Canadian Network for Innovation and Education
A Presentation for CNIE 2014
May 15, 2014
Dr. Nancy Stuewe
University of Calgary
Alberta Canada
nmstuewe@gmail.com
Abstract: Concerns about the slow adoption of technology by
teachers is not new and rapid technological changes have increased the
likelihood that teachers will have to grapple with unfamiliar technology. This
paper highlights a framework of enablers for teachers to make sense of their
experience with new and emerging technology. It is taken from the study,
Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. This
framework outlines characteristics of internal affordance (teacher capacity),
external affordances including dynamic professional development experiences, a collaborative
culture of lifelong learning and inevitable constraints with something new. Constraints
were not seen as barriers in opposition of the enablers. The study found limitations
of time, infrastructure, and opportunities for teacher learning challenged the
teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology. The data also revealed a personal
capacity to be open to the possibility that a new technology might present and a
strong supportive ecosystem had a powerful impact in facilitating the process
of sense making. A constructivist teaching and learning environment invited
teachers as participants in the process of learning. As participants the
teachers had the capacity to act within their environment, thus the weight of
the constraints was diminished. The study also concluded, teachers who do not
have the opportunity to see themselves, as learners will find it more and more
difficult to cope with the endlessly changing landscape influenced by
educational technology. Teachers will benefit from participating in building
personal pathways for sense making of new and emerging technology.
Introduction
It has been suggested that the role of teachers be reworked
“from knowledge authority to an architect of learning - one who plans, designs
and oversees learning activities” (Government of
Alberta, 2010b)
while at the same time there has been a call for teachers to use technology
differently to support a constructivist approach (Glassett &
Schrum, 2009; Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012). Educational technology
research has also identified many barriers for teachers to integrate new and
emerging technology in their teaching and learning environments (Allen, 2008; Ertmer,
2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Olsen, Recker, Robertshaw, Sellers, &
Walker, 2011; Schoepp, 2004). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to
describe the role and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to
teaching and learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will
build (Shepherd, 2011;
Stuewe, 2013a).
A teacher/architect oversees learning and is mindful of an interior and
exterior view. They design and plan activities that maximize internal
personalized learning experiences while directing their students outward to
scan the horizon for connections with others and prior life experiences. In this role the teacher uses “new
technologies as designers and creators of knowledge” (Government of
Alberta, 2010b).
A challenge for teachers as UNESCO (2008) has reported is that our relationship
with digital technology is dramatically transforming the way we live in the
world. The rise of the knowledge economy, as well the rapid technological
changes have also increased the likelihood that both new and experienced
teachers will regularly come in contact with new and emerging [unfamiliar]
technology (Willis, 2001). The architect role also
reflects the notion that, “technology makes things possible, people make things
happen” (Government of
Alberta, 2010a).
The task for teachers is to provide enriched learning experiences in a
responsive environment where the learning need drives the use and choice of
technology. This role also incorporates the idea that if the changing nature of
technology is to be beneficial, new and emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will
have to be explored by teachers.
This paper reports on key findings taken from, Unfamiliar
Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study. Findings revealed that
the role of teachers within a constructivist teaching and learning environment
was like an architect of learning. This paper will highlight the attributes of
this role and the environment that supported the teacher participants in the
descriptive case study. It will also propose an interconnected responsibility
to bolster teacher capacity to become architects of learning.
Literature Review
The study Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning:
A Case Study was situated within a constructivist framework. Constructivism
proposes that learning is a complex process that is influenced by the learner’s
needs and desires. The role of the teacher is like an architect of learning. Concerns
about the slow adoption of technology by teachers are not new and sense making
of new technology is an active process for teachers. This process is based on
their own knowledge, beliefs, experiences and the social situation in which
they find themselves (Stuewe, 2013b). Given this, I present, based on the review of
the literature, a framework of enablers aiming to highlight pathways for
teachers to make sense of innovation. This framework outlines characteristics
of internal affordance (teacher capacity), external affordances including
effective professional development, and potential constraints.
Teacher capacity
Studies have also shown that teachers who experienced agency
within their work can become active performers. According to Ketelaar,
Beijaard, Boshuizen, and Den Brok (2012) teachers can feel in control
of the choices they make based upon personal goals, interests, and motivations.
