MSc. Technology Enhanced Learning, Innovation and Change

Technology Enhanced Teaching in 21st Century Education What it means to be a Connected Educator

Lars Was 2014-08-31

ABSTRACT

Our lives are increasingly being shaped by technology, both on a personal and professional level. We rely on it so much that doing things without technology proves difficult, even odd at times. Since technology is everywhere, nothing even hints that our future will be any different. Above that, with the coming of the internet, mankind has succeeded in connecting the world: we can access information and interact with others instantly and without great effort. Devices are getting smaller and at the same time more powerful, enabling us to carry the world's knowledge in our pocket.

This dissertation argues that this technological change is having an important impact on education as well. Throughout time, different learning theories have proven that there is a shift in education from individual to social learning. New frameworks, such as Siemens' connectivism, which implement this technological impact on the learning process, are emerging. Building on connectivism and the current way of accessing and handling information, I make the case for using personal learning networks to create technology enhanced learning environments. Working with these personal learning environments, we require new (digital) literacies to properly make use of these learning environments. By promoting Mishra and Koehler's TPACK model, I demonstrate how this change in education can successfully be achieved. This argument is supported by evidence based research with local educators form different fields and levels in education. I conclude by pointing out the way technology is currently used by educators and the challenges that we still face.

KEYWORDS

connectedness, digital literacy, education, networked learning, personal learning network, teaching, technology, technology enhanced learning

!2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation was made with great effort and dedication, but simply could not have come into existence without the help of others. I want to take a moment to mention a number of people that truly stood out and without whom this work was not possible.

I would like to thank Guy Merchant, my supervisor. Your calm and wise take on things was essential. Thank you for your support, guidance and clever little eye-openers during the process of creation. Your part in this was inspiring.

Thank you, Richard Pountney, the course leader, for keeping my compass true.

I would like all my tutors and fellow students to know how much they have broadened my view on education. The new theories and insights we discussed have truly enriched me as a teacher.

I like to thank Bart Boelen for our many conversations on education and to keep an eye out for ‘the other thing’. They inspire me to pursuit new educational horizons and continue to push me to be ‘different’.

To the one closest to me, my wife Mieke, thank you for being there, for being patient and supporting me lovingly throughout this academic journey.

!3

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 6 1.1. About This Dissertation 6 1.2. Context 7

2. Literature Review 8 2.1. Learning 8 2.2. Access to Information 11 2.3. Being Connected in the Context of 21st Century Learning 13 2.4.Tools and Skills for Learning in Networks 15

A. Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 15 B. Personal Learning Networks 19 C. Digital Literacy 21 D. Making It Work 21

3. Methodology 24 3.1. Methods 24 3.2. Respondents and Ethics 25 3.3. Survey and Interviews 27 3.4. Analytical procedures 27 3.5. Reflections 28

4. Analysis 29 4.1. Survey 29 4.2. Interview 30

5. Discussion 33 5.1. On 'Being Connected' 33 5.2. On 'The Role of Tools and Services' 34 5.3. On 'Personal Learning Networks' 34

6. Conclusion 36 6.1. The Literature 36 6.2. The Research 36 6.3. Further Research Options 37 6.4. My Journey 37

References 38 Illustrations 41 Appendices 42 Appendix 1 - Research Participant Information Sheet 42 Appendix 2 - Research Participant Consent Form 43 Appendix 3 - Survey and Results 44 Appendix 4 - Interview - Basic Questions 53

!4

Appendix 5 - Interview - Example 54

!5

1. Introduction

1.1. About This Dissertation

As the 21st century gradually moves forward, we can see the world around us is transforming. Although not universal, we can see that in developing countries, habits have changed. We interact with each other differently. We do things in completely different ways and all of that is happening around us at the speed of light. One of the explanations for this change is that we rely on machines to do a great deal of our work for us. But nothing in the entire history of mankind has had such a profound impact on our lives, as the technological revolution called 'the internet'. It is the internet that enables us to do a lot more in a lot less time, with a lot more people then ever before. We started with dial-up modems and evolved into a world where a growing number of devices are continuously connected to each other. We now carry around in our pockets more computer power than it took to put a man on the surface of the moon. This astonishing fact opens the gate to a wide variety of changes such as the way we communicate, the way we shop and how we do business. Even our educational system experiences the consequences of these technological changes. Thanks to a wide variety of new (digital) tools we can search for information more easily and quickly, we can collect and catalogue information with the click of a mouse and share our knowledge with the rest of the world. Because of this, the days of a one-way stream of information from the teacher to the student are potentially over. We have the opportunity to use new tools and skills to interact, to share things in networks and learn from this experience.

In this dissertation, I will talk about this technological shift that is occurring all around us and the repercussions that it has on the way we learn. I will try to find out:

• what the opportunities and challenges of learning in networks are. • How has learning changed? • How has access to information changed? • What does being connected mean in the context of 21st century learning?

• what the necessary tools and skills are for learning in networks. • How does one construct and maintain a personal learning network? • What role can personal learning networks play in the life of teachers? • What are the differences in teachers' take-up of personal learning networks?

In order to answer these questions, I have collected data from a survey conducted with a wide variety of educators from different levels of education. Further insights are based on in-depth interviews with a focus group. I have then tried to connect the collected data to the literature at hand to offer both new perspectives on how we might manage learning in the 21st century and new tools and skills to accomplish this.

First, I would like to set the scene by talking about the wider context of the current state of education and how teachers function within this context. This stage-setting is necessary to identify the growing demand for a new framework capable of explaining how learning in a networked environment is occurring.

!6

1.2. Context

When looking at education throughout the years, it is remarkable that a lot of things are done exactly the same as fifty years ago. The teacher still stands in front of the classroom and students usually sit behind desks, neatly positioned in straight lines. Teachers tend to explain the curriculum, give homework and at the end like to put forth some form of summative exam to assess if students achieved the set goals. Students learn the said curriculum and try to 'pass tests'. The educational system is mostly a one-way stream of information from the teacher to the students. Teachers decide what is to be learned and when. Students are granted access to classes in order to learn these set curricula. Still using a chalkboard and colorful chalk, teachers try to offer information the best they can. Of course, newer technology has found its way to the classroom as well. Presentations clearly show what we teach. Language teachers will confirm how great it is to use audio devices in class. Business educators love to collect and discuss data in colorful spreadsheets. These are all new didactic tools to support teaching as we know it. However, technology, to date, has not had the same disruptive kind of consequences as in society in general. Information gathering, recreating and sharing is not yet a significant part of our teaching. The one-way stream is still there in most cases, heavily supported by technology, yet pursuing the same goals as many years ago.

Apart from the educational system I described, I want to take a closer look at the teacher's context. Throughout the years one could argue that a lot of new tasks have been added to the workload of the teacher, other than educating students. There are more administrative tasks to be taken care of. Students needs tend to be more laborious since we need to provide more information regarding the lesson materials. Data has to be gathered on performance and should always be kept on record for future inspection. Technology could offer a solution for a lot of these problems, but this set aside, technology in general is likely to be 'more work' for teachers. At least, that is how educators tend to react to the mere mention of a more technological approach.

As we move gradually into a more technology driven world, it becomes necessary, even mandatory, to use more of these digital tools in education. After all, it is our duty as educators to prepare students for their (professional) lives in society and if technology plays a significant role in that environment, we should take that into account and equally disrupt education technologically. This is the context that I would like to use for this dissertation: the state of education as it is, the technological benefits and misconceptions at hand and how to adapt our current way of teaching so that technology becomes the enabling tool to connect and share knowledge.

!7

2. Literature Review

2.1. Learning

How has learning evolved throughout the ages? Long gone are the days of Plato and Socrates and their pupils sitting in the shade of a tree, discussing philosophy, society, etc. Small groups of students, guided by a wise man, discussing society and offering different opinions are a very decent way of learning, yet far from what we would describe education to be today. Throughout the ages, schooling was mostly some form of apprenticeship, such as craftsmen teaching pupils to become masters of their own. This form of schooling still exists today, sometimes in very different formats from our own (Lave 1996). It is not until the industrial revolution that school as we know it today, came about. People became factory workers, drones, doing the same laborious work over and over again. Children were sent to schools, so they could be prepared for a similar future and depending on their cognitive abilities, they would end up as a desk clerk or a production line worker. This construct of schools preparing for the factory life, was brought to life to meet the needs of our consumption-based society. Education as we know it today, is still based on this economic model. We continue to put knowledge into the heads of students, test their intellect and give them a degree. Information reproduction still comes first; creative thinking has become a rare quality (Robinson 2006).

The way we learn has been the subject of study for many years and has led to different theories that explain the learning process. To go over them one by one would exceed the purpose of this dissertation, but an overview of the main paradigms is beneficial and even mandatory to grasp the evolution in learning theories and the corresponding consequences (Robertson 2007, Learning theory 2014):

One of the first theories that came about was ‘behaviorism’. It focuses on changes in behavior in the learner. Repetition of certain behavior, combined with immediate positive or negative reinforcement of the outcome, generates this change. It leads to numerous repetitive actions on the part of the student like chanting of key phrases. The teacher is the central figure in the classroom as he or she decides what the desired outcomes are and the setting wherein this happens.

In response to behaviorism a new theory came about, called cognitivism. It is a mental process concerning information processing, memorizing, etc. through good instruction. The focus lies on internal cognitive structuring, individual cognitive abilities and mental processes such as thinking, memory and problem-solving. People are no longer considered to be programmable animals that respond to reinforcements but rather rational beings that require active participation in order to learn. Constructivism suggests that learning is the result of mental construction. It is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge (Cunningham and Duffy 1996). Meaning is constructed from personal experiences. It is problem-based, adaptive learning that allows for creation of original work. There is a great focus on the learner as they continuously test hypotheses through social negotiation. They are self-directed, creative, innovative. The educator acts as a mentor while solving problems. The learning goal is the highest order of learning: heuristic problem solving, metacognitive knowledge, creativity, and originality that may modify existing knowledge and allow for creation of new knowledge.

!8

Bruner (1966) describes the key principles of constructivism. These are that instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (his/her readiness). Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student and instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information given).

Building on Bruner's early work, Driscoll (1994, p382) outlined what he describes as five conditions for learning:

• Complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. • Social negotiation as an integral part of learning. • Encouragement of multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. • Value and nurture reflexivity. • Emphasis on student-centered instruction.

Constructivism evolved through time into what we now call 'social constructivism'. This is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When one is immersed within a culture of this sort, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of that culture on many levels. It is emphasized that culture plays a large role in the cognitive development of a person. Its origins are largely attributed to Lev Vygotsky who focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford 1996). His theory (Vygotsky 1978) emphasizes that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive development. Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people and then inside the child. Vygotsky also stressed the importance of the 'more knowledgeable other'. This refers to anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or concept. Although it was only an incidental part of Vygotskyian theory his notion of the zone of proximal development has been particularly influential. It could be described as the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help. According to Vygotsky, learning occurs in this zone.

