Content uploaded by Petra Fisser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petra Fisser on Feb 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Supporting Teachers Learning Through
the Collaborative Design of Technology-Enhanced
Science Lessons
Ayoub C. Kafyulilo
1
•Petra Fisser
2
•Joke Voogt
3
Published online: 29 December 2015
The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2015
Abstract This study used the Interconnected Model of Professional Growth
(Clarke & Hollingsworth in Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967, 2002)to
unravel how science teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills devel-
oped in a professional development arrangement. The professional development
arrangement used Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a conceptual
framework and included collaborative design of technology-enhanced science les-
sons, implementation of the lessons and reflection on outcomes. Support to facilitate
the process was offered in the form of collaboration guidelines, online learning
materials, exemplary lessons and the availability of an expert. Twenty teachers
participated in the intervention. Pre- and post-intervention results showed
improvements in teachers’ perceived and demonstrated knowledge and skills in
integrating technology in science teaching. Collaboration guidelines helped the
teams to understand the design process, while exemplary materials provided a
picture of the product they had to design. The availability of relevant online
materials simplified the design process. The expert was important in providing
technological and pedagogical support during design and implementation, and
reflected with teachers on how to cope with problems met during implementation.
&Ayoub C. Kafyulilo
vangidunda@yahoo.co.uk
Petra Fisser
p.fisser@slo.nl
Joke Voogt
j.m.voogt@uva.nl
1
College of Education, Dar es Salaam University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
2
SLO, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
123
J Sci Teacher Educ (2015) 26:673–694
DOI 10.1007/s10972-015-9444-1
Keywords Technology Design teams Professional development Teachers
Support TPACK Interconnected model of professional growth
Introduction
Technology integration in teaching is currently gaining attention among educators,
curriculum developers and policy makers. Governments in both developing and
developed countries are investing in studies on how students’ learning outcomes can be
improved through the use of technology (Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith, Clair, &
Harris, 2009). Like many other developing and developed countries in the world, the
government of Tanzania has been striving to introduce Information Communication
Technology (ICT)
1
in education since 1997 when the first official computer studies
syllabus was introduced in secondary schools (Hare, 2007). For teacher education, the
government introduced technology through the ‘‘ICT for Teacher education program’’
(ICT-Connect-TED) in 2002. The program aimed at improving the quality of teacher
education by using ICT for pre-service and in-service teachers (Hare, 2007; Tilya,
2007). Until 2004, ICT-Connect-TED managed to provide computers and a networking
infrastructure to all 34 teacher training colleges in Tanzania. In 2005, ICT was
introduced in schools through the e-school forum to design programs supporting the
introduction and use of ICT in secondary schools (Hare, 2007). The project covered a
wide range of activities including ICT infrastructure development in schools, technical
resources, student management, content and curriculum development, e-learning, and
program co-ordination and funding.
However, these technology integration efforts were more focused on the
installation of computers in schools and colleges than on the instructional use of
technology (Hare, 2007). Several studies (Hare, 2007; Swarts & Wachira, 2010;
Tilya, 2007) revealed that computers in schools in Tanzania are mostly used for
administration purposes, and sometimes for teaching basic ICT skills, but not as a
tool for instruction. According to Swarts and Wachira (2010) the low uptake of
technology by teachers is caused by limited knowledge and skills of teachers on
integrating technology in teaching.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Teachers are required to engage with content, pedagogy, and technology in
tandem in order to develop the knowledge of how technology can help students
learn specific concepts (Groth, Spickler, Bergner, & Bardzell, 2009). This study
adopted Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Koehler &
Mishra, 2005) as a framework for describing the knowledge and skills teachers need
to develop in order to effectively integrate technology in teaching. In order to
develop teachers’ TPACK; Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) propose ‘‘learning
technology by design’’ where teachers and students work in collaboration to develop
1
In this study the terms ‘‘ICT and technology’’ were used interchangeably to refer to any digital tool that
can support teaching and learning.
674 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
technology-enhanced courses. In Koehler et al. (2007) learning technology by
design involved master students working on an authentic problem, viz the design
and redesign of a website about the solar system.
