Running head: PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE

Pedagogy: A Driving Force for Technology-Enhanced Learning

Sandy L. Odrowski
University of Ontario Institute of Technology

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 2

Abstract
This paper examines the use of technology, driven by sound pedagogy, as a
transformational tool for both learner and teacher. It attempts to connect the Technological
Competency Usage (TCU) Framework (Desjardins, 2005) with pedagogy by exploring
challenges and offering solutions for situations within various technological paradigms explored
in the Learning with Technology (EDUC 5101G) course. The TCU four orders of competency
(technical, social, informational and epistemological) act as springboard for problems posed, and
a platform for solutions made. The TCU framework (Desjardins, 2005) provides a unique
context to infuse connectivist, social constructivist, conditional, and situated learning theory,
which will provide the theoretical foundations for this paper.
Keywords: digital technology, social, technical, informational and epistemological order

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 3

Pedagogy: A Driving Force for Technology-Enhanced Learning
The appropriation of digital technology into learning and educational practices has
resulted in rapid changes that have affected the way we develop curriculum, deliver content, and
assess our learners (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Collins & Halverson, 2010; Selwyn, 2010). The
Internet provides us with a global network of information which facilitates access to material on
a scale previously unknown, and most likely unimagined by many (Katz et al., 2004; Kim &
Bonk, 2006; Price & Kirkwood, 2011). Much faith has been placed in the World Wide Web
(www) as a vehicle for access and equality in education (Selwyn, 2010). For example, some
learners now have the freedom to choose where, when, what and how they learn; learning can
occur anywhere and at any time (Baruah, 2013; Siemens, 2004).
Although the digital revolution has trickled into some areas of education, it has not yet
actually transformed the current approach to traditional teaching and learning methods. (Fullan
& Langsworthy, 2011; Selwyn, 2011). Education is lagging behind in the use of digital tools as a
mechanism to free the learner from the constraints of prescribed curricular content, and prepare
them to be successful in our knowledge-based, technology-driven society (Fullan &
Langsworthy, 2011).
The purpose of this paper is to explore how digital technology can best be leveraged to
transform the traditional pedagogical relationship between learner, teacher, and content. A closer
look at some of the challenges discussed in EDUC 5101G will be explored through the lens of
the TCU framework discussed below (Desjardins, 2005). It will also examine potential solutions
proposed by the learners on a deeper level, as well as additional outcomes found in the research.

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 4

Discussion
Technology Competency and Use framework
The TCU framework describes the interaction between user and technology, based on the
knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology into teaching and our everyday life
(Desjardins, 2005). Desjardins (2005) asserts that technology allows us to interact with people,
store and access information, and use the technology as tools to automate virtual physical
processes (p.4). These three basic uses of technology led to the development of four orders of
competencies: technical, social, informational and epistemological (Desjardins, 2005). The four
orders will be discussed in this paper.
Technical Order
Desjardins (2005) defines the technical order of competency as having the technical
skills to operate the technological objects (computer, associated peripherals and basic operating
system), knowledge of the language; the vocabulary and the different icons used as well as some
of the general commands (Desjardins, 2005, p. 4).
One of the issues raised in the EDUC 5101G was lack of technical skills of the teacher.
Lack of technical skills can impede the use of technology amongst teachers; therefore, this may
leave students without the opportunity to gain digital literacy skills necessary to succeed in the
knowledge society in which we live (King, 2002; Kotrlik & Redman, 2005; Waterhouse, 2010).
Furthermore, the National Media Consortium Horizon Report (2014) highlights low digital
literacy levels of faculty as a problem in postsecondary institutions today. Some of the reasons
cited for low digital literacy levels amongst faculty include lack of time to learn new
technologies, lack of professional development opportunities, personal beliefs regarding the
value of using technology, and confidence levels (Jackowski & Akroyd, 2010; Moallem, 2001).