An evolution emerges from this overview. We are moving from a more individual, factual learning, towards a more open and social way of learning. The social context in which we live and learn everyday is an important parameter to be taken into account. The way we work together, exchange information and use this information, is becoming more and more important. 

Beetham and Sharpe (2013) talk about this shift too. They explain that new theoretical concepts and approaches begin to emerge in order to explain new ways of learning in our digital age. However, these new frameworks still call on the principles of the established theories. Pedagogy continues to be seen as guiding the learner to learn, but digital technologies trigger a different kind of relationship between the teacher, the learners, and what is being learned. Technology is at the service of effective learning experiences, so the discipline of learning in the new context of digital information and communication must be re-articulated. Learning is a set of personal and interpersonal activities, deeply rooted in specific social and cultural contexts. When those contexts change, how people learn changes also. One of those new theoretical frameworks for learning is called 'connectivism'. Siemens explains connectivism as follows:

!9

[Connectivism is] a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. How people work and function is altered when new tools are utilized.

(Siemens 2005 http://bit.ly/1mDzdTc)

It is based upon these observations: • Information is abundantly present in our world, more so than ever. • Informal learning is becoming increasingly important as a way we learn - cf. social practice

theory (Lave 1996). • Technological tools are shaping our thinking - cf. actor network theory (Latour 1988) and

distributed cognition (Hollan, Hutchins, Kirsh 2000). • Information is more chaotic than it used to be; it resides in more complex structures.

According to connectivism, knowledge resides in networks. More specifically in the nodes of a network. Knowledge is to be found in many different places: the human mind, computers, websites, books, etc. - cf. 'More Knowledgable Other' (Vygotsky 1978). It is in the connecting of the nodes that learning occurs: 'Connections create meaning' (Siemens 2008).

Siemens (2006) created this table to compare connectivism to the other major learning theories:

! Figure 1: Comparison of Connectivism with other pedagogies (Siemens 2006).

!10

Siemens and Downes (2011) offer 4 major types of activity to a connectivist workflow: • Aggregate - collect data. Find your way on the information highway and select those items

that seem important to you. It's impossible to process everything. Select your sources from the vast sea of information that is available.

• Remix - keep records. Try to keep track of the content you processed, try to log all your activities in order to find your way back to these valuable sources.

• Repurpose - create new content. Don't start from scratch, but instead relate to different sources and try to connect them in a way. Learn from your research and try to create new content with this knowledge.

• Feed Forward - share your work. When you create something, show it to others and maybe let them comment on it. Let others learn from your work and engage with it. This turns your node into a part of somebody's network and other people get to learn from it.

Downes (2007a) states that 'Connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks'. This shows that the social aspects presented by Vygotsky in social constructivism are still there, in fact connectivism builds on them, but it also incorporates the widespread use of technology to support learning and the abundance of information we have access to. Also, it emphasizes on information creation, rather than information consumption. A more open, connected and chaotic way of finding knowledge demands a framework that is highly adaptable and flexible. The connectivist framework does exactly that. Beetham and Sharpe (2013) are also open to changes in the way we learn. They explain that, while the systematic principles have changed little, the methods available to learners and teachers have evolved, and new approaches have proliferated.

2.2. Access to Information

Throughout time, we have gained different means of accessing knowledge and information. First we relied on oral traditions and after that on manually copied scrolls of text to learn from. This meant that information was both scarce and expensive. But ever since Gutenberg provided us with his new printing press, information could be distributed on a very large scale without too much trouble and it became cheap and relatively easy to come by. This situation has not changed ever since and now, in the 21st century, we have computers, smartphones, tablets ... to store and exchange information over the internet. Information on any subject is literally at our fingertips. Dillon (2008, p82) speaks of 'the new global networked library'. David Christian, historian and notable for a new discipline known as 'Big History', talks of 'collective learning':

The human language is a system of communication so powerful, so precise, that we can share what we've learned with such precision that it can accumulate in the collective memory, it can outlast the individuals who learned that information, it can accumulate from generation to generation. We seem to form a single global brain of 7 billion individuals, and that brain is learning at warp speed.

(Christian 2011 http://bit.ly/1BRliTf)

!11

The key technological breakthrough that enables us to build this 'collective knowledge' is the world wide web. This vast library of information on every topic imaginable is becoming such a fundamental presence in our lives that we cannot seem to work without it anymore. But it is even more than that. Not only do we rely heavily on the availability of information but also on the technology for delivering that information, the internet itself. Cloud computing (or distributed computing; the ability to store and exchange data via the internet on multiple devices) is becoming the standard. No longer are we dependent on physical devices like flash drives or optical discs for storing and exchanging information. We can simply transfer the data from one device to another wirelessly and over great distances, making it possible to share our thoughts with people all over the globe. We can now collect and discuss information on anything with anybody, whenever and wherever we want. This is true collective learning.

This platform for storing and sharing information does present us with the challenge of finding useful information. Of all the possible sources out there we need to be able to find the relevant ones for the context we are working in or check their authenticity. The abundance of information complicates things both quantitatively and qualitatively. We are bombarded with enormous amounts of 'hits' when we search a specific term. There is simply too much information out there for us to consume, let alone make sense of and connect them. Herein lies the qualitative problem. These millions and millions of hits cannot all be applicable to our search request. They are simply 'out there' and search engines (for now) offer possible results that may accommodate your request. So this ease of access to information is important because it potentially changes the way we handle information. We should be aware of the cost of the benefits of speed and availability, namely accuracy (The Virtual Revolution 2010). Sources of information that are based on solid research and knowledge continue to be extremely valuable, even in our information abundant world. 'Easy access to information can help, but it is no substitute for experience, understanding and expertise' (Higgins 2012, p20). In his Web 2.0 Expo keynote, Clay Shirky takes it one step further. He refers to what he calls 'post-Gutenberg economics':

The cost of producing anything by anyone has fallen through the floor. And so there's no economic logic that says that you have to filter for quality before you publish. The filter for quality is now way downstream of the site of production. What we're dealing with now is not the problem of information overload, because we're always dealing, and always have been dealing with information overload. Thinking about information overload isn't accurately describing the problem; thinking about filter failure is.

(Shirky 2008 http://bit.ly/1pLXieW)

He refers to the fact that at a certain time in history there were more books available than could be read in a lifetime. Information overload is therefore not a new problem. Filtering out the right information, connecting these sources and deducting new knowledge is exactly what the theory of connectivism proposes. Obtaining factual knowledge has little value in an information abundant world. Connecting reliable information and hereby growing intellectually, is.

!12

2.3. Being Connected in the Context of 21st Century Learning

I have talked about the shift from learning individually (behaviorism, cognitivism) to learning socially (social constructivism) and even offered the framework of connectivism as a new approach to take into account the changing tools and methods we use in learning. Also, the benefits and challenges of our information abundant world were presented. These two form the basis for this dissertation to identify the need for a connected way of learning. Being able to make good use of connected knowledge is needed to find the answers for our future problems. These problems will not be solved by individual scientists, but by teams of experts working together. Therefore, the necessity to learn and use the proper tools and skills to connect and exchange valuable information is clear. Before discussing these tools and skills, I want to point out what it means to be connected.

Being connected is all about engaging with other people. A lot of tools and services were invented for this very purpose during the last 2 decades. Some have come and gone, others have evolved to continue to meet the needs of the masses. Connecting with others means, for example, using social media. Wikipedia (Social media 2014) describes social media as 'the social interaction among people in which they create, share or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks'. This means that social media comprises of more than just websites like Facebook and Twitter but also include the creating and sharing of audio and video files, blogs, forums, wiki's, etc.

!13

To get a sense of how connectedness can be measured, Forrester Research offers a ladder of activity for users of online social media (2010):

! Figure 2: Ladder of activity for users of online social media (Forrester Research 2010).

The ladder of activity suggests that being connected is a progressive skill. Ascending the ladder means one is more connected than others. Being more active and connected in a certain field does offer more knowledge and a higher level of mastery, but one could argue that we need not be 'creators' in everything we do. It can be perfectly acceptable to be a 'collector' in one field and a 'critic' in another. It all depends on how far we want to go, aspiring a high level of understanding or merely 'the basics’.

Another way of describing the degree of being connected is Downes' 7 habits of 'highly connected people' (2008).

• Be reactive: comment on other people's work. • Go with the flow: try to add value rather than pursue a particular goal or objective.

!14

• Connection comes first: connecting with people has to be a priority. • Share: when you share, people are more willing to share with you. • Read the fine manual: make an effort to learn for yourself, only then reach out for help if you

cannot find the solution. • Cooperate: don't enforce your will, but collaborate with others. • Be yourself: recognize that your online life encompasses the many different facets of your life,

and it is important that these facets are all represented and work together.

Although far from complete, these two give us a good understanding of how to become connected and how to participate on different social media. With the coming of new (social) media and technological breakthroughs, these frameworks will change and adapt to these new tools. After all, social media are not to be seen as static but as a medium of continuous change, because to adapt is to survive.

2.4.Tools and Skills for Learning in Networks

A. Technology Enhanced Learning Environments

As human beings we learn in everything that we do. This means that any place can be a learning environment. In her paper on ‘Social Practice Theory’, Lave (1996) describes this identity changing activity that occurs in real-world learning environments. When learning occurs deliberately, usually in a more formal context, people tend to think of a school-like setting. To enable higher order thinking skills, this learning environment should be adequately equipped. In today's classrooms this is achieved by introducing numerous pedagogical methods, different sorts of instructions but also various forms of technology. After introducing different analog media, we've evolved to digital technology and now even work in a far less tangible environment due to cloud computing. Technology is playing a tremendous role in our lives and will continue to do so in the future. It's important to underline that technology should always be used to support learning and not as a goal in itself. However, technology can implicate a change in learning. According to Hollan, Hutchins and Kirsh (2000) the almost symbiotic way of man and machine can be advantageous to accomplish certain tasks, whereby technology can take on different tasks than solely the ones they were invented for.

Technology enhanced learning environments are not simply conjured up by the teacher, but should find their basis in a solid theory. One of those is presented here by Salmon (2000). She constructed a five-stage model for online activity:

!15

! Figure 3: Five-stage model for online activity (Salmon 2000).

The first of these is 'access and motivation' and this will involve such things as making the transitioning to working in a cloud-based environment. Once this has been achieved the learner may become part of a micro-community where they can feel safe. This is the level of online socialization. Building on the micro-community, information is explored and reacted upon. When this information exchange becomes a comfortable experience, the learner takes on more and more control of its own learning and knowledge can be constructed. Lastly, learning has evolved into a development state. The learner becomes able to build on the ideas acquired through the e-tivities and applying and integrating them into his own context.