In their multiple method study of sense making and agency, teachers as
individuals “need to experience a certain amount of autonomy and room for
negotiation within their school” (p. 275). In addition, Duffy and
Cunningham (1996) stated that the constructivist environment affords students
and teachers opportunities to participate in purposeful choices within their
community of learning. Intrinsic motivation to attempt the unfamiliar is
bolstered as a result of providing a certain amount of personal agency. Zhao,
Frank, and Ellefson (2006) added that capacity is a
collection of knowledge, belief, and skills. For a teacher using unfamiliar
technology this includes knowledge of: technology as a solution to problems,
including beliefs, skills, and attitude toward technology; enabling conditions
of technology use; and convenient access to support.
In addition, Schrum, Shelly,
and Miller (2008)
with a mixed method approach sought to examine how teachers who are already
tech-savvy acquired the knowledge and skill they have to use the technology that
was available to them. Teachers overcame challenges, and recognized the unique
attributes of their personal or professional practice. The tech-savvy teachers’
willingness to utilize technology was demonstrated through a sacrifice of
personal resources. They made considerable effort to learn about, acquire, and
use technology with no support. They were confident enough to overcome a fear
of failure in using technology in front of increasingly tech-savvy students.
The teachers also valued learning ahead of their personal pride or egos. Schrum
et al. found that tech-savvy teachers had a strong desire for continued or
life-long learning. These teachers felt that using technology had risks that
would cost some class time but that the rewards outweighed the risks.
Schrum et al. (2008) concluded from the study that time and
funding were a significant personal and professional constraint to the goal of
implementing technology in the classroom. Yet even when time and funding were
not provided, many of these tech-savvy teachers sacrificed their own resources
so they could continue to teach with technology. They reported that it was
clear to them that teachers who are not “tech-savvy” have a need for assistance
when dealing with unfamiliar technology. What emerged from the review of this
study is an understanding of a need for teachers to develop a capacity to
entertain unfamiliar technology. It is important to note, with a new
understanding of knowledge, that no technology by itself will promote
significant pedagogical change without a willingness to embrace this change.
Are we asking all teachers to become tech-savvy in order to adopt innovation?
This highlights a need to support teachers to develop willingness to try and
envision change.
Denning and
Dunham (2010)
have stated, “anything we do in the world is enabled by our embodied capacity
for action” (p. 80). A powerful learning cycle they believe is a continuing
cycle of practice and reflection. Simply put during practice we engage in
action with others. Then during reflection we step back and in a sense become
observers of our actions. To complete the cycle of learning we then plan for
the next round of action. To entertain an unfamiliar technology is to keep an
open mind about its potential, examine it use, question its value, and consider
its place in the classroom. This process suggests a complex quality or
capability connected to the individual teacher. As Schrum et al. (2008)
suggested teacher capacity is more than just skill. It is an intrinsic,
internal capability. It is being open to possibilities; and a commitment to
life-long learning. It is a willingness that pulls these attributes together
with agency that reported as a playful nature. It is an attitude of continual
learning and risk-taking and a curiosity to build, explore, and learn with
their students. Included is judgment— “the capacity not merely to respond
passively to events but to make decisions actively in different contexts” (Derry, 2008,
p.508).
Levin and Wadmany (2008) have suggested that one size will
not fit all when looking to develop teacher capacity to work in
technology-based environments. Levin and Wadmany highlight teachers’ learning
of technology should be conceived as part of a culture of life-long learning,
knowledge sharing, and peer interaction. “Asking teachers to share their
stories and reflect on their ICT integration experiences is another potential
method for highlighting, understanding, and appropriately shaping personal
beliefs regarding desired ICT practices” (p. 257).
External affordance
According to Ackermann (2004) if we believe, as
constructivists do, that we learn by relating to others and acting in the
world, then our capacity for action is not reliant solely on an internal
capability. With this approach to learning, external affordances can be thought
of as qualities in the teaching and learning environment, not what the
environment controls, but what the environment might invite an individual’s
capacity to act. These affordances are not seen as intrinsic, but rather as
intentional affordances in the environment. According to (Zhang &
Patel, 2006)
the environment is not limited to the terrain, but also includes objects and
structures within it. Affordances in the environment are what it offers, what
it provides, what it furnishes, and what it invites. We must not only examine
the individual teacher but also the interactions with the whole teaching and
learning environment.