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 5

In order to address some of the issues listed above, professional development can act as a
conduit for faculty to assess which skills they possess, and which skills need development.
Koehler and Mishra (2006) developed a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)
framework which attempts to capture the essential knowledge needed for teachers to effectively
work with technology. This framework highlights the complex relationships that exist between
content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge areas, (Koehler & Mishra, 2006).
Figure 1 depicts the relationship between technology, content and pedagogy and how
each area of overlap mutually reinforces the relationships between all three elements. (Koehler
& Mishra, 2006). Good teaching with technology involves a clear understanding of all three
elements together to develop appropriate contexts and instructional strategies for learning
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Figure 1

(Koehler & Mishra, 2006)

Koehler and Mishra (2006) maintain that teachers are individual in their needs, which can
be affected by grade-level, school-specific factors, demographics, culture, and other factors.
Since every situation is unique, no single combination of content, technology, and pedagogy will
apply for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching (Koehler and Mishra, 2006).
Examining teachers knowledge between content, pedagogy and technology can help explain the

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 6

wide variations seen in the extent and quality of educational technology integration amongst
faculty (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). The TPACK model challenges educators to make connections
among technology, content, and pedagogy in the learning environment so that technology is not
used just as a means to an end (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). This holistic approach to the
technical order competency may have a significant impact on the success of faculty to develop a
repertoire of skills necessary for student learning in the digital age.
Whereas Koehler and Mishra (2005) support a framework that focuses on a teachers
understanding of how technology, pedagogy and content interact with one and other, King (2002)
maintains that submersing faculty in teaching online may be a catalyst for change in traditional
teaching practices. King (2002) asserts that teaching online prevents teachers from teaching in
their traditional ways such as lectures and testing. He claims that new views of teaching and
learning may be cultivated for online delivery because the traditional talk and chalk is no
longer a viable option (King, 2002). Teachers will have no choice but to move away from their
traditional methods and will move from a teacher-centered to learner-centered approach. He
maintains that this is one of the greatest benefits of the online environment (King, 2002).
Situated learning theory purports that learning is not intentional; it happens naturally as a
learner is immersed in a situation (Lave 1991). According to Lave and Wenger (1990), learning
is embedded within an activity, within a context and within a culture. Learning in situ can have
a powerful effect on learning because content is presented in authentic contexts and happens
naturally as a person is immersed in a situation (Lave & Wenger, 1990). Therefore, immersing
faculty in technology could have a positive effect on their ability to develop not only their
technical skills, but change their teaching practice altogether (King, 2002).

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 7

Social Order
Desjardins (2005) acknowledges that interactions with others is one of the basic uses of
digital technology. The social order of competency is the practical knowledge needed to interact
with others in a way that is safe, respectful, viable and ethical (Desjardins, 2005). Technologyenhanced communication experiences and a genuine concern for the needs of others, are critical
factors when developing the social order competency skills (Desjardins, 2005).
One of the issues raised in the social order competency was how socioeconomic status
can hinder the development of digital citizenship skills in the underprivileged learner. Isman &
Gungoren (2014) identify the need for access to technology as essential in order for students to
become conscious digital citizens.
A study by Page (2002) confirms that a technology-enhanced classroom can have a
positive effect on learners from a lower socioeconomic background. The study compared the
attainments of students in technology-enriched classrooms to those in traditional classrooms, in
terms of academic achievement, self-esteem, and social interaction (Page, 2002). The results
showed significant differences favoring the treatment group (technology-enriched classroom) in
all three areas (Page, 2002). A rise in self-esteem, willingness to collaborate with peers, and
increase in academic achievement have been viewed as important factor to a rise above poverty
(Page, 2002). A study conducted by Sun and Metros (2011) support Pages findings and further
argue that lack of technology at home due to the digital divide, places students with low socioeconomic status at higher risk for poor academic performance.
The social order competency involves working and communicating with others to learn
new knowledge and solve problems in a collaborative way. Social Constructivist learning theory
is a view of learning that involves deeper level learning through the participation in social