These 5 important steps towards knowledge development describe a carefully planned journey of the importance of the social aspect and networked character of working together, culminating in the creation of information in a new context. To achieve this, we need technology, both hardware and software, to aggregate, remix and repurpose information, and to share it with the world:

Computers and laptops have been around for quite some time now. They make our lives so much easier, but are bulky machines that require a lot of effort from the user itself. Lately new devices are being developed to meet the needs of our busy and mobile world. Smartphones and tablets currently possess enough computer power to do almost any task which not so long ago required a full sized computer. Through them we are continuously connected to the internet while being extremely mobile and flexible. Technology pioneers are already ushering in the move to wearable technology with for instance Google Glasses and smart watches. Smart technology in general is entering the domain of our homes, cars, even our clothes to gather data and offer some service to make our lives easier. Certain trends appear (Wiley 2008):

• analog to digital • tethered to mobile • isolated to connected

!16

• generic to personal • consumption to creation • closed systems to open system

Together with the hundreds of thousands of apps available for all our new devices, enormous opportunities arise for us to take advantage of. We can communicate with others, gather information, create and share photos, videos, etc. We have the world in our pocket. These devices and apps also pose opportunities for education. Although they may not always be visible in the classroom, students are already using them on a massive scale such as social media to connect, online document generators to create and share assignments, audio and video aggregators to listen to music or learn how to play a new computer game. According to Richardson and Mancabelli (2011), students even believe that this online world should be extended into our schools.

With the technological upheaval of the last 20 years, education has tried to implement these new tools into its structure. Learning Management Systems (LMS) were created to emulate the classroom in an online environment. They recreate the traditional curriculum with a calendar, lesson materials, links to other sources, fora, tests, messaging services, etc. All of this is set up in a closed environment. You need to log-in to your institute's LMS and only then can you interact with your teacher and fellow students. This setup creates a false sense of being connected because you are still limited by the boundaries of the school. Connecting to an expert in a particular field outside of this setup is simply not possible. Discussing a subject with students from other schools or regions is not warranted due to the closed format of the LMS. True connections cannot be made in this context.

The alternative is to set up your own tools to create a network to connect to the people you want or need. Teachers and fellow students can still be part of that network, but the more open character enables you to include whomever you want. Constructing this personal learning network (PLN) involves the use of complementary online tools and services. Which ones to choose is entirely up to the learner in question. The student can decide for himself what platform or format suits his needs and use it as a part of his PLN. Of course, tools already used by peers may develop a greater appeal than others. Social conventions tend to drive people in a certain direction. This method of constructing your own learning network, empowers students in ways an LMS cannot. More openness also means that students themselves become more responsible for their own PLN, as this is no longer in the hands of the institute.

Wenger (1998) states that 'Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly'. Downes (2007b, p21) says 'To learn, is to immerse oneself in the network, learning is the participation in the community'. These approaches to learning show us that the need to connect to others is a crucial step in the learning experience (cf. social constructivism, connectivism). Engaging with others, interacting, is necessary to gain knowledge. As we move towards more content creation instead of mere content consumption, the strengths of a PLN as a technology enhanced learning environment become clear. Using your own tools and services enable the learner to create a wide variety of materials like text, images, audio, video, mind maps, timelines, etc. most of which are not possible to construct in an LMS. The community or network in the PLN offers greater benefits for learning than the group-based vision of the LMS.

!17

Downes (2007c) discusses this difference at length and offers this comparison between groups and networks, underlining the more open, democratic and decentralized character of the networked approach:

! Figure 4: Groups vs Networks (Downes 2007c).

A network offers the possibilities to explore information, create knowledge and interact with others. According to Downes (2007c), there are 4 main properties of a network that lead to knowledge: diversity, autonomy, connectedness and openness. He explains that a network should always involve the widest possible spectrum of points of view and that entities operate independently from each other. Also, due to the nature of the network, newly produced knowledge should be the product of an interaction, not an aggregation, between the members baring in mind that there should be no controlled or restricted access to information. Everyone should have access to the entire network. Gee (2005) offers similar insights when talking about affinity spaces. He stresses that:

In an affinity space, people relate to each other primarily in terms of common interests, endeavors, goals or practices, not primarily in terms of race, gender, age, disability or social class.

(Gee 2005, p225)

Gee offers 11 features for these affinity spaces, amongst which equality is a very important aspect. This becomes visible in knowledge production. It is both intensive and extensive, individual and distributed and lastly dispersed. Every member contributes to the project, without there being a central commanding structure to guide it all. People can take on different forms and routes to participation in the space and can always rely on 'leaders' in a particular aspect of the endeavor. Like Downes' properties of a network, there is a similar sense of openness, equality and diversity present.

!18

Richardson and Mancabelli define a PLN as follows:

A set of connections to people and resources both offline and online who enrich your learning […] it is passion that drives these connections, and that is the foundation for the PLN. A PLN is unique and it is created and developed to personalized learning goals that evolve and grow.

(Richardson and Mancabelli 2011, p2)

Chih-Hsiung (2012), while offering the same benefits mentioned earlier, also uncovers a number of obstacles. He mentions the learning curve for web 2.0 tools, which might be high for some people. When learned, the tools could be perceived as frustrating due to the responsibility of managing all of them. These remarks will also be discussed in the survey and interview analysis as they surfaced there too. Teachers, who have grown up in a world without internet, apps, smartphones, etc. tend to struggle with these new, highly interactive tools. Their seemingly chaotic structure does not come naturally. They need to acquire new skills, where the current generation, frequently being more digitally literate, are far more receptive to these new skills. Aside from these somewhat practical problems, Chih-Hsiung also speaks of a cultural phenomenon. Students might lack the self-regulation skills because they are accustomed to being told what to do and what to learn, rather than to determine and to manage their own learning. This observation is true for a lot of teachers who complain that students struggle with even the simplest task of reading the assignment properly. Experience shows that a lot of students need a handhold when working individually or in little groups. Working with clear guidelines, a roadmap of what has to be done, could prove useful. As Chih-Hsiung suggests, these self-regulating skills are important to thrive in a connected world.

B. Personal Learning Networks

Having demonstrated that the PLN has an advantage in 21st century education, I will now try to offer ways of constructing and maintaining a PLN. For this, we need to have some idea of the skills that will be needed in the future. Wagner (2010) suggests the following:

• Critical thinking and problem solving. • Collaboration across networks and leading by influence. • Agility and Adaptability. • Initiative and entrepreneurialism. • Effective oral and written communication. • Accessing and analyzing information. • Curiosity and imagination.

This skill set, combined with the connectivist workflow (Siemens and Downes 2011), can give us a foundation to work with when creating a PLN. However, it is very important to know that everybody's network will look a little different. We will connect to different people, use different tools to accomplish certain tasks, etc. This is perfectly acceptable and can even be beneficial for the network.

At this stage, the search begins for interesting apps/tools that appeal to your workflow and can help you with the different tasks as described above. There are thousands of useful tools out there, all of which are eligible to be integrated in a PLN. Going over them one by one would be a Sisyphean labor, not suited for this dissertation. There are many lists and suggestions of educational tools to be found

!19

online. Amongst them is this interesting overview by Mark Anderson (2014) connecting a number of apps to different 21st century skills and literacies:

! Figure 5: The periodic table of iPad apps (Anderson 2014).

To get an idea on how this all translates to the classroom environment, Richardson and Mancabelli (2011) offer methods for using networked learning spaces online in classrooms. According to them, it is important to connect students and teachers inside and outside the classroom. We need to step away from the lectures where students can make use of the expert teacher and move towards a more flexible way of supporting students' learning. The publishing of student and teacher work both locally and globally can be beneficial. It sets the stage for connecting with experts from around the world. Lastly they stress the need to collaborate with others to create and share knowledge.

Richardson and Mancabelli (2011) identify certain challenges for the networked classroom in different domains (safety and ethical use, transparency, ownership and copyrights, assessment and parents). Teaching students about online conduct and cyber-citizenship prepares them to safely work in any (unfiltered) environment. For this you need a clear set of rules and online conduct. This transparency is a corner stone for any project, since all parties involved (students, parents, teachers and administrators) need to be on the same page. When assessing student's work, we need to create new rubrics that include these digital literacies and skills. That said, our expectation on student's work need some revision as well. Note that change is inherent in PLN. New tools come and go, change their focus or take on new tasks offering greater functionality. These changes are part of our chaotic digital world. Learning to navigate through these sources, tools and services and learning to choose which ones to use in your PLN is key. This does not happen overnight. Through using them, you will find out which ones complement your workflow and which do not. Experiencing this evolution for yourself is part of the journey. What remains is a core set of vital tools and services that enrich your learning experience to the fullest.

!20

C. Digital Literacy

I have talked about the change in the learning process, the new technologies at hand and the new ways of integrating these technologies in the learning process. What is inherently connected with these innovations and absolutely necessary in our changing world are new (digital) literacies. It goes without saying that our proficiency in certain fields is inadequate to serve the current needs we face. Our literacies must evolve as well, to cope with all the innovations occurring in our personal and professional lives.

Henry Jenkins' work Confronting The Challenges of Participatory Culture (2009) offers tremendous insights in these new digital literacies we should make our own. To explain the change we are confronted with, he talks about 'the shift from a personal to a participatory culture, hereby changing the focus of literacy from individual expression to community involvement' (Jenkins 2009, p7). We are taking on more active roles in everything that is produced in our society. Therefore, new literacies must include a number of skills that build on the traditional literacies: research skills, technical skills and critical-analyses skills. An overview (Jenkins 2009, p35):

• Play - The capacity to experiment with the surroundings as a form of problem solving. • Performance - The ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and

discovery. • Simulation - The ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes. • Appropriation - The ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content. • Multitasking - The ability to scan the environment and shift focus onto salient details. • Distributed cognition - The ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental

capacities. • Collective intelligence - The ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward

a common goal. • Judgment - The ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information

sources. • Transmedia navigation - The ability to follow the flow of stories and information across

multiple modalities. • Networking - The ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information. • Negotiation - The ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting

multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms. These skills all complement the theories and frameworks offered earlier. The social and technology enhanced character of the learning experience are definitely there, complemented with traditional research literacies, that have shifted from content consumption to content creation (cf. Downes 2007b, Wiley 2008).

D. Making It Work

An important thought emerges from this research. It is vital that all of the components described earlier work together. It makes no sense to just buy technology and put it in front of students. We have to be mindful of how we will integrate it properly. A fairly new framework has emerged from this need for an all-round view on teacher competencies: the TPACK model by Mishra and Koehler (2006). The framework brings together three crucial fields of knowledge for implementing technology in the classroom.

!21

! Figure 6: TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006).