In addition Zhao, Frank, and Ellefson (2006) in a study of meaningful
teaching and learning with technology found that affordances within the school
environment could enable teacher capacity for experimentation with technology.
Zhao et al. highlighted a need to provide teachers not only with access to
technology, but also with time to play while developing a culture of
collaborative learning communities and ensuring on-site mentors. Further, professional
development opportunities they believed should be conducted in settings that
are similar to the classroom context of teachers.
The age-old strategy for helping teachers to adjust to new
priorities has been teacher professional development (PD) (Cunningham &
Allen, 2010).
Yet given new findings from the learning sciences about the nature of
knowledge, teacher learning should be based on transformation of the individual
rather than transmission of knowledge (Edwards, 2012). “The teacher who steadily
learns from and about the work becomes, in time, a learned being” (Hansen &
Laverty, 2010).
This notion of teachers as participants in learning rather than as passive
receivers of knowledge rests in a constructivist framework (Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996).
How we invite teachers to participate in change and professional learning could
enable them to be more prepared to entertain unfamiliar technology.
Borko (2004) has found that professional
development can help teachers construct understanding of content knowledge and
change their instructional practice (p. 5). Contemporary reform according to Wood (2007), expands professional
development and calls for teacher professional learning communities to build on
the idea of “knowledge-of-practice” (p. 284). Teacher learning communities then
take on more constructivist principles that encompass the perspective of the
learner in the form of professional networks, critical friends, study groups,
and teacher-researcher collaborations. Teachers need these opportunities to
collaborate in order to build on what they perceive to be their own needs. Wood
notes that professional learning communities may promote deep and sustained
thinking and analysis about education and offer opportunities to tap into tacit
knowledge. Hargreaves (2003) also noted that professional learning communities
seem to work best with high-capacity teachers in high-capacity systems.
The implication of this section of the literature review is
that helpful elements of teacher professional development with unfamiliar
technology are similar to meaningful learning with technology rooted in the
constructivist tradition of education. This suggests that the constructivist
approach to learning is not only applicable to students but to teachers as
well. Both learning events work best when situated in relevant context with a
focus on subject matter and involve hands-on experiences that engage, such as
solving real problems. Both involve reflection, support, and strong
collaborative learning communities.
Exploring constraints
Any discussion of technology adoption must also consider
constraints (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012).
Educational technology research has identified potential barriers to the
successful integration of technology (Allen, 2008;
Ertmer, 2005; Glassett & Schrum, 2009; Olsen et al., 2011; Schoepp, 2004). Some research has focused on
internal individual characteristics of teachers, other research on external
environmental barriers. As has been widely documented, teachers often lack the
time and technology skills for effective technology integration. Ertmer (2005)
suggested that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs may be at work. However according
to Allen (2008) research that focused on barriers has failed “to offer insight
into the learning experience that invites practicing teachers, situated within
their classrooms, to transform their frames of reference on practice” (p. 23).
In their conceptual exploration of distributed cognition,
representation, and affordances Zhang and Patel (2006) described attributes of
the environment as being coupled with the capacity of an individual that
provides them with facility to act. Constraints are just part of the teaching
and learning environment; they are the conditions and relationships amongst the
attributes that make up the choices to act. Kennewell (2001) also pointed out
that constraints are not the opposite of affordance. They are just painted lines
on the road that both restrict and guide us. Kennewell described the
relationship between affordances and constraints as didactical, “goal-directed
actions in relation to tasks which have been designed to bring about learning”
(p. 105). In this framework, learning is an active process that involves a
change in abilities. A classroom teacher may design learning tasks with both
affordances and constraints. To achieve learning, effort is required. If the
task is too easy or too hard, little learning will occur and
affordances-constraints then need to be adjusted. The teacher’s role is to
adjust constraints and provide support in making learning possible, but not to
trivialize the experience.