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 8

activities where the context of learning is critical. The teacher creates a context for learning in
which students can become engaged in interesting activities that encourages and facilitates
learning.
Fullan and Langworthy (2014) assert that in order to answer the demands of the 21st
century job market, we must teach digital citizenship skills which require students not only to
create new knowledge, but also to connect it to the world, using the power of digital tools to do
things that matter beyond school. Therefore, if the problem is poverty, digital citizenship and
technology-enhanced classrooms could very well be part of the answer.
Informational Order
The informational order of competency involves the interaction with a variety of digital
documents, websites, and search engines as well as the ability to extract appropriate information
and knowledge for the selection, sorting and coherent organization of information (Desjardins,
2005, p.5). Desjardins (2005) maintains that development of this competency involves
determining the informations reliability and validity.
When studying the informational order, we examined current issues in education such as
restrictive and centralized curriculum, credibility of open educational resources, and information
overload for both teacher and student. Information overload (OI) is a term used to describe the
difficulty a person can have understanding an issue and making decisions that can be caused by
the presence of too much information (Koltay, 2011). Although the term information overload
(IO) is pre-internet, its popularity has increased dramatically due to the digital revolution
(Koltay, 2011). Mihailidis (2013) reports many communication platforms, for example social
media, have resulted in an exponential amount of information with lack of an organizational
structure. Connecting the digital dots between what is appropriate and useful and what is reliable

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 9

and valid can be overwhelming for both teacher and learner (Olcott, 2012; Price & Kirkwood,
2011; Siemens, 2004).
Digital content curation tools are a useful way of aggregating information so that the user
is not overwhelmed with the abundance of information available on the internet (Mihailidis,
2013). These tools provide the user with an abundance of information in an organized and
streamlined way. Seely Brown (n.d) asserts that information navigation is perhaps the key
component of literacy in the digital age. Prensky (2001) maintains that digital curation is a skill
that needs to be taught. Mihailidis (2013) notes that digital curation is a pedagogical tool to
encourage critical inquiry and engagement with digital content. Therefore, teaching both students
and faculty how to aggregate digital content, may help organize an abundance of information in a
way that is individual to their own needs.
Epistemological order
The epistemological order of competency refers to the theoretical and practical
knowledge and understanding of a specific discipline in order to use discipline specific tools
efficiently and effectively (Desjardins, 2005). Desjardins (2005) maintains that this conceptual
knowledge can be translated into operational knowledge for solving problems or completing
specific tasks (Desjardins, 2005). Individuals with epistemological order skills have the ability to
assign processing tasks to the computer such as programming spreadsheets or using data bases
(Desjardins, 2005).
The explosion of big data has penetrated every aspect of our lives including education
(Siemens & Long, 2011). The potential of learning analytics has left many researchers and
scholars excited about the future of learning, while others with legitimate concerns regarding the
violation of students privacy (Duval, 2011; Picciano, 2012). Furthermore, learning analytics are

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 10

a relatively new development, so the effects of using such data to drive learning has not yet been
established (Siemens & Long, 2011).
Group presentations on the epistemological order highlighted both the benefits and
challenges of big data. Most of the presentations looked at privacy issues and the implementation
of policies to prevent personal information from extortion and identity fraud. Although privacy
issues can be of great concern, so can the potential for learned helplessness in the student
(Ferguson, 2012; Hickey & Shen, 2014). Could learning analytics result in disempowerment of
learners because of increased reliance on systems to provide continuous feedback? How will
learners develop their own meta-cognitive skills when a system is anticipating what they need
before they can (Ferguson, 2012; Hickey & Shen, 2014)?
Digital badging is a relatively new learner-centered concept in education that has gained
the interest of many institutions (Johnson et al., 2013). Open badges use metadata to capture the
learning path and history of each individual in a simple, user-friendly format (Johnson et al.,
2013). Often, the mounds of data produced can make it difficult for students to track the set of
steps and milestones that led to a credential or skill set (Dahlstrom, Walker, & Dziuban, 2012).
Open badges allow the learner to aggregate the data and track their progress in a simple, coherent
way, as well as replicate this information for potential employers (Johnson et. al., 2013;
Dahlstrom et al., 2012). Every badge tells its own story about what it signifies, how it was
earned, and which organization granted it (Johnson et. al., 2013; Dahlstrom et al., 2012).
Connectivism suggests that decision-making is itself a learning process, as is the ability to
connect specialized nodes of information (Siemens & Long, 2011). Students decide what should
be in their digital backpack, where it should come from and why it is significant to their learning
journey. Therefore, digital badging is not only a great digital curation tool, but can also provide

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 11

students with better control over their own learning instead of it being solely driven by learning
analytics.
Conclusion
Throughout this course, we have addressed both pedagogical and technological challenges from
the following perspectives: teacher, student, institutional and government. One of the common
factors that appeared over and over again was the need for change. The TCU framework was
used to explore the benefits and challenges that may arise when learning with technology.
Selwyn (2011) ascertains that fundamental elements of traditional learning and teaching
have not been touched by technologies over the last three decades the way that many thought
they would. He notes that despite predictions that technology would transform education it is
more a matter of faith than it is a matter of fact (Selwyn, 2011, p.714). Although, we explored
many situations where technology could be used to solve pedagogical problems, there were very
few real-life examples of this happening. Further research that is pedagogically-driven may
provide teacher, learners, institutions and government with empirically based evidence that
technology on its own is not a solution, but rather an element to improve education.