Learning technology by design was also adopted in Agyei and Voogt (2012), and
Alayyar, Fisser, and Voogt (2011) who used teacher design teams as a professional
development arrangement for developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration
knowledge and skills. In the study of Alayyar et al. (2011), the professional
development program involved pre-service teachers’ participation in design teams (of
3–4 pre-service teachers) to design technology-enhanced science and mathematics
lessons with a variety of technology applications. Similarly in Agyei and Voogt
(2012), pre-service teachers worked in groups of two to design mathematics lessons
enhanced with spreadsheets and subsequently taught those lessons to peers. In a study
by Fessakis, Dimitracopoulou, and Palaiodimos (2013) pre-service teachers worked in
a group of seven on a blog to design technology-enhanced lesson plans. Results from
these studies showed an increase in pre-service teachers’ TPACK between pre- and
post-intervention results. A previous study using teacher design teams conducted by
Kafyulilo, Fisser, and Voogt (2014) with in-service science teachers’, revealed a
significant increase in teachers’ perceived and observed TPACK after the intervention.
This study focused on the development of science teachers’ technology related
components of TPACK; Technological Knowledge (TK), Technological Pedagog-
ical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and Technolog-
ical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). The study investigated how support
offered in a professional development arrangement leveraged ‘learning technology
by design’ and contributed to teachers’ development of technology integration
knowledge and skills for science teaching. The Interconnected Model of Profes-
sional Growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) was adopted as an analytical tool for
unraveling the components contributing to the teacher professional growth process.
The Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (IMPG)
The Interconnected Model of Professional Growth (Fig. 1) assumes that change
occurs through the mediating processes of reflection and enactment, in four distinct
domains, which encompass the Personal Domain, the Domain of Practice, the
Domain of Consequence, and the External Domain (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).
The personal domain, the domain of practice and the domain of consequence
constitute the individual teachers’ professional world of practice, encompassing the
teacher’s professional actions, the inferred consequences of those actions, and the
knowledge and beliefs that prompted and responded to those actions, while the
external domain represent a stimulus from outside the teachers’ world.
External Domain
The external domain offers opportunities to become acquainted with new ideas,
practices and or strategies, introduced and developed by others (Voogt et al., 2011).
Witterholt, Goedhart, Suhre, and Streun (2012) argue that often the external domain
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…675
123
serves as the initiator of a professional development program. In this study the
external domain consists of the support offered in the professional development
arrangement.
Domain of Practice
Witterholt et al. (2012) describe the domain of practice as the experimentation of
the learned knowledge into the classroom. Voogt et al. (2011) describe the domain
of practice in a broader perspective, by including teacher collaboration, classroom
teaching and participation in school associations. In this study we took the broader
perspective to be able to distinguish between collaborative design in teams and
technology-enhanced lesson implementation in classroom practice.
Domain of Consequence
This domain deals with the outcomes of the new practices. Although most studies
(Justi & van Driel, 2006; Witterholt et al., 2012) describe this domain in terms of
student outcomes. Voogt et al. (2011) advocate for outcomes on teachers themselves
(e.g. satisfaction and self-esteem) and their students (e.g. motivation, learning
outcomes). In this study the domain of consequence is limited to teachers’
perceptions and reflections on outcomes for their students and for themselves.
External Domain
Enactment
Reflection
Professional
experimentation
Personal
Domain
External source
of information or
stimulus
Domain of
Consequence
Domain of
Practice
Salient
outcomes
Knowledge &
skills
Teacher
Design Teams
Classroom
teaching
Fig. 1 The interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002)
676 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
Personal Domain
The personal domain is described as the change in teachers’ knowledge, skills,
and beliefs towards the stimuli (Voogt et al., 2011; Justi & van Driel, 2006). In this
study we focus on the development of knowledge and skills in particular. Changes
in the external domain, domain of practice and domain of consequences are
considered to have a potential influence on the changes in the personal domain.
Change in one domain is translated into change in another domain through the
mediating processes of ‘‘reflection’’ and ‘‘enactment’’ (Clarke & Hollingsworth,
2002). Reflection refers to teachers thinking about their practices (reflection on
action) and during practice (reflection in action) to draw conclusion for future
action. Enactment refers to putting the learned materials, beliefs and attitude into
action resulting into changes in the domain of practice (Clarke & Hollingsworth,
2002). The two mediating processes have been represented by a dotted arrow
(reflection) and a solid arrow (enactment) in the model.