The three main circles talk of the three main knowledge areas a teacher must possess: content, and pedagogy are self-evident, but also technological knowledge is pivotal for a balanced teacher profile. There are also three overlapping areas that describe mixed forms of knowledge. Pedagogical Content Knowledge is knowing what teaching approaches fit the content. Technological Content Knowledge is about how the subject matter can be influenced by technology. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge speaks of how teaching may change as a result of using particular technologies. Finally there is the central area of the model, 'an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three components' (Mishra and Koehler 2006, p1028). It combines the knowledge of the subject matter, the pedagogy to implement this subject matter in a profound way and knowledge on the right technological tools that can support this kind of teaching. Mishra and Koehler summarize as follows:

Quality teaching requires developing an nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations.

(Mishra and Koehler 2008, p1029)

This thought is meant to be at the very center of this dissertation. I have talked about different models for learning throughout time and new frameworks that have emerged due to the ever growing implementation of technology and the changes it brings forth. Together with the changes in the way our society accesses and uses information on a daily basis, I tried to describe a platform for the teacher to prosper in. Constructing a good technology enhanced learning environment, connecting to the world around you through personal learning networks and possessing the right literacies to enrich your teaching are all coming together in this model. Technology is not here to replace teachers and we are not living in some kind of twisted dystopian future where students are simply to be

!22

programmed with knowledge. Technology, however, is a major part of our lives. It enriches our lives, and it expands it. Education should be a mirror of that, creating a playground for students to find their talents, but also to prepare them for the world that is out there. To do just that, we need a balanced way of teaching that comprises of the three knowledge areas of the TPACK model.

!23

3. Methodology The shift in thinking about education in a digital age, as described in this dissertation, made me want to research these changes and their inherent challenges in a local context. In doing so, I wanted to find an answer to the following questions: Which changes are already taking place in education? What form do they take on and what differences may exist between teachers?

In this chapter I will start by giving an overview of the methods used for this research. Then, the group of respondents for both the survey and interviews I have conducted, will be described. Also, I will talk about the ethics involved to ensure a clear and honest partnership. Next, the survey and interviews themselves will be addressed, followed by the analytical procedures I undertook and my reflections on the research.

As will become apparent, I have put much effort in creating a group of people from different fields and levels in education. Questioning and interviewing them happened in a very clearly described context, to ensure their anonymity but also to create the feeling of sincerity. While preparing the survey and interview, I made sure that the questions were in accordance with the research questions I wanted answered. Some of them were taken care of in the literature review, others needed clarification through the methods described here. The analytical procedures were customized to make sure they gave a good representation of the gathered data. For example, certain steps were taken to enable me to really talk with the interview respondents, instead of them answering more questions. All these actions proved enlightening and sometimes challenging for me, but in the end brought the research together.

3.1. Methods

In the existing literature, different methods of research are described. Since I was interested in two types of questions namely ‘what were educators already doing' and ‘why were they doing that', I chose to do a more quantitative oriented survey, followed by a qualitative interview. Baarda (2009) explains the quantitative survey as wanting to know the degree to which a pre-defined phenomenon occurs. Normally a survey would take a sample of a large amount of people to get the most accurate results possible. Although the reach of my survey was limited, I am still confident that the results offer the answers I needed. Wanting to know what technology was being used by educators, I clearly needed a quantitative outcome. The survey formed the basis for the creation of the interview questions. I deliberately chose this research method because of its more personal nature. This is best described by Cohen, Manion and Morrison:

The interview is a flexible tool for data collection, enabling multi-sensory channels to be used: verbal, non-verbal, spoken and heard. The order of the interview may be controlled while still giving space for spontaneity, and the interviewer can press not only for complete answers but also for responses about complex and deep issues. In short, the interview is a powerful implement for researchers.

(Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, p349)

Amongst an elaborate list of types of interviews, Cohen, Manion and Morrison mention the 'interview guide approach'. The topics to be discussed are outlined in advance, but there is still room for

!24

changes in the course of the interview. This enables the interviewer to anticipate possible gaps and act on them. Nevertheless, leaving a strict systematic approach behind, data analysis can prove difficult. 'The interviewers flexibility in sequencing and wording can result in substantially different responses, thus reducing the comparability of responses' (Patton 1980, p206). In retrospect, the more open character of the interview guide approach, offered substantial benefits for this research.

The following evidence matrix shows how the methodology of this dissertation is related to the research questions:

Figure 7: Evidence Matrix.

3.2. Respondents and Ethics

For this research I ran a survey on 28 people ranging from 20 to over 50 years of age. They were chosen based upon their age, but more so on their fields of expertise and the level of education they were teaching at. I made sure the respondents consisted of both digital literates and illiterates.

! Figure 8: Survey age groups.

Research Question Literature Review Survey Interview

How has learning changed? x

How has access to information changed? xWhat does being connected mean in the context of 21st century learning? x x x

How does one construct and maintain a personal learning network? x x x

What role can personal learning networks play in the life of teachers? x

What are the differences in teachers' take-up of personal learning networks? x x

7%11%

46%

36% 20-3031-4041-50>50

!25

! Figure 9: Level of ICT-skills.

The survey was composed to get a clear view on what educators were already doing technology-wise and how they integrated technology in their personal and professional lives. The survey was set up to ask them how they gathered information and which tools were involved? I also tried to find out if their use of technology was based on a PLN or if they operated within the confines of the LMS. Finally, and most importantly, I asked for changes in their behavior towards their teaching: What was the influence of technology on their rules of conduct in the classroom when preparing and letting students prepare assignments?

Based on the outcomes, I conducted a more in-depth interview with 6 respondents of that group. Their field of expertise and level of education were, again, the reasons for their selection. However, since I tried to gather more information on the 'why' instead of the 'what' of their pursuits (which was done in the survey), the interview was also guided by the survey answers. Here is an overview of the 6 interview respondents:

A. Male, age: 40-50 years, experience in K-12 education (grades 1-6) and college university, ICT level: expert.

B. Female, age: 20-30 years, novice teacher in K-12 education (grades 9-10), ICT level: low-medium.

C. Male, age: 20-30 years, experience in K-12 education (grades 11-12), ICT level: medium-high.

D. Male, age: 40-50 years, experience in K-12 education (grades 9-10), ICT level: medium-high. E. Male, age: 30-40 years, experience in K-12 education (grades 7-8), ICT level: low-medium. F. Female, age: 30-40 years, experience in K-12 education (grades 9-10), ICT level: low-

medium. Beforehand, I presented the possible candidates for both the survey and interview with an information sheet and a consent form (see appendix 1 and 2), which they all subscribed to. I managed to offer a reliable and ethical overview of what was to be expected from the participants and what they could expect from me. They were all informed about:

• the goal of the dissertation. • their data being anonymized. • what their data was used for and what would happen with it after the dissertation. • their right to withdraw at any time during the research.

In retrospect, I think this part of the dissertation might have been an easily forgotten step, but I made sure it received the attention it deserved. I found it enlightening, both for me and the recipient, to take

36%

54%

11%

Non-existentLowMediumHighExpert

!26

a moment and really make sure that all bases were covered. This way, a trustworthy context was set up to participate in, all in accordance with the Sheffield Hallam research ethics policy.

3.3. Survey and Interviews

The survey had to take on a quantitative character. As mentioned before, I wanted to get a feel of what was being done with technology. How much did the recipients invest in technology? What were their methods of conduct in using technology? In trying to get a sense of how much technology was integrated in the personal and professional lives of different educators, the survey was comprised of several multiple choice questions enabling the respondents to describe their technological context. To make sure I was on the right track, I let one of my fellow students on the TELIC course proofread the survey. Her experiences when filling it out, proved very helpful. The 15 definitive questions of the survey can be consulted in appendix 3, along with the results. It took the respondents approximately 10 minutes each to complete the form and send the data to me. 

Using an online form creator, I was able to roll out the survey both quickly and with great flexibility. Each of the respondents could fill out the survey wherever and whenever they wanted. The service enabled me to keep an eye on who had already submitted their answers and who had not. When the deadline drew closer, I only needed to remind 2 participants the due date was approaching. Because the survey was rolled out at the end of the school year, when most teachers still have a lot of (administrative) tasks on their hands, I was pleasantly surprised that everything went smoothly. Another benefit of the online form creator was the automated collecting of the data. All the submitted answers were automatically placed in a spreadsheet table that enabled me to keep a close look on the incoming forms. I did not encounter any of the possible challenges involving the possibility of respondents' unfamiliarity with web-based questionnaires, as described by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007).

After reading the results for the survey, I came up with 10 basic questions for the interviews (see appendix 4) which focussed on the reasons behind their choices. At the same time, I wanted freedom of movement during the conversation to let myself wander from the set questions and get a clear idea of what was conveyed to me. I was able to steer the interview towards different examples of technology in use, letting the respondents explain the context in which they operated. This was achieved naturally by the respondents themselves, while talking about a specific topic, but also because I asked questions specific to the conversation to extract the necessary information. The more qualitative role enabled me to interpret their rationale. As will be explained in the analytical procedures, this proved quite helpful. Conducting the interviews took between 15 to 40 minutes. They happened mostly in a homely setting with few disruptive elements. I recorded the conversation we had, enabling me to devote all my attention to the interview itself and not to taking notes.

3.4. Analytical procedures

After the data gathering for the survey was over, I copied the data from the online form creator to a proper spreadsheet app and started producing the graphs to get a better and more relevant look on the submitted answers. After editing them to ensure maximum clarity, I studied them thoroughly and began brainstorming on possible questions for the interview. Working with the research questions in mind, I came up with a set of 10 basic questions to start from, intentionally leaving room for both the

!27

respondents and myself to elaborate on the subject at hand. It happened more than once during the interview that the respondents (unknowingly) mixed the answers for different questions together. I was able to bypass this because of the deliberate open character of the interview. Knowing the 10 different basic questions, but not sticking to them per se, I could lead the conversation towards other areas that still needed some discussion. The interview therefore had a free and open feel to it, yet still properly prepared and structured to ensure all the necessary data was gathered.

Afterwards, all the interviews were transcribed and anonymized in order to be used in this dissertation. An example of the transcriptions can be found in appendix 5. During transcribing the interviews, I did not always type out word for word what was said, but left out small irrelevant side notes that came up during our talk. The transcriptions therefore are still relevant, in that they represent a very close version of the actual interview, yet at the same time they were cleared from unnecessary lines that proved non-contributive to the research.

I made a thematic analysis of the survey and the interviews. The questions from both of them (see appendix 3 and 4) were designed to touch on a couple of themes. The survey started off with a questions about how the respondents gathered information and a quick assessment of their ICT-skills. I wanted to know how they used technology in both a personal and professional context. After gauging their experience with the LMS, I finished with the impact of technology on the way they interacted with their students (communication, setting up assignments and student preparation). In the interview, these themes returned, but now asking for a more in-depth explanation of why different decisions were made. 

