pedagogy for information technology. TheCurriculum Journal 2, no. 2: 153–70.

Squires, D., and A. McDougall. 1994. Choosing and using educational software: Ateacher’s guide. London: Falmer Press.

Squires, D., and A. McDougall. 1996. Software evaluation: A situated approach. Journalof Computer Assisted Learning 12, no. 3: 146–61.

Starkey, L. 2010. Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachersand Teaching 16, no. 2: 233–44.

Twining, P. 2008. Framing IT use to enhance educational impact on a school-wide basis.In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondaryeducation, ed. J. Voogt and G. Knezek, 555–77. New York: Springer.

Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Wertsch, J.V. 1991. Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wertsch, J.V. 1998. Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Curriculum Journal 325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Oxf

ord

Bro

okes

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

3:26

29

Sept

embe

r 20

12