Support Options as External Stimulus
Various support options were provided as external stimulus to teachers who
participated in the design of technology-enhanced lessons. The following support
options were offered: an expert in technology and science teaching, learning
materials, exemplary lessons and collaboration guidelines.
Expert
When working with technology, teachers are subjected to technological and
pedagogical challenges related to the integration of technology in the teaching and
learning process. In order to address these challenges, scaffolds from a facilitator or
an expert is desirable. As observed in Voogt, Tilya, and van den Akker (2009)
modifying traditional teaching techniques to incorporate technology is not easy. It
requires teachers to broaden their teaching repertoire. A study by Allan, Erickson,
Brookhouse, and Johnson (2010) revealed that, provision of scaffold tasks to
teachers and the opportunity to collaborate with experts and peers enhances
teachers’ learning.
Online Learning Materials
In understanding the fact that teachers have limited time for designing high-tech
learning materials, Kafyulilo et al. (2014) propose the adoption of freely available
online learning materials. According to them there is a big stock of ready-made
educational animations (www.kscience.co.uk,www.sumanasinc.com) and videos
(www.youtube.com) which are available for free. Use of online learning materials,
such as animations, simulations and videos offer visual representations of ideas,
which can help pupil learn and can save time in the design of technology-enhanced
lessons.
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…677
123
Exemplary Lessons
Exemplary lessons help teachers in getting a clear picture of the goal of their
learning, provide them with the necessary background information and support them
while practicing what they learned in the classroom (van den Akker, 1988). Voogt
(2010) argues that, exemplary lessons can offer concrete lessons for use by teachers
to provide them with practical experience or can serve as a model for teachers to
create their own lesson plans.
Collaboration Guidelines
Working in design teams is always challenging to teachers in terms of agreement
and time planning (Bakah, 2011). To ensure effective use of time and better design
outputs, teachers require guidelines to provide a sense of direction for teachers’
collaboration in design teams. According to Handelzalts (2009) collaboration
guidelines have potential in guiding the teachers’ interactions in the design team
meetings.
The Professional Development Arrangement
The professional development arrangement consisted of four components: a
workshop, collaborative lesson design (Fessakis et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra,
2005), lesson implementation and teacher reflection (Jimoyiannis, 2010). This
means that the integration of technology, pedagogy and content guided the
discussions and reflections about the technology-enhanced lessons the teachers
designed and performed in their classroom. During the professional development
arrangement teachers were supported by an expert, collaboration guidelines, online
learning materials and exemplary lessons for the design of technology-enhanced
lessons. Teachers learned how to design technology-enhanced lessons from the
expert and the exemplary lessons. The available online materials helped them to
understand the potential of technology and to focus on the integration with
pedagogy and subject matter. The collaboration guidelines enabled them to keep
their teams lively and strong. Table 1presents the professional development
arrangement and the support that was provided at each stage. The arrangement was
offered to each participating school separately.
Research Questions
This study investigated the ways through which in-service science teachers
develop technology integration knowledge and skills when they collaborate in
design teams. The main research question that guided the study was: How do
teachers develop technology integration knowledge and skills when they collabo-
ratively design and implement technology enhanced lessons in the classroom? The
main research question was divided in five sub questions:
678 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
1. Personal Domain: What technology integration knowledge and skills do
teachers develop when they participate in the professional development
program?
2. External Domain: How do teachers’ technology integration knowledge and
skills develop through the external stimuli offered in the professional
development program?
3. Domain of Practice—Design: How do teachers’ technology integration
knowledge and skills develop when they collaborate in design teams to design
technology enhanced science lessons?
4. Domain of Practice—Implementation: How do teachers’ technology integration
knowledge and skills develop when they implement technology-enhanced
science lessons in the classroom?