Zhang and Patel (2006) have suggested that constraints can
be a natural part of a distributed framework of affordances between: a)
external structures--information in the environment; b) internal perception of
the situation--the decision-making abilities of the individual and ability
(capacity) to act; and c) constraints. It is a relationship that generates
action as it extends across the external environment (school) and the internal
organism (teacher). Affordances and constraints should be considered in
relation to the abilities of teachers and their ease or freedom in using
technology in their classrooms. If there are simple constraints such as a
program or application crashing and the teacher feels confident to trouble
shoot, use a different program, or do an unplanned activity, then the teacher
has what Zhang and Patel have called allowable action. If however there are the
constraints in the environment that are outside the teacher’s control, skill,
or understanding, then allowable action is diminished. Perhaps the teacher has
planned to show a video but cannot without upgrading to a newer version of the software
to play it. The teacher with no administrator privileges to upgrade the
software has no facility to overcome the constraint. In this case the teacher
is likely frustrated while waiting for outside help to control the constraint. Zhang
and Patel explained that affordances can be seen as distributed, guided, and
constrained by the physical, cultural, and social contexts in which they are
situated. Allowable actions can be negotiated if a teacher has facility, power,
or understanding to address the constraints. The implication is to find ways of
minimizing constraints in the environment and to increase the teacher’s
capacity for action.
Research Design
Given the complexity of human behaviours, attitudes, and
beliefs, the study was designed to utilize a descriptive case study
methodology. This approach was an effective strategy to capture the openness of
experience in its natural setting. What came from getting to know the case was,
an enhanced understanding of the capacity of teachers to be like architects of
learning. The case provided a rich description of the three teachers’ capacity
to use unfamiliar technology within a framework of enablers.
The descriptive case study, Unfamiliar Technology and the
Architect of Learning (Stuewe, 2013b) was designed to explore two
main questions: 1) How do teachers make sense of new and emerging technology to
enhance teaching and learning? 2) How might these teachers’ insights inform
strategies to support the implementation of a new technology in teaching and
learning? The methods of data collection used to address these questions were
interview, observation, and informal dialogue. The study was concerned with
teacher experience with unfamiliar technology as a process. Underpinning this
approach was a constructivist theoretical framework: that knowledge is a social
and interpretive process. From this perspective the study was “without
expectation of causal explanation” (Stake, 1995).
As the researcher, I focused on the interactions between the
other available technology, the teaching and learning process and the process
of sense making not just for the individual but also in the social context. I
designed the study to capture happenings, expand knowledge, and inform broader
understanding beyond the case It had several synergetic goals: a) to describe
teacher experience with unfamiliar technology and the context of their
experience; b) to explore possible motivations, tensions, and affordances to
entertain unfamiliar technology; and c) to interpret these events as lessons
learned in order to develop ideas for support and further study. Evidence was
collected from a range of sources: face-to-face interviews; participant-observation;
documents; and artifacts of both digital and hardcopy classroom documents.
The data were collected from three different teachers in two
different schools in a Western Canadian city over a four-month period. In
School One two teachers taught in grade 3-4 classrooms and in School Two the
teacher taught grade 7. At the time of the study, iPads were completely new to
the teaching and learning environment as they were first available in Canada
only in the Spring of 2010.
Findings
Through analysis of the interview and observation data,
three factors emerged. First, the teachers’ capacity as architects was seen as
a key enabler. The attributes of this capacity that emerged were seen as an
internal quality that enabled the teachers to entertain unfamiliar technology.
Each of the three teachers had an individual capacity to be open to the
possibilities the iPad might present. They chose to learn about the iPad in
their own time as well as with and in front of their students. They reported
believing that technology could support their students in becoming life-long
learners. All three teachers expressed that learning came first and that they
valued technology as a tool for learning. They believed that providing their
students with choice of technology would lead to a deeper understanding of its
power. The three teachers had a collaborative spirit not just with their
colleagues but also with their students. They also demonstrated flexibility and
judgement. The architect of learning role opens teachers to be participants in
the teaching and learning environment. As learners the three teachers took time
to play with the iPad as a personal device in an informal learning environment
prior to its introduction at their schools. This gave the three teachers an
opportunity to form a positive relationship with the iPad before bringing it to
the students. Further, the three teachers seemed to see the real potential of
the iPad by adding it to the classroom collection of digital devices and
letting their students decide for themselves what technology was the right
choice to serve their needs.