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 12

References
Baruah, M. K. (2013). Just -in-Time Learning. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 12 (4),
53-57
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information
and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International
Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication
Technology, 8(1), 136.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in
the age of technology. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(1), 18-27.
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology. 2012.
Desjardins, F.J. (2005). Information and communication technology in education: a competency
profile of francophone secondary school teachers in Ontario. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology /La Revue Canadienne de Lapprentissage et de La
Technologie, 31, 1-8.
Duval, E. (2011, February). Attention please: learning analytics for visualization and
recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 9-17). ACM.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International
Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5), 304-317.
Fullan, M., Langworthy, M., & Barber, M. (2014). A rich seam. Retrieved from
http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 13

Hickey, D. T., Kelley, T. A., & Shen, X. (2014, March). Small to big before massive: scaling up
participatory learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 93-97). ACM.
Isman, A., & Gungoren, O.C. (2014). Digital citizenship. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 13(1), 73-77. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/1519878257?pqorigsite=summon
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The
NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition.
Katz, R. N., Kvavik, R. B., Penrod, J. I., Pirani, J. A., Nelson, M. R., & Salaway, G.
(2004). Information technology leadership in higher education: The condition of the
community. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
Kim, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education:
The survey says. Educause quarterly, 29(4), 22.
King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning
opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283-297.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of
computing in teacher education, 21(3), 94-102.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koltay, T. (2011). Information overload, information architecture and digital literacy. Bulletin of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 33-35.

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 14

Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2005). Extent of technology integration in instruction by adult
basic education teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 200-219.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on socially shared
cognition, 2, 63-82.
Mihailidis, P., & Cohen, J. N. (2013). Exploring curation as a core competency in digital and
media literacy education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2013(1), Art-2.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 10171054.
Moallem, M. (2001). Applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the design of a
web-based course: Implications for practice. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3),
113-125.
Olcott, Don, Jr. "Beyond open access: leveraging OER for university teaching and
learning." Distance Learning 9.3 (2012): 11+. Academic OneFile. Web. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA305660554&v=2.1&u=ko_acd_uoo&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=a067901a3e5e
42d1929a016c6f231f25
Page, M. S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: effects on students of low socioeconomic
status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dcuoit.ca/docview/274699560/fulltextPDF?

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 15

Picciano, A. G. (2012). The evolution of big data and learning analytics in American higher
education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(3), 9-20.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1-6.
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2011). Enhancing professional learning and teaching through
technology: a synthesis of evidence-based practice among teachers in higher education.
Retrieved from
http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/DTR/PLATP_Main_Report_2011.pdf
Renes, S. L., & Strange, A. T. (2011). Using technology to enhance higher education. Innovative
Higher Education, 36(3), 203-213.
Reeves, Douglas (2006) Leading to change/How do you change school culture? Science in the
Spotlight, 64 (4), 92-94.
Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2006, June). Teaching students to evaluate source
reliability during Internet research tasks. In Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on learning sciences (pp. 662-666). International Society of the Learning
Sciences. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/pagzn0
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers thinking processes
and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational
technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
Seely-Brown, J. (n.d.) Learning in the Digital Age. (p. 65 -86). Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu015.pdf
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

PEDAGOGY: A DRIVING FORCE 16

Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and
Education. EDUCAUSE review, 46(5), 30.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Degrees of digital division: reconsidering digital inequalities and
contemporary higher education. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal,
7(1).
Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimismthe need for negativity in educational
technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713-718.
Waterhouse, S. A. (2005). The power of elearning: The essential guide for teaching in the digital
age (pp. 30-47). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Metros, S. E. (2011). The Digital Divide and Its Impact on Academic
Performance. Online Submission. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524846.pdf