Table 1 Professional development arrangement
Components Activities Support Duration
Workshop Introduction of TPACK and
teacher design teams
Training on searching and
downloading online learning
materials
Review of exemplary lessons;
Review of collaboration
guidelines; Rehearse the
lesson design in design teams
Expert, Online
materials,
Exemplary lessons
Collaboration
guidelines
4 days
with 3 h
training
per day
First cycle
Lesson design in design teams Collaborative design of
technology-enhanced lessons
by using online materials
Team meetings were held three
times a week for two to three
hours per day
Expert, Online
materials,
Exemplary lessons
Collaboration
guidelines
3 weeks
Lesson implementation Teaching the designed lessons
in the classroom
One team member taught the
lesson while others were
moving around the classroom
to support students
Expert 80 min
for each
team
1st reflection Reflection with peers and the
expert on the lessons designed
Discussion on how to improve
the next lesson
Expert Online-
materials
1 day
Second cycle
The second cycle followed the
same steps as the first cycles:
lesson design, implementation
and reflection
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…679
123
5. Domain of Consequence: How do teachers’ technology integration knowledge
and skills develop when they reflect on the outcomes of their technology
enhanced lessons on their students?
Methodology
The study adopted a mixed methods design in which qualitative and quantitative
data were used concurrently (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). The study was
conducted in two secondary schools in Tanzania, which are named as ‘‘school A’’
and ‘‘School B’’ for confidentiality purposes. In each school three design teams were
formed comprising of teachers who teach science subjects such as physics,
chemistry and biology. School A was a public school while school B was a private
school. School A, had a total of 57 teachers, 12 of which were science teachers and
had over 600 students. It also had one computer lab which had 7 working
computers. School B had more than 70 teachers, of which 15 were science teachers
and had approximately 1500 students. School B had 3 computer labs with
approximately 20 working computers in each lab.
Participants
A total of twenty-two science teachers, ten from school A and twelve from school
B were invited to participate in the professional development arrangement. Two
teachers from school B were assigned other responsibilities and had to withdraw
from the study. From school A, ten teachers (5 male, 5 female) participated in the
study. Three of them had less than 5 years teaching experience. Except for two
teachers, the rest had at least a bachelors’ degree and had basic computer
knowledge. From school B ten teachers (9 male, 1 female) participated, three of
them with less than 5 years teaching experience. In school B five teachers had a
diploma in education and five had a bachelor’s degree. Except for two teachers, the
rest had basic computer knowledge.
Lesson Development
In teams, teachers worked to develop technology-enhanced lessons. There were
two cycles of the lesson development. In the first cycle most teachers developed
lessons by using PowerPoint animations. In the second cycle of lesson design,
teachers expanded the scope of technology and used online available animations,
pictures—taken from camera and mobile phones, Encarta CD, as well as available
videos on Youtube. All lessons were taught to 14–18 year old children.
Instruments
Because of discussions on how to measure TPACK [see for instance Voogt,
Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, and van Braak (2013), Fisser, Voogt, Tondeur, and
680 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
van Braak, (2015)] we purposefully used a variety of data collection instruments.
The instruments were based on validated instruments and used in previous studies
(Kafyulilo et al., 2014; Kafyulilo, Fisser, Pieters, & Voogt, 2015). An overview of
the instruments and the research questions is presented in Table 2.
The constructs and their reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha and Cohan Kappa) for all
instruments have been summarized in Table 3.
TPACK Survey
The TPACK survey was based on validated instruments developed by Schmidt
et al. (2009) and Graham et al. (2009). The TPACK survey was used to collect data
on teachers’ perceived technology integration knowledge and skills before and after
the professional development program. The survey had a five-point Likert scale:
1=strongly disagree and 5 =strongly agree and a reliability of 0.92 Cronbach’s
alpha which, according to De Vellis (2003), is very good.
Observation Checklist
The observation checklist was based on validated instruments developed by
Graham et al. (2009), Harris et al. (2010), and Voogt et al. (2009) and used to assess
teachers’ practices with technology in the classroom. The instrument had a 3 point
scale which is interpreted as ‘‘No’’ =absence, ‘‘No/Yes’’ =partial existence, and
‘‘Yes’’ =presence of the behavior under observation. Two people observed the
lessons using the observation checklist. The inter-rater reliabilities (Cohen’s Kappa)
for each construct was calculated, which was between 0.71 and 0.95, which is
between substantial agreement and perfect agreement (Viera & Garrett, 2005).