The teachers’ sense making did not occur in isolation. A
second enabling factor was that the role of architect of learning embodies a
constructivist foundation. In this role the three teachers made sense of the
iPad with their students as intellectual partners, not by making the iPad the
centre of their teaching. Contextual factors in the school environment also
facilitated the teachers’ capacity to try out new things. In both schools a
structure was in place to support a collaborative culture. The three teachers
had professional learning opportunities within a reflective collaborative
culture. They had administrative allowances for flexibility and support from
the school district. The IT technicians kept software up-to-date. The teachers
had a choice of technology and to some degree the school district supplied
teacher-learning support.
A third factor that emerged was while constraints of time,
infrastructure, and limited opportunities for teacher learning challenged the
teachers to engage with unfamiliar technology. It was apparent that external
and internal enablers had a more positive impact in facilitating the process of
sense making than the constraints had on limiting it. In other words, for the
teachers in the study, the constraints were not seen as barriers to making
sense of unfamiliar technology.
The findings suggested that the architect of learning role
within a constructivist framework supported the teachers to make sense of an
unfamiliar technology. In an effort to highlight the attributes of the
architect of learning the discussion will focus on the teachers role and their
responsibilities in their teaching and learning environment.
Concluding Remarks
A key lesson taken from this study is that, it is unlikely
that the implementation of any new technology will be successful without,
first, a willingness on the part of the teacher to entertain unfamiliar technology.
The greater educational community can support the implementation of new and
emerging technology by bolstering teachers’ capacity to deal with it. A second
lesson recognizes that teachers (not the technology) are agents of change in
practice. It is essential to invite teacher participation into the
implementation process and to listen to their concerns. A third lesson
acknowledges implementation is a learning process. One size will not fit all;
as learners, teachers need to personalize their approach to unfamiliar
technology. Teachers will need ways of understanding and addressing the
constraints that new and emerging technology generally bring with it.
The three teachers, each in their own way, made sense of the
iPad as architects within a similar collection of internal and external
enablers. While constraints were seen as frustrating, the data suggested the
three teachers had an internal quality (teacher capacity) to over look the
constraints and successfully use unfamiliar technology. They did so mainly
through their own determinations, as they were more than willing to spend the
extra effort to learn and use the iPad. The three teachers were committed to
life-long learning; they had skills, knowledge and experience teaching with
technology. They had a belief in the value of technology. They were flexible
towards diversity and change and they had a collaborative spirit. The three
teachers were willing to entertain unfamiliar technology; they even referred to
it as fun. In a role of architect of learning, the task for teachers is to
design enriched learning experiences within a responsive environment where the
learning need drives the use and choice of technology. This role incorporates
the idea that if the changing nature of technology is to be beneficial, new and
emerging (unfamiliar) technologies will have to be explored by teachers.
The study revealed an enhanced understanding of the
potential of the capacity of teachers as architects. In this role, the value of
the iPad did not drive its use in the classroom. Rather, it was the pursuit of
knowledge that determined how and why the iPad was used. The implication for
teachers is a commitment to life-long learning, a willingness to act, and openness
to possibilities. Teachers who do not have the opportunity to see themselves as
learners will find it more and more difficult to cope with the ever-changing
landscape influenced by educational technology. Therefore, a need is revealed
to empower teachers with dynamic professional development experiences that are
personally meaningful as well as connected in a collaborative culture of
lifelong learning.
The observation and interview data also revealed that the
three teachers made sense of unfamiliar technology within a constructivist
teaching and learning environment that reinforced their beliefs about teaching
and learning. The three teachers made sense of the iPad with their students as
intellectual partners. They also participated in a supportive collaborative
culture. An implication of this suggests it is not enough to focus only on the
device when making sense of unfamiliar technology and putting new technology in
classrooms will not automatically lead to meaningful use. The study also
underlines the importance of teachers’ participation in the process of teaching
and learning. However tempting it might be to focus on the hype and glamour of
new gadgets, the focus should remain on the constructivist process of teaching
and learning.