3.5. Reflections

Never having done this before, I was a bit nervous going about creating and conducting both the survey and interviews. With an exception here and there, I think I managed to ascertain the right things. When constructing the survey, I noticed how significant little changes to the questions or possible answers could be. For instance the option to indicate only one or multiple answers can make a lot of difference. Also, the wording of the questions was carefully thought about, because I wanted to make sure that the idea behind the question, what I wanted to find out, was conveyed properly. Lastly, the framework of the literature review and the research questions helped guide me in a certain direction.

With the interviews I took on a different approach. I needed a free hand, so to speak. As I started to outline a number of questions to ask, I felt a little constrained by them. Therefore I shifted my approach to use them as a basis to start from, but also permitting me to wander a bit and delve deeper into the matter. As the interviews progressed, this proved a very useful method for me. In retrospect, due to the smaller scale of this research, I still felt that more could have been gotten out of the interviews. Sometimes, I wanted to go back and discuss certain aspects even more. However, further research is always possible and this dissertation makes no exception. 

!28

4. Analysis In this analysis of the survey and the interview, I will explain the data that I received. I will not create a linear account of question and answer, but rather an overview of the results and how they explained the different themes. In doing this, I aim to create a better feel for the current state of connectedness of teachers and their relation with technology.

4.1. Survey

The survey showed that most participants judge themselves to have a normal to high knowledge about general developments in education. Most of the time they gather this knowledge through talking with colleagues and reading different media. There is a significant group that also uses the internet to connect to information about the topic and/or other people who can help in this field. For example, general educational topics are talked about on a regular basis in the staff room and people discuss different events surrounding education. The election of a new minister of education, for instance, but also new job responsibilities, internal school decisions, etc. are a frequent topic of conversation. Therefore it was not at all surprising that most people gathered this information through 'traditional' channels, being their colleagues, newspapers and news programs on television, although a significant number of people also used online sources to gather information. Reflecting on their ICT-skills, respondents thought of themselves as moderately to highly capable of working with ICT, with a few exceptions that ventured into the realm of experts. Probably due to the nature of the subject, a large number of people looked online to acquire more information on ICT in general, but still the main sources used were colleagues and different 'traditional' media.

When learning new skills, most respondents tend to look online for information. Also, just tinkering with a tool on their own and/or consulting an expert is high on the list. They seem to rely on people they know personally, rather than asking an online network or forum which might suggest that they fear to openly acknowledge the fact that they require information. This is also represented by the answers for how they go about integrating new technology in their work context. A staggering 79% says that they would 'just try out new tools/skills'. This result is not proof of confident, highly skilled teachers, but rather as a fall back on their own classroom, where no one can see what it is they are doing. I came to this conclusion due to answers given in the interview. Some respondents suggested that backbiting and gossip are common practice and this observation absolutely prohibited them to open up their classroom to colleagues. The fear of being judged instead of finding positive feedback from colleagues still prevails in schools. The interview proved to be a good context to talk about this issue in more detail.

My restraint concerning the openness of educators 'just trying out new tools and skills', was confirmed when reading the results for question 7: online activities they have participated in. All of the respondents marked some form of online interaction. However, the majority was limited to information consumption rather than information creation. Looking back on the survey, I wondered what the respondents would have answered if the possibilities were more diverse. 'Uploading video/audio you created' received 16 votes. I would like to know how much of them are talking about a short video made on vacation or during a family trip, and how many are talking about actual self made educational videos for instance. During the interview, I tried to make this distinction of how technology was used (personally vs professionally).

!29

The following questions on the use of ICT in the classroom hold the same reservation. I think that educators are indeed using different tools and services to implement in their classes, but again I feel the need to express my concern about the extent of this innovation. Looking for information online and preparing a presentation on the gathered information is not that innovative anymore and yet the outcomes of the interview show just this. ICT is mainly used for information retrieving and bundling in some form of document.

As in most schools, an LMS is used by the institute to centralize all sorts of information and communication. All but one respondent is familiar with it. Most of them have offered online materials to their students or use it for teacher-student communication, etc. I find that an LMS creates a safe environment for teachers to work in. It is something they have to work with and therefore, to a certain extent, use it with their students. I find that true engagement with their students remains to be seen. Opinions on connecting to students outside of the classroom vary greatly, signaling hesitation of working outside the safety of the LMS.

My suspicions about the classroom being a safe haven for teachers and operating within the confines of the LMS are confirmed by the last two questions. When asked about more expert level activities in the classroom, about half of the participants do not reach the needed level of expertise to facilitate students in these ways. Despite the enormous possibilities offered by the internet, a lot of educators still use traditional assignments. They even expect students to be honest in this and not share their work for others to copy. A smaller group of respondents is currently engaged in transforming assignments to work with the possibilities of the internet, instead of minimizing them. These last questions, again confirm the hesitant use of technology in education, despite their enriching possibilities for the classroom.

4.2. Interview

For the interview, I started by figuring out how big a role technology was playing in the lives of the respondents. I had a good idea in advance, but wanted to avoid misconceptions on my part that might have influenced the interview. Through the different sessions it became very clear that technology definitely had some part to play in the lives of the educators, be it great or small. Some of them used it quite extensively throughout the day, depending on different services and apps to support their daily tasks. Others just enjoyed their Facebook accounts or a simple cellphone (so called 'dumbphone') to communicate with friends and family, without looking for ways to implement technology on a wider scale. All of the respondents emphasized the importance and benefits of technology, but all of them found ways to implement it at a level they were personally comfortable with. One of them said that '...[technology] makes life easier but it must have a surplus value. If it has no surplus value, than I will not use it’.

When asked if they would experiment with online services in the classroom versus remaining in the confines of the LMS (the survey showed that all but one used an LMS in their professional context), responses diverted more. Another useful thought came up during an interview: 'Education can not be pinned down to 1 learning tool, it is the same with technology'. This respondent, being one of the expert users of technology, was experimenting with different tools and services in the classroom. He explained to me that his students would benefit from all the new and different experiences. It would

!30

enrich them. However, there were others who disagreed and pointed out that working in 1 preset context, i.e. an LMS provided by the institute, offered stability and a very clear understanding of what was to be expected from the students. According to them, using different tools and services would make things unnecessarily complex for both student and teacher.

As was to be expected, the level of appreciation for using technology in the classroom apart from the LMS was proportional to the extent of using those same technologies in their personal context. Respondents who were active on a lot of services and/or platforms could see the benefits of using them in a classroom environment, whereas those who limited themselves to just a couple of tools, usually were content with the possibilities of the LMS, most of all its comprehensive character. A number of participants expressed their desire to work with more tools, but had difficulties finding the time to do so. The novice teacher, who was part of this group, told me that finding out what to do the next day or week, preparing administrative tasks before a parent-teacher-meeting, etc. was time-consuming enough. Other, more experienced teachers, also complained about the same lack of time. Pursuing this problem, I managed to find out something closely related to the problem of being unable to integrate more technology in the classroom. A large number of the participants had difficulty finding out how to incorporate this technology in their classes - cf. TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler d2006), obstacles for technology implementation (Chih-Hsiung 2012). Figuring out how to translate their existing 'traditional' lesson plans into new 'innovative' digital learning experiences proved to be a difficult, yet necessary task.

When asked to describe their own PLN, a lot of tools for information gathering (news sites, online magazines, RSS) and social media (Facebook, Twitter) were elected 'favorite apps'. Apart from sharing an interesting link through the respondents' social media channels or socially bookmark it (Diigo, Delicious), not much was done with all this information gathering on a social level. Valuable information was used as or transformed into course materials, but no new information was created. None of the respondents kept a blog or actively used some kind of platform to eagerly share personally created information. Again, the lack of time was named the number one reason for not doing that. Some of the respondents felt they were not up for the job, finding that they would not have something valuable to contribute to the (educational) community.

Sharing information with colleagues divided the interview respondents in two groups. They all thought that sincerely sharing knowledge, tips, lesson materials, etc. was very useful and 'collegial'. Those who were open to the idea of sharing good practices did want to make sure that whatever it was they wanted to share was properly tested and found useful before opening the door to their classroom. However, there were those that feared that despite their preparations their colleagues would be more interested in witnessing their mistakes during an open session, than to really try to look for the surplus value of an app/service/tool.

As a final part of the interview, I wanted to talk about the value of using technology in the classroom and the inherent change it triggered, or the lack thereof. All participants were convinced of the surplus value of technology, saying that students were more interested, more engaged with the materials and remembered the content better. Some of them also mentioned that our students will live in a technology driven world, even more so than now, so we should prepare them as best as we can. This being said, I found that when technology was being used in the classroom, the necessary changes were not always applied - cf. TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006). I asked two key questions to come to this conclusion. I wanted to know if any of them changed the way they setup

!31

their assignments due to the possibilities of technology. By this I wanted to ascertain if they, for example, provided a number of web-links in a class group on Facebook in order to support the assignment, or offered video tutorials for students to use when preparing exercises. The LMS was brought forth as a solution in these matters. Students were given a number of sources to accompany an assignment, but none as elaborate as the examples I mentioned. The same was true for the methods of preparation by the students. Letting students present an assignment in the form of a timeline, a comic book, a poster, etc. were not that popular alternatives to the traditional presentations, as over half of the participants shared. Others stuck with the form factor described in their method or whatever format proved familiar. When I asked why, the same reasons were identified: time and knowhow.

!32

5. Discussion After consulting the existing literature on the topic of being a connected educator and collecting my own data on the current state of technology implementation in education, I would like to take the time to discuss three main themes that present themselves. First, I will talk about the connectedness of educators and what it could mean for them. Secondly, the tools that are being used by educators, the scope that takes on and the possibilities that still lie ahead. Lastly, there is the role of technology in a personal and professional setting. The optimal way of integrating technology and the way to get there. Discussing these topics will prove that technology is an essential part of education but needs a clearer, more defined way of integrating it substantially.

5.1. On 'Being Connected'

Educators have found the way to technology in general. Our world demands it but as individuals they too can certainly see the value of using technology in the classroom. Throughout the last couple of decades we have used several means to complement our teaching. Both the survey and interviews show that they are fully aware of the benefits and are open to the idea of integrating technology in their own environment. On a personal level, teachers tend to select a number of apps/services that enable them to connect to people they know in their daily lives: friends, family, co-workers, etc. Producing and sharing different media to interact with those people is very common. These closer ties that often have a real-world basis are a huge part of their network, if not all of it. In this regard, being connected has taken on the form of affirming the offline relations in an online presence. When looking beyond that factor, the landscape changes dramatically. For a lot of people being connected stops right there. Others do venture on and try to interact with a wider audience. These can be colleagues in a wider context than the current institute they are working in, sometimes crossing national boundaries or even continents. The wider the reach of the network, the more connected the person tends to be. This is not necessarily a quantitative statement about the number of connections in the network, but more about the quality of the connections in it. The 'experts' in the group of respondents tend to use this extended network to their benefit, to ask questions, interact on a regular basis, etc. in other words, providing an active two-way stream of information. Their network transcends the mere affirmation of offline relations, they create new online connections. These networked teachers tend to feel more confident and conscience about what it is they are doing. It adds to their teaching experience socially, but also in an information and pedagogical kind of sense.