Follow-up Survey
The follow-up survey was administered to teachers after the first and second
lesson design and implementations as a tool for reflection. After the completion of
Table 2 Overview of data collection instruments and research questions
Data collection
instruments
Pre
intervention
During intervention Post
intervention
Research
questions
1st
cycle
2nd
cycle
TPACK survey 44RQ1
Observation checklist 44 RQ4
Follow up survey 44 RQ2
Lesson plan evaluation 44 RQ3
Reflection survey 4RQ3
Teacher interview 44RQ1, 3 & 5
Focus group discussion 4RQ2, 4 & 5
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…681
123
Table 3 Constructs and reliabilities for TPACK survey, follow up survey, lesson evaluation rubric and observation checklist
Tool Construct Sample item for each construct Items Cronbach’s a
TPACK survey instrument TK I know about a lot of different technologies 10 0.87
TPK I can use technology to enhance students interaction in the classroom 11 0.94
TCK I can choose technology that enhances the content for a lesson I teach 9 0.93
TPCK I can use technology to present a specific science concepts 9 0.95
Follow up survey Collaboration guidelines The guidelines provides sufficient information about what a design team is 6 0.69
Online materials The online learning materials simplified the lesson design process thus making efficient use of time 5* 0.67
Exemplary lessons The exemplary lessons helped me to understand what to design and how to design it with technology 6 0.79
Expert I learned a lot about technology integration from the expert who was assisting us in our design team 7 0.75
Tool Construct Sample item for each construct Items Cohen’s j
Lesson evaluation rubrics TK There is sufficient information on how technology
will be used in the classroom
3 0.67
TCK The technology chosen is aligned with one
or more curriculum goals
4 0.72
TPK The technology chosen supports instructional strategies 4 0.85
TPCK Technology selected is aligned with the curriculum
and the instructional strategies
4 0.67
Observation checklist TK Demonstrate ability in the use of learning support tools
such as computer and data projector
5 0.79
TCK Teacher uses technology to allow students to observe
things that would otherwise be difficult to observe
4 0.88
TPK Teacher uses technology to interact and collaborate
with students in the classroom
5 0.71
TPCK Technologies selected for use in the instructional plan
are aligned with one or more curriculum goals
6 0.95
682 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
any of the professional development cycle (workshop, collaborative lesson design in
team, and classroom teaching with technology) teachers were reflecting on the
design process through the use of the follow up questionnaire. The follow-up survey
intended to assess the teachers’ opinion on the whole lesson design process,
including the impact of the various support options that were provided during the
intervention. The follow-up survey had a five-point Likert scale: 1 =strongly
disagree and 5 =strongly agree and had an overall reliability of 0.81 Cronbach’s
alpha which, according to De Vellis (2003), is very good.
Lesson Plan Evaluation Rubric
The lesson plan evaluation rubric was developed to evaluate the lesson plans that
were prepared by teachers during the first and second lesson design. The rubric
comprised of items which were graded as 1 =Poor, 2 =Fair, 3 =Good, 4 =Very
Good and 5 =Excellent. Two persons, the researcher and the expert in technology
and science teaching, evaluated the lesson plans. The inter-rater reliability in
Cohen’s Kappa was between 0.67 and 0.85, which is according to Viera and Garrett
(2005) substantial agreement (0.61–0.80) to almost perfect agreement (values
between 0.81 and 0.99).
Teacher Interview
Interviews with teachers were held before and after the intervention. The pre-
intervention interview intended to reveal the teachers’ understanding of technology
integration in teaching. The post-intervention interview assessed the change in
teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills as a result of the professional
development arrangement. It also assessed the teachers’ perceptions towards design
teams and the support they were provided during the design of technology-enhanced
lessons. Interview questions were adopted from Kafyulilo et al. (2014). Four
randomly selected interviews; two from each school were coded by a second person.
The inter-coder reliability was 0.67 Cohen’s Kappa which according to Viera and
Garrett (2005) represents substantial agreement.
Focus Group Discussion
A focus group discussion was administered at the end of the program to assess
the impact of the professional development arrangement on the teachers’
development of technology integration knowledge and skills. The questions were
adopted from Kafyulilo et al. (2014). Two randomly selected focus group
discussions were coded by a second person; the inter-coder reliability was 0.86
Cohen Kappa which is described by Viera and Garrett (2005) as almost perfect
agreement.
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…683
123
Data Analysis
Because of the small sample size only descriptive analyses (means, standard
deviation, effect size) were conducted. Data from the interview and focus group
discussions were transcribed and coded using the codes generated from the study
questions and theories about teacher professional development and technology
integration (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The codes and their quotations are
summarized in Table 4. Qualitative data analysis software, Atlas-ti, version 6.2, was
used to code the transcriptions of the interviews and the focus group discussions.