How then might we bolster every teacher’s capacity to become
architects of learning? School districts, school administrators and teachers
each need to approach this issue as an interconnected responsibility to nourish
the development of this role. The process of bolstering teacher capacity will
benefit first, if teachers can build personal pathways for sense making of
unfamiliar technology. Teachers can think of themselves as participants in the
learning of their classroom. Consider how you are committed to life-long
learning and how this might reveal itself in your teaching. As a teacher what
opportunities can you create to learn in front of their students. How can you
to take advantage of their experience and demonstrate how to grapple with
unfamiliar technology? Teachers also need to experience the same affordances
that they themselves provide for their students by following constructivist
learning principles in their professional development. School administrators
can consider how their current teaching and learning environment invites the
development of teacher/architect. How are your teachers able to personalize
their own learning? While technological change continues to accelerate and
takes a broader role in our classrooms, how can you provided time for teachers
and make it fun for them to make sense of unfamiliar technology within their workday?
School districts can also consider how the jurisdictions’ human and technology
infrastructure is flexible enough to cope with new and emerging
technology. How are teachers allowed to
grapple with constraints within their teaching and learning environment?
Dewey (1916) noted that in a democratic society we should
make provision for participation. Education, Dewey envisioned, should give
individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control. As society
adopts new technologies, teachers have an obligation to bring them into their
classrooms. While the three teachers were provided with affordances for
learning, most importantly they saw themselves capable of it and jumped at the
opportunity to learn.
References
Allen, G. (2008). Practicing
teachers and Web 2.0 technologies: Possibilities for transformative learning.
Columbia University, New York.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher
learning : Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8),
3–15.
Cunningham, C., & Allen, B. (2010). Philosophical
questions about learning technologies. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, &
C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 481–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denning, P. J., & Dunham, R. (2010). The innovator’s
way: Essential practices for successful innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Derry, J. (2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question
of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996).
Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.
H. Jonassen (Ed.), (pp. 170–198). New York: McMillan.
Edwards, A. (2012). New technology and education. New York,
NY: Bloomsbury.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final
frontier in our quest for techno. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(2), 25–39.
Glassett, K., & Schrum, L. (2009). Teacher beliefs and
student achievement in technology-rich classroom environments. International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 138–153.
Government of Alberta. (2010a). Inspiring action on
education: A discussion paper. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://engage.education.alberta.ca/uploads/1006/20100621inspiringact86934.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2010b). Inspiring education: A
dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inspiringeducation.aspx
Hansen, D. T., & Laverty, M. J. (2010). Teaching and
pedagogy. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp.
223–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Howland, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful
learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC
horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, TX.
Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den
Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in
the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28(2), 273–282.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on
factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the
classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2),
233–263.
Olsen, J., Recker, M., Robertshaw, B., Sellers, L., &
Walker, A. (2011). Designing for problem based learning: A comparative study of
technology professional development. The Instructional Architect Research Group,
(Paper 7). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/iagroup/7
Schoepp, K. (2004). Technology integration barriers in a
technology-rich environment: A CBAM perspective. University of Calgary,
Calgary, AB.
Schrum, L., Shelly, G., & Miller, R. (2008).
Understanding tech-savvy teachers: Identifying their characteristics,
motivation and challenges. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 4(1), 1–20.
Shepherd, C. (2011). The new learning architect. Amazon
Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stuewe, N. (2013a). The Architect of Learning. In World
Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher
Education (Vol. 2013, pp. 2117–2124). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/115192/
Stuewe, N. (2013b). Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect
of Learning. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/handle/11023/612?mode=full&submit_simple=Show+full+item+record
Willis, J. (2001). Foundational assumptions for information
technology and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online Serial], 1(3), 305–320.
Wood, D. R. (2007). Professional learning communities:
Teachers, knowledge, and knowing. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 281–290.
Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition,
representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333.
Zhao, Y., Frank, K., & Ellefson, N. (2006). Fostering
meaningful teaching and learning with technology: Characteristics of effective
professional development. In E. A. Ashburn & R. F. Floden (Eds.), (pp.
161–179). New York: Teachers College Press.