Being connected is currently taking on very diverse forms. A lot of teachers are participating in a technology enhanced and networked environment, but only a minority takes it to the next level by crossing already existing offline relations. If we compare this to the 'ladder of activity' (Forrester Research 2010), the results are very much the same. There are a lot of people who take on the role of spectators or joiners, and only a few of them evolve to the level of conversationalists or creators. In the literature review I mentioned that the ladder may suggest a progressive nature and also that this is not a mandatory property. However, when talking about education, it is desirable to strive for a certain excellence in the teaching profession. Training teachers to make the most of a networked, creative role will benefit students in the end. So a higher level on the ladder of activity, concerning topics in one’s field, is desirable. Similarly, Downes' 'habits of highly connected people' (2007c) show a number of actions that are missing in the workflow of a large part of the respondents. Where we do see these habits actively being performed, education rises above what we are used to. The use of different kinds

!33

of media in the classroom, stimulating students to make use of the available online tools, actively encouraging working together, all create a momentum that is ripe with opportunities and demonstrate that technology's most important benefit is its ability to amplify what we can do.

5.2. On 'The Role of Tools and Services'

As to what tools are used in current networks and what role they take on, this too is proportional to reach and scope of the network. Less connected educators tend to use less tools and even those tools are used almost exclusively in their personal lives. They are separated from their professional contexts. The more connected the educator becomes, the more active he/she will look for options that reach beyond the confines of the institute. The LMS, which is the number one tool used in most institutes, then becomes almost obsolete. Tools of all kinds suddenly have this educational value and are considered an option to be used in the classroom. It seems that with the will to expand the network (quantitatively and qualitatively), the boundaries become more vague. Solutions are found to embed these new tools in the classroom.

Social media take on a large portion of the tools that are used. They are the most common, both on a personal and professional level. News sites and/or online magazines are next. The consumption of information remains the number one activity for most teachers. Some of them enter the next phase of meaningfully storing the found data, only few of them eventually share educational information with their network. This can be done by social media, but also in more productive ways like a blog or other formats. In that respect, certain tools/services can take on multiple purposes. Where for one social media can be used to share vacation photos with friends and family, others enable it to communicate with students, creating polls, provide useful links, etc. Also, linking multiple apps together is possible. Searching for relevant information on a topic, bookmarking it socially, sharing the bookmark through social media and blogging about its contents, demonstrates this.

5.3. On 'Personal Learning Networks'

The existing networks are usually constructed by widely used tools out there. Taking on a more innovative role and actively looking for new tools that are not yet considered mainstream, happens less. Novices tend to participate in the networks that are used by their peers, whereas experts are fond of exploring the road less traveled. The wider the network grows, the more tools are taken on, and then the need for things like an RSS reader, a social bookmarking tool, note-sharing services, etc. becomes greater. Working with a lot or a few tools does not affect the demand for mobile devices, however. The majority of participants did own a smartphone and/or tablet, sharing this common trend with the general public. The number of tasks conducted with it, does depend on the level of experience of the user. For one teacher the PLN takes on a more conversational form, for others it goes far beyond that: interaction, information exchange, information creation and sharing, reflecting, contributing, etc. The difference in teachers' take-up of their network is primarily found in their persistence to learn and use the tools.

As mentioned before, a number of participants could not find the time to ascertain the workflow of certain apps/services. It stands in contrast to the innovators, that do explore new possibilities. As teachers are taking on more and more different tasks besides teaching, it is conceivable that time is indeed a factor to be reckoned with. But the main reason for not finding out more about potential

!34

tools for their network is knowhow. I frequently came across teachers saying that they love to implement more technology but lack the knowledge to do so. It seems that it has become imperative to instruct teachers in this technology integrating process (cf. TPACK model, Mishra and Koehler, 2006). This can be done in multiple ways. Richardson and Mancabelli (2011) start with making a compelling case for integrating technology followed by forming a change team that will help with the implementation. Lastly a pilot project will enable teachers to practice their use of learning networks and disseminate ideas throughout the school. However, things can also be conducted in a smaller way by teachers who are taking the initiative in technology enhanced learning, opening up their classroom to demonstrate good practices. I mentioned earlier that not all respondents were in favor of this due to the visiting teachers different motives. However, there is so much to learn from each other. The trick will be to change the present culture in education to a more open and sharing form. Taking small steps towards that change in the form of sharing good practices on a small scale, perhaps between befriended colleagues, can prove beneficial. Even the simple sharing of new, challenging lesson materials can help take steps in the right direction. Luckily, we can see examples of good cooperation and sharing surfacing in all levels of education.

!35

6. Conclusion As this dissertation comes to an end, I want to summarize its highlights. I have discussed the existing theories and frameworks that point to a more technology supported way of teaching. The research itself explained the challenges that educators still have and offer a picture of what role technology is currently playing. However, I also want to offer other research possibilities. Certain aspects arose during the creation of this work that suggested interesting results but were beyond the scope of this dissertation. Some of them will be mentioned here as a suggestion for future endeavors. Finally, my personal journey in creating this work is touched upon.

6.1. The Literature

Building on the traditional learning theory of (social) constructivism, I have presented connectivism as a new, emerging framework that embraces the changes we currently encounter (Siemens 2006). As our society is evolving into one where people must be able to work together and use more and different forms of technology to amplify both their personal and professional lives, we must find new ways to prepare students to cope in this brave new world. I have also demonstrated that we currently face a fundamental shift in access to information. We carry the knowledge of the world in our pocket. Information is everywhere. This reality means having the skills to find and connect pieces of knowledge together to solve the future problems that we may face. These will require flexible and competent teams of people who know how to constructively share their work and contribute to one another. To explain this, I gave two examples that clearly show what it means to be actively connected ('The ladder of activity' by Forrester Research, 2010 and Downes' 'Habits of highly connected people', 2008). The PLN was put forth as a means to an end.

Building a network of interesting people, supported by a number of tools for accessing, remixing and sharing information (Downes 2007b) proved to be challenging, yet necessary. It enables us to connect and learn from each other. For this construction, new literacies are needed to construct this PLN. These traditional and digital literacies are not mutually exclusive, but build on top of each other to provide the best skills for learning (Beetham and Sharpe 2013). Lastly the TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler 2006) emphasized that as teachers we need knowledge in three domains: content, pedagogy and technology. This almost symbiotic working together and influencing each other, demonstrates the width of the needed capacities for teachers.

21st century teaching should prepare students for our changing world, equipping them with the best skills and capacities to 'make it'. As teachers, this means that we need to prepare ourselves by being open to students working together, supported by different forms of technology.

6.2. The Research

The research shows that being connected, at the moment, can take on very diverse forms. Ranging from using social media to connect to friends and family to truly reaching out and connecting with experts from around the world. Technology being able to amplify our reach, holds enormous opportunities to learn from a global community of educators. Leaving the 'standard' collection of apps for personal use and setting out to explore new ways of using technology in a more profound way is desirable. An important feature that emerged was that a lot of teachers lack the capacities of

!36

translating their current lesson materials into powerful digital tools to support the learning process. Current teacher training courses should therefore take into account the TPACK model (Mishra and Koehler 2006) as a means to prepare new teachers for this task, but at the same time, current teachers should receive new training in the same field.

Learning how to use these new tools opens the gate for more innovative teaching. Expert users of educational technology are able to leave behind the LMS and venture off in the rich world of personally constructed environments, the PLN. Furthermore, teachers should be encouraged to learn from each other. Creating a more open culture or sharing and learning from colleagues is the path to a more technology enhanced education. Opening up the classroom and inviting others to have a look, can be truly beneficial for all parties involved.

6.3. Further Research Options

In order to demonstrate the limitations of this dissertation, I would like to offer a few possibilities for future research. Gathering data with a greater audience could provide a better view on the scope of teacher limitations. In relation to this, preparing an in-depth review of a number of apps/services that can be used in different levels of education, could provide teachers with very concrete data on what to use and how to use it. A case-study of a pilot group integrating the way of teaching described in this dissertation could offer insights of a very practical nature, providing real-world problems and solutions. For a more academic work, the validity of connectivism as a proper learning theory could be researched. This could take on the form of an in-depth look at Siemens' theory and comparing it with the existing literature and a close examination of its properties in real life.

As this dissertation plays with the various ways of teaching, a final suggestion can be found in the very nature of our education. The more open, social and technology driven classroom described here, offers far greater possibilities than just the transformation of the traditional model into a digital one. Finding out how we can structurally change the format of education as we know it today, could have great consequences on how students learn. For example, the way we offer classes based upon age groups is something that could be viewed upon as counterproductive. Teaching as described in this dissertation could have a far greater effect when combined with a less assessment-based education that lets students evolve at their own pace. Research on more modular forms of technology supported education, where students evolve through a custom-made course, could prove interesting.

6.4. My Journey

This academic ride through the field of technology enhanced learning, innovation and change has confronted me with a lot of new theories and insights. I have used a number of them to build my case for a more technology supported way of teaching and what it means to be a connected teacher in the 21st century. Personally, I feel I have grown in my views upon education. A number of its facets are more clear and this will definitely affect my own teaching. At the same time I feel a strong sense of confirmation when thinking about freeing up education, passing its current limitations and venturing off in new and different formats that complement the learning styles students of tomorrow need. I want to learn more, try out new tools and services and share my experiences with others, hoping to learn from them as well. This ever-changing technology driven world continues to be a very interesting one. Possibilities are endless, opportunities are up for grabs. Let's seize them.

!37

References

• ANDERSON, M. (2014). The periodic table of iPad apps. ICTEvangelist. [online]. Posted 23 July 2014. Last accessed at: http://ictevangelist.com/periodic-table-ipad-apps/

• BAARDA, B. (2009). Dit is onderzoek! Handleiding voor kwantitatief en kwalitatief onderzoek. Groningen/Houten, Noordhoff Uitgevers bv.

• BEETHAM, H. and SHARPE, R. (eds.) (2013). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning (Second Edition). London, Routlegde.

• BRUNER, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• CHIH-HSIUNG, Tu et al. (2012). The Integration of Personal Learning Environments & Open Network Learning Environments. TechTrends. 56 (3), 13-19.