Results
The findings will be presented following the domains of the IMPG-model (Clarke
& Hollingsworth, 2002) (see Fig. 1).
Personal Domain: Development of Technology Integration Knowledge
and Skills During the Professional Development Program
The personal domain reveals what technology integration knowledge and skills
teachers developed through their participation in the professional development
arrangement. An overview of the results as presented through the TPACK survey
(Table 5) show that the teachers’ perceived technology integration knowledge and
skills before and after intervention was high in all TPACK constructs. Teachers in
school A reported lower technology integration knowledge and skills before the
intervention than their colleagues in school B, but their gain was higher than
teachers in school B. The effect sizes were also higher for teachers in school A than
those in school B.
In the next section we unravel these learning gains by analyzing the contributions
of the components of the IMPG domains.
Table 4 Deductive and inductive codes and exemplary quotations
Codes Code description Example quotation
TPCK Description of knowledge and
skills for using technology
Even me who had not touched a computer before,
I am able to design my own PowerPoint slides
Teacher design
team
Description of the learning
opportunities in design teams
In design teams we reminded each other on what
we learned from the workshop
Support options Description of the contribution
of the support to teachers’
learning
…the expert helped us to understand the mistakes
we made in the lesson we designed…
Lesson
implementation
Teachers’ reflection on the
lesson they taught
Students were extra ordinarily active and very
interactive with the teacher and amongst
themselves
Learning
outcomes
Teachers reflection on the
students’ outcomes
I was asked some challenging questions by
students who never ask questions in the
classroom
684 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
External Domain: The Contribution of External Support to Teachers’
Technology Integration Knowledge and Skills
The external domain reveals how the external support offered in the professional
development arrangement contributed to teachers’ development of technology
integration knowledge and skills. Findings from the follow-up survey and the focus
group interview with teachers indicate that, teachers appreciated the support that
was provided (collaboration guidelines, expert support, exemplary lessons and
online materials), with mean scores between 4.2 and 4.9.
The focus group discussion revealed that each support option contributed to a
specific activity of the professional development arrangement (Table 6). The
collaboration guidelines helped during lesson design. In particular the collaboration
guidelines helped teachers in structuring their work and to make sense of the
concept of ‘learning technology by design’. The exemplary lessons provided
teachers with an operational and complete picture of the design task, which helped
to focus during the design process. The availability of online lesson materials
simplified the design process, and therefore helped the teachers to concentrate on
pedagogy (TPK) and content (TCK) in relation to technology, instead of technology
(TK) in isolation.
The expert was important during several phases of the professional development
arrangement: lesson design, implementation and reflection. During lesson design the
expert helped the teachers to think about their students’ activities, in this way
pedagogy and technology were connected, which contributed to teachers’ TPK.
During the implementation and reflection phase the expert provided support,
identified implementation problems and suggested solutions for those, and thus
contributed to teachers’ TPCK in the context of the classroom.
Domain of Practice—Design: The Contribution of Collaboration in Design
Teams to the Teachers’ Technology Integration Knowledge and Skills
The domain of practice (design) refers to teachers’ learning during collaboration
in design teams. Teachers’ lesson plans provide an indication of the effect of the
collaborative design process on the development of teachers’ technology integration
Table 5 Pre-post intervention assessment of teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills
TPACK
Constructs
School A (N =10) School B (N =10)
Pre M
(SD)
Post M
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen d)
Pre M
(SD)
Post M
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen d)
TK 2.8 (0.74) 4.3 (0.31) 2.64 3.2 (0.79) 3.8 (0.43) 0.94
TPK 3.4 (1.01) 4.6 (0.29) 1.61 3.5 (0.78) 4.2 (0.37) 1.15
TCK 2.8 (0.85) 4.5 (0.32) 2.64 3.6 (0.75) 4.1 (0.45) 0.81
TPCK 3.0 (0.91) 4.5 (0.35) 2.18 3.6 (0.78) 4.1 (0.47) 0.78
Scale: 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 =neutral, 4 =agree and 5 =strongly agree
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…685
123
knowledge and skills (Table 7). Both first and second cycles of lesson design had
mean values above 4. These findings confirm the findings in Table 5. Teachers’
appreciated the potential of design teams to learn collaboratively (M [4.5), the
learning opportunities offered (M [4.4) and the possibility to enhance the
development of TPCK (M [4.5).