• CHRISTIAN, D. (2011). The History Of Our World. [online]. From YouTube last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://youtu.be/yqc9zX04DXs

• COHEN, L., MANION, L. and MORRISON, K. (2011). Research methods in education. 6th ed., London and New York, Routledge.

• CRAWFORD, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches to human development in the information era. Educational Studies in Mathematics. (31), 43-62.

• CUNNINGHAM, D., DUFFY, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 170-198.

• DILLON, D. (2008). A World Infinite and Accessible: Digital Ubiquity, the Adaptable Library, and the End of Information. Journal of Library Administration, 48:1, 69-83.

• DOWNES, S. (2007a). What connectivism is. Half an Hour. [online]. Posted 3 February 2007. Last accessed at: http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html.

• DOWNES, S. (2007b). Learning Networks in Practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning. 2, 19-27

• DOWNES, S. (2007c). Groups Vs Networks: The Class Struggle Continues. Stephen's Web. [online]. Posted 24 November 2007. Last accessed at: http://www.downes.ca/post/42521

• DOWNES, S. (2008). Seven habits of highly connected people. Stephen's web. [online]. Posted 18 April 2008. Last accessed at: http://www.downes.ca/post/44261

• DRISCOLL, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon. • FORRESTER RESEARCH (2010). The Data Digest: Twitter And Social Technographics.

Reineke Reitsma's Blog. [online]. Published 22 January 2010. Last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://blogs.forrester.com/market_research/2010/01/the-data-digest-twitter-and-social-technographics.html

• GEE, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: from The Age of Mythology to today's schools. In: David Barton and Karin Tusting (eds.) Beyond Communities of Practice. pp. 214-232. [Online]. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Last accessed 20 August 2014 at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

• HIGGINS, S., XIAO, Z., KATSIPATAKI, M. (2012). The Impact of Digital Technology on Learning: A Summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. Durham University, Education Endowment Foundation.

!38

• HOLLAN, J., HUTCHINS, E., KIRSH, D. (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward A New Foundation For Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transcriptions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7 (2), 174-196.

• JENKINS, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. London, MIT Press.

• LAVE, J. (1996). Teaching, As Learning, In Practice. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3 (3), 149-164.

• LATOUR, B. (1988). Mixing Humans And NonHumans Together: The Sociology Of A Door-Closer. Social Problems, 35 (3), 298-310.

• Learning theory. (2014). [online]. Last modified 16 August. Last accessed 24 August at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_theory_(education)

• MISHRA, P. and KOEHLER, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

• PATTON, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. • RICHARDSON, W. (2007). Personal Learning Networks. [online]. From YouTube last

accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://youtu.be/mghGV37TeK8 • RICHARDSON, W. and MANCABELLI, R. (2011). Personal Learning Networks: Using the

Power of Connections to Transform Education. Bloomington, Solution Tree Press. • ROBERTSON, I. (2007). Introduction to Learning Theories. [online]. From YouTube last

accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://youtu.be/hsX5Tq3WTBw • ROBINSON, K. (2006). School kills creativity. [online]. From TED last accessed 5 August

2014 at: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html • SALMON, G. (2011). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. 3rd ed., London,

Routledge. • SALMON, G. (2013). E-tivities: the key to active online learning. 2nd ed., London, Routledge. • Clay Shirky: It's not information overload, it's filter failure. (2008). [online]. From Blip.tv last

accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://blip.tv/web2expo/web-2-0-expo-ny-clay-shirky-shirky-com-it-s-not-information-overload-it-s-filter-failure-1283699

• SIEMENS, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory For The Digital Age. [online]. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1), last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

• SIEMENS, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Past Time of the Self-Amused. Manitoba, Canada: Learning Technologies Centre.

• SIEMENS, G. (2008). What is connectivism? [online]. Canada: University of Manitoba. Connectivism and Connective Knowledge MOOC, last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://elearnspace.org/media/WhatIsConnectivism/player.html

• SIEMENS, G., DOWNES, S. (2011). Connectivism and Connected Knowledge 2011. [online]. Last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://cck11.mooc.ca/index.html

• Social media. (2014). [online]. Last modified 24 August. Last accessed 24 August at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

• The Virtual Revolution. The great leveling. (2010). [online]. BBC2. 29 May. From YouTube last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://youtu.be/hBZ018z2WKM

• VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• WAGNER, T. (2010). The global achievement gap - Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need - And what we can do about it. New York, Basic Books.

!39

• WENGER, E. (1998). Communities of practice - A Brief Introduction. [online]. In: WENGER, E. Communities of Practice. Cambridge, University Press. Last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://wenger-trayner.com/theory/

• WILEY, D. (2008). Openness and the disaggregated future of higher education. [online]. Slides from a presentation. Last accessed 5 August 2014 at: http://www.slideshare.net/opencontent/openness-and-the-disaggregated-future-of-higher-education-presentation

!40

Illustrations

Figure 1: Comparison of Connectivism with other pedagogies (Siemens 2006). Figure 2: Ladder of activity for users of online social media (Forrester Research 2010). Figure 3: Five-stage model for online activity (Salmon 2000). Figure 4: Groups vs Networks (Downes 2007c). Figure 5: The periodic table of iPad apps (Anderson 2014). Figure 6: TPACK framework (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Figure 7: Evidence Matrix (Was 2014). Figure 8: Survey age groups (Was 2014). Figure 9: Level of ICT-skills (Was 2014).

!41

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Research Participant Information Sheet

You are invited to participate in my dissertation project for the Sheffield Hallam MSc. Technology Enhanced Learning, Innovation & Change course.

If you agree to take part you will be asked to participate in a survey and/or talk to me about your experiences with the current changes in education and the necessary tools and skills to function in this context. This interview will be audio recorded and transcribed. It will take place at a time and place to suit you. You will be provided with a transcript of the recording on order to check it for accuracy. You will have an opportunity to discuss your participation in this study at any point. The data collected will be kept securely by me. My supervisors will only see coded data. At the end of the study the audio recordings and the copies of the paper diaries will be destroyed. The data will not be used in any other studies or research. I will use this data to examine what it means to be a connected educator and what the perceived value of being connected is. This work will be written up in a public dissertation. In these public documents you will remain anonymous and a coding system will be used to protect your identity and that of your course.

Participation is entirely voluntary. If you decide at any point that you no longer wish to take part you will be free to withdraw or withhold information. If you have any concerns during the study or afterwards you will be able to contact my course leader, Richard Pountney (r.p.pountney@shu.ac.uk) or my dissertation supervisor, professor Guy Merchant (g.h.merchant@shu.ac.uk).

If you have any further questions about the above or any other aspects of the research I will be very pleased to answer them.

!42

Appendix 2 - Research Participant Consent Form

TITLE OF STUDY: Technology Enhanced Teaching in 21st Century Education.

RESEARCHER: Lars Was

COURSE LEADER / SUPERVISOR: Richard Pountney / Guy Merchant

Please answer the following questions by circling your responses Have you read and understood the information sheet about this study?

YES - NO

Have you been able to ask questions about this study?

YES - NO

Have you received enough information about this study?

YES - NO

Do you understand that you are free to withdraw from this study? • At any time? YES - NO • Without giving a reason for your withdrawal? YES - NO

Your responses will be anonymized before they are analyzed. Do you give permission for myself and my supervisors to have access to your anonymized responses?

YES - NO

Do you agree to take part in this study?

YES - NO

Your signature will certify that you have voluntarily decided to take part in this research study having read and understood the information in the sheet for participants. It will also certify that you have had adequate opportunity to discuss the study with an investigator and that all questions have been answered to your satisfaction.

Signature of participant: Date:

Name (block letters):

Signature of investigator: Date:

!43

Appendix 3 - Survey and Results

Introduction:

I am Lars Was, student at Sheffield-Hallam University for the MSc. Technology Enhanced Learning, Innovation and Change course. I am currently in my last year, which means I am working on a dissertation on 'Technology Enhanced Teaching in 21st Century Education’. For my research I need to gather data on the subject. This information you will provide will remain confidential at all times, your name will not be mentioned in the report. Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer these questions. This should take no longer than 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Name:

Age: • 20-30 (10) • 30-40 (13) • 40-50 (3) • >50 (2)

!

7%11%

46%

36% 20-3031-4041-50>50

!44

1) How would you describe your knowledge on developments in education in general? • Non-existent (0) • Low (3) • Medium (15) • High (10) • Expert (0)

!

2) How do you stay informed about these new (general) developments in education? (Multiple answers possible)

• I do not gather information on the subject. (0) • I would like to gather information, but I don't know how. (3) • I talk with colleagues. (27) • I read different media on the topic. (22) • I actively search for information on the internet about the topic. (13) • I connect to an online network of people who are equally concerned about the topic. (15)

!

36%

54%

11%

Non-existentLowMediumHighExpert

19%

16%

28%

34%

4%

I do not gather information on the subject.I would like to gather information, but I don't know how.I talk with colleagues.I read different media on the topic.I actively search for information on the internet about the topic.I connect to an online network of people who are equally concerned about the topic.

!45

3) How would you describe your ICT-skills? • Digitally illiterate (0) • Low (2) • Medium (14) • High (9) • Expert (3)

!

4) How do you stay informed on new developments in ICT-skills? (Multiple answers possible) • I do not gather information on the subject. (0) • I would like to be informed, but I don't now how. (2) • I talk with colleagues. (25) • I read different media on the topic. (21) • I actively search for information on the internet about the topic. (13) • I connect to an online network of people who are equally concerned about the topic. (13)

!

11%

32%50%

7%

Digitally illiterateLowMediumHighExpert

18%

18%

28%

34%

3%

I do not gather information on the subject.I would like to be informed, but I don't now how.I talk with colleagues.I read different media on the topic.I actively search for information on the internet about the topic.I connect to an online network of people who are equally concerned about the topic.

!46

5) When you do need to learn new ICT-skills, how do you go about that? (Multiple answers possible) • I would try to figure it out on my own. (18) • I look for a book that could be of help (... for dummies, etc.) (3) • I seek the help of someone who is an expert on the matter. (15) • I look for information online (explanations, videos, etc.) (24) • I connect with my online network for help. (9)

!

6) When you have learned these new ICT-skills, how would you apply them in the work context? • I would not apply them, I am not comfortable with them. (1) • I would suggest them, but leave the application to experts. (2) • I would try it out with the help of others. (3) • I would take the lead and just try it out in my work context. (22)

!

13%

35%

22%

4%

26%

I would try to figure it out on my own.I look for a book that could be of help (... for dummies, etc.)I seek the help of someone who is an expert on the matter.I look for information online (explanations, videos, etc.)I connect with my online network for help.

79%

11%7%4%

I would not apply them, I am not comfortable with them.I would suggest them, but leave the application to experts.I would try it out with the help of others.I would take the lead and just try it out in my work context.