Table 6 The impact of each support on teachers’ development of technology integration knowledge and
skills
Support Area of
impact
Technology integration knowledge and skills School A School B
Ph Ch Bi Ph Ch Bi
Collaborati-
on guide-
lines
Lesson
design
Were key to the understanding of teacher
design team
999
Guided teachers on what to do, how to do,
and when to do
99 99 9
Helped teachers to focus on the main goal of
their collaboration
99
Helped teachers to use their time more
efficiently
9
Provided a step by step approach to effective
design teams
99
Expert Lesson
design
Suggested the students’ activities in relation
to technology and content
99 9 9 9
Assisted in linking animations and videos in
PowerPoint
999
Reviewed the designed lessons and advised
improvements
99 9
Reflection Identified lesson implementation problems
and advised for improvement
99 999 9
Identified the mistakes in the designed
lessons and provided guidance for
improvement
9
Impleme-
ntation
Provided technical and pedagogical support
during lesson implementation
99999
Exemplary
lesson
Lesson
design
Provided the overall picture of what to
design and how to design
99 999 9
Provided a benchmark on where to start with
the lesson design
99 9
Guided the writing of the lesson plans for the
designed lessons
999
Online
materials
Lesson
design
Simplified the process of designing
technology enhanced lessons
99 999 9
Saved the time that teachers would use for
making animations and videos
99 9
Impleme-
ntation
Simplified the demonstration of new
concepts to students
99
Ph Physics, Ch Chemistry, Bi Biology teams
686 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
The pre- and post-intervention interviews elicited how collaborative lesson
design supported teachers’ development of technology integration knowledge and
skills. We report these for teachers in school A and B respectively.
School A
Before the professional development through collaborative design in teams, only
one teacher from school A reported to have used a DVD and a TV to teach a
technology-enhanced chemistry lesson. The remaining teachers had never used
technology in their teaching, although they reported to have knowledge of
technology (TK). After the professional development arrangement teachers’
reported enhanced technology integration knowledge and skills. Teachers reported
that, in the design teams they had the opportunity to share knowledge, try new
things and learn from each other. For example a physics teacher mentioned how
collaboration facilitated sharing of knowledge and skills.
In design teams, some of the members didn’t know how to hyperlink the
online materials in the PowerPoint slide, but we helped each other.
The importance of design teams was also acknowledged by a biology teacher for
saving time through collaborative lesson design.
…when you are two or three, it is easy to reach into agreement about a certain
concept within a short time.
Through knowledge sharing, teachers reported to develop knowledge and skills of
searching learning materials from the internet and how to hyperlink them in a
PowerPoint presentation. They also became courageous to try new things which
they did not know. For example a chemistry teacher said
In a team we encouraged each other to try even the things we didn’t know…
some of the things were done through trial and errors …for example putting a
picture on a slide.
Apart from learning new things, teachers had the opportunity to reflect upon the
technology and pedagogy that was proposed for the lesson they were designing. For
example a biology teacher reported
Table 7 Lesson plans evaluation
TPACK
Constructs
School A School B
1st design (N =3)
M (SD)
2nd design (N =3)
M (SD)
1st design (N =3)
M (SD)
2nd design (N =3)
M (SD)
TK 4.4 (0.14) 4.6 (0.19) 4.3 (0.38) 4.4 (0.38)
TCK 4.5 (0.50) 4.6 (0.14) 4.6 (0.38) 4.8 (0.25)
TPK 4.4 (0.38) 4.5 (0.00) 4.1 (0.29) 4.5 (0.25)
TPCK 4.2 (0.58) 4.8 (0.14) 4.2 (0.52) 4.7 (0.14)
Scale: 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 =neutral, 4 =agree and 5 =strongly agree
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…687
123
We discussed the advantages and disadvantage of each teaching approach and
the technology we chose, in relation to the number of students, level of
students, and time that can be spent on teaching.