!47

7) Have you participated in any of the following activities? (Multiple answers possible) • Read ratings or reviews. (25) • Create ratings of reviews. (12) • Read blogs. (25) • Comment on blogs. (18) • Publish or maintain a blog. (11) • Participate in discussion boards. (15) • Passively use social networking sites. (25) • Actively use social networking sites. (23) • Watch user generated video. (28) • Listen to podcasts. (17) • Upload video/audio you created. (16) • Tag web pages. (19) • Use RSS-feeds. (4) • Use a LMS. (26) • Create content for a LMS. (19)

!

Read ratings or reviews.Create ratings of reviews.

Read blogs.Comment on blogs.

Publish or maintain a blog.Participate in discussion boards.

Passively use social networking sites.Actively use social networking sites.

Watch user generated video.Listen to podcasts.

Upload video/audio you created.Tag web pages.Use RSS-feeds.

Use a LMS.Create content for a LMS.

0 7,5 15 22,5 30

!48

8) Do you use ICT-tools inside and/or outside your classroom? • No (0) • Occasionally, I will go to a computer lab to work on assignments. (12) • Yes, the computer lab has no secrets for me, but also in 'regular' classrooms, technology is

frequently present. (16)

!

9) Do you use technology professionally? • No (0) • Occasionally, I use a word-processor to create tests, assignments and exams. (2) • I look for course materials and other information on the internet. (5) • Yes, I use technology all the time: looking for information, creating course materials, sending

and receiving student work, etc. (21)

!

57%

43%

No

Occasionally, I will go to a computerlab to work on assignments.

Yes, the computerlab has no secrets for me, but also in 'regular' classrooms, technology is frequently present.

75%

18%

7%

No

Occasionally, I use a word-processor to create tests, assignments and exams.

I look for course materials and other information on the internet.

Yes, I use technology all the time: looking for information, creating course materials,sending and receiving student work, etc.

!49

10) Do you use technology personally? • No (0) • Occasionally, I look for information online, but only if I can not find it offline. (0) • Technology has a part in my life, I find it very useful, but I still use offline tools like grocery

lists, reminders, contacts book, etc. (21) • Yes! Technology is fully integrated. I live (almost) paperless and can not miss my smartphone/

tablet. (7)

!

11) Does your organization use an LMS? If so, which one? • We do not use a LMS. (1) • Blackboard (1) • Moodle (1) • Smartschool (22) • Toledo (2) • Other (1: Dokeos)

!

25%

75%

No

Occasionally, I look for information online, but only if I can not find it offline.

Technology has a part in my life, I find it very useful, but I still use offline tools like grocery lists,reminders, contacts book, etc.

Yes! Technology is fully integrated. I live (almost) paperless and can not miss my smartphone/tablet.

We do not use a LMS.Blackboard

Moodle

SmartschoolToledo

Other (Dokeos)

0 7,5 15 22,5 30

!50

12) How would you describe your feelings toward this LMS? • I hardly use it. (4) • I only use certain aspects of the LMS (ex. mailing system). (6) • I use it regularly in my work context. (17) • I am a LMS-guru. (1)

!

13) Do you engage with your students outside the classroom? • No (9) • Sometimes, I will connect to them through different media. (9) • Yes! I am regularly having a conversation with my students through different media. (10)

!

4%

61%

21%

14%

I hardly use it.I only use certain aspects of the LMS (ex. mail).I use it regularly in my work context.I am a LMS-guru.

36%

32%

32%

No.Yes! I am regularly having a conversation with my students through different media.Sometimes, I will connect to them through different media

!51

14) How did the internet/technology change the way you setup assignments? • I use the materials from our method/book/etc. (5) • I sometimes check for plagiarism to make sure students create their own texts, but I assume

they prepare their work honestly and individually. (13) • I no longer ask questions based upon remembering, but want them to analyze and/or

evaluate information, thus making the task impossible to copy. (10)

!

15) How did the internet/technology change the way you let students prepare for an assignment? • It didn't. The materials from our method/book are up-to-date and therefore right for the job.

(4) • Students have to look things up on the internet and then create documents or presentations

for their assignment. (16) • I expect them to work together, using different (online) tools to present their assignment. (8)

!

36%

46%

18%

I use the materials from our method/book/etc.

I sometimes check for plagiarism to make sure students create their own texts,but I assume they prepare their work honestly and individually.

I no longer ask questions based upon remembering, but want them to analyse and/orevaluate information, thus making the task impossible to copy.

29%

57%

14%

It didn't. The materials from our method/book are up-to-date and therefore right for the job.

Students have to look things up on the internet and then create documents orpresentations for their assignment.

I expect them to work together, using different (online) tools to present their assignment.

!52

Appendix 4 - Interview - Basic Questions

• Basic questions that serve as a basis for the interview. New questions may arise due to the specific answers of the recipients:

• Technology is more often used in a professional setting and less often in a personal setting, is that the case with you + why (not)?

• If technology is used for education, is it limited to the confines of the LMS + why (not)? • What do you think is the main difference between personal tools (PLN) and an LMS? • Draw, describe and explain your PLN. • When trying out new tools in education, would you be willing to share this experience with

others + why? (open classroom) • What helps/prevents you to share? (time, platform, copyright)

• Is using technology having a surplus value for your students + why? • Students using technology too?

• You did/did not change the way you setup assignments because of technology, why is that? • You did/did not change the way you let students prepare for assignments because of

technology, why is that?

!53

Appendix 5 - Interview - Example

Technology is more often used in a professional setting and less often in a personal setting, is that the case with you + why (not)?

During my teacher training we were asked to create and use a blog to document our learning processes, which I did. After that my graduation, I was no longer registered to be able to change/

update my blog. So it is still out there, but I cannot work with it any longer.

Would you consider it a benefit to use it again in your professional context?

I have used blogs in my English classes where I asked my students to write on a weekly basis about anything, just to get them writing. I found that very useful to get my students thinking about their

writing skills. However, I cannot see why I should keep a blog. I like the things I do, but I do not feel the need to share those experiences with others. Maybe if I would travel, because then you would

have a purpose to write.

Do you actively look for information about both education in general or very specific information relating to your courses. You could even start blogging about those subject. How you feel about them or why you (dis)agree with them.

I do gather information via Zite (app), Klasse (educational magazine), conversations with colleagues, but I still do not feel the need to blog about it.

What about sharing just the link to an interesting article, without blogging about it?

I can see myself doing that, yes.

Do you find it meaningful to share information?

I would like it that other people benefit from information I shared.

So technology is mostly a personal tool, with sometimes an extension into my professional life.

The context of my professional situation does not enable a very important role for technology.

What about if you worked at a place that was highly technology driven?

I think technology would have a bigger part in my professional life.

You do use other tools than only the LMS, can you give some examples?

Of course, I show some videos in the classroom, students have to gather information and generate a presentation via Prezi/PowerPoint.

What about audio files? Have you tried to let students record an audio file and have them sent it to you?

!54

No, not yet. What I usually do is letting my students work with reviews, they have to look things up and form an opinion about it.

Is the reason behind that, that there is so much to be found online and you therefor have adapted to that reality to avoid only looking for information, but instead evolved to using available information to form an opinion?

Yes, as a language teacher you should be aware that information is out there, so I would like my students to do something with it, instead of just copying it. Also, curriculum objectives state that

students need to learn how to use sources, form an opinion.

How do students need to submit their work (paper, via LMS ...)?

I use Ephorus (plagiarism detection tool) and the LMS to have a formal place of submission. I frequently print the assignments to correct them due to compatibility issues (different platforms). I do like to correct digitally, but due to past technological problems I avoid them altogether by printing out

important assignments.

Building on your response about the LMS, do all your assignments have to be submitted in the LMS, is that your 'home base' or are you open to other options?

No, the LMS is not my go to environment for turning in assignments, although I am a fan, but at the same time I acknowledge that students simply avoid the platform. I use it for 'official' communication

(course materials, course overviews, etc.), feedback/personal communication is usually given in the classroom. The LMS is more like the central hub.

What do you think is the main difference between personal tools (PLN) and an LMS?

I think gathering information through different sources can be beneficial, if you know where to look, but it seems that students find this discovering of new sources difficult.

Why?

There is so much information out there and it is our job as teachers to teach them how to coop with that. But if I look to my own situation, I started actively looking for information in my higher education,

during secondary education, students tend to just work with the information that is provided by the teacher. I think students have only 2 or 3 channels of information, which is very manageable.

Combined with the LMS as a central hub, that might make more sense to them opposed to offering the entire internet.

Draw, describe and explain your PLN.

I use a couple of newspaper sites and other bookmarks, Zite (app), Klasse (educational magazine), Facebook.

Do you follow people/organizations with an educational background?

I do not follow people I do not know. I do follow friends, people I know, who are active in the educational field. People who share interesting links etc.

!55

Do you share links, etc.?

No, I tend to lurk, I do not share. I cannot see what I have to share to the world.

Do you collect relevant information?

I have downloaded webpages, to use at a later time, but it does not work as I would like it to. Are there apps/tools to do that better?

Sure, Pinterest, Delicious, Diigo come to mind...

Do these allow you to privately collect relevant websites?

Yes. After you collect information, do you actually use it at a later time?

Not really, due to those technical problems, but maybe in the future if I would to use those suggested apps.

Do you use the information indirectly in the classroom?

Yes, sometimes. For instance, next year we use a new method which contain good sources to use. I would not want then to use even more materials. It seems like a burden to my students and/or

colleagues.

When trying out new tools in education, would you be willing to share this experience with others + why? (open classroom)

I am open to it, but it is something we do far to little in our school.

What helps/prevents you to share? (time, platform, copyright)

I would like someone to come and have a look and give me some constructive feedback. After that I would open my classroom to more colleagues. I need the confirmation that 'it works'. Also, students

should be informed about it. Important is the mindset people use when they enter my classroom. They need to be open to learn

new things, have a look at how I do things and not want to 'evaluate' my teaching.

Is using technology having a surplus value for your students + why?

Yes, I think that my students are more motivated. It is easier for them to open up Facebook and find relevant information, than going to an LMS, opening Word-files with information etc. It lowers the

threshold to engage with the curriculum.

Students using technology too?

!56

Yes! But I have my doubts about technology being used in higher education. If I look at my own time on the university, I was thought in ways that have existed for hundreds of years. There were no new,

innovating methods of teaching...

Do you think that if we would introduce those innovative methods in secondary education, we would enable students to use them later on as well?

I think it would be very meaningful, but I do not have that reflex to look for new tools to open up my teaching. In my own education, that reflex was never encouraged, even more, I was almost advised

against it. Libraries, etc. were not equipped to enable cooperation. Look at our own institute. Our library is mostly used by students who want to study or explain things to each other, but a lot of

supervisors tend to enforce silence, forbid the use of technology, etc. Even now we do not enable these ideal spaces to work together.

!57