School B
Despite the presence of computers at school B, before the professional
development arrangement none of the teachers reported to have used technology
in teaching. After the professional development arrangement, teachers reported to
develop technology integration knowledge and skills through design teams. During
the interview, teachers reported that, in design teams, some teachers were good in
pedagogy, others were good in technology and some were good in both. The most
reported feature of the design teams in school B, was the opportunity to share
knowledge and skills among team members. For example a biology teacher shared
his thoughts about teacher design teams as follows
In a team you get the opportunity to share your ideas, get challenged by
colleagues and learn from them.
This was supported by the other teacher, who reported
No one knows everything…we were sharing the little we know….
Their knowledge differences made them to assume different roles in the team, as
was reported by a chemistry teacher
In a design team, you are at a time assuming the role of a teacher, a learner,
and an expert….
As a learner, you learn from others; as a teacher, you share with colleagues what
you know; and as an expert, you help others to learn what you know.In summary:
Collaborative design supported the development of technology integration knowl-
edge and skills through sharing expertise, reflection on pedagogy when using
technology and trying-out new tools.
Domain of Practice: Implementation: The Contribution of the Lessons
Implementation to Teachers’ Technology Integration Knowledge and Skills
The domain of practice (implementation) applies to teachers’ learning through
classroom implementation of the designed technology-enhanced science lessons.
The observation results provide an indication of teachers’ development of teachers’
technology integration knowledge and skills during classroom implementation
(Table 8). Teachers from both schools demonstrated their technology integration
knowledge and skills (M [2) in both the first and second cycle, confirming the
findings presented in Table 5.
As expected the observation scores were higher in the 2nd cycle than in the 1st,
in particular for school A. Table 9presents a summary of what teachers’ said to
have learned from classroom implementation. In particular the teachers reported to
have learned how to teach with technology (TPK), and more specific how to manage
688 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
student learning (TPK). In addition they learned how to solve practical technical
problems (TK).
Through reflections (Table 10) on the implemented lessons in both the first and
second lesson design cycles, teachers changed their technology integration
approaches during the second cycle. For instance, instead of starting with a video
or animation followed by a discussion, they started with questions followed by a
video or animation. This approach made students use the video for finding answers
to the questions raised, instead of watching the video without a specific task.
Domain of Consequence: The Contribution of Teachers’ Reflection
on Outcomes on Their Technology Integration Knowledge and Skills
The domain of consequence refers to teachers’ learning through reflection on the
outcomes of their technology enhanced lessons on their students. During the
interviews and focus group discussions, teachers reported that, the use of technology
exposed students to a deeper understanding of science concepts, and made them ask
challenging questions to teachers. For example a physics teacher from school B
shared
Table 8 Observed teachers’ TPACK during the first and second lesson implementation
TPACK
constructs
School A School B
1st design
(N =3)
2nd design
(N =3)
1st design
(N =3)
2nd design
(N =3)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
TK 2.4 (0.10) 2.6 (0.19) 2.4 (0.179) 2.6 (0.26)
TPK 2.3 (0.42) 2.8 (0.33) 2.3 (0.395) 2.6 (0.29)
TCK 2.7 (0.29) 3.0 (0.00) 2.5 (0.404) 2.6 (0.33)
TPCK 2.6 (0.39) 3.0 (0.00) 2.9 (0.129) 2.9 (0.14)
Scale: 1 =No, 2 =Yes/No, 3 =Yes
Table 9 Development of technology integration knowledge and skills through lesson implementation
What did they learn? Example quote School A School B
Ph Ch Bi Ph Ch Bi
Teaching approaches that are
supported by technology
I learned that, students need to be
guided to discover the concept
presented through technology
999
Solving technological issues
(audio, visibility etc.;
connection problems)
Students were not able to see the texts.
Thus, we had to try out different ways
of widening up the projected screen
and texts
99 9 9 9
Students management when
teaching a technology
enhanced science subject
I learned how to manage students’
responses and questions when
teaching a technology- enhanced
lesson….
99 999 9
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…689
123
When I use technology, students become very active and ask challenging
questions which need sufficient preparation to be able to answer.
The use of animation and videos exposed students to more information than they
usually got. This made them curious on what they were seeing in relation to what
they learned theoretically. This made the class to become more interactive and the
role of the teacher changed from that of an instructor to a co-learner. For example, a
chemistry teacher from school A said
I have learned that, when you are using a chalk and talk you interact more with
the chalkboard and you talk more than the students, but when you are using
technology you become part of the learners.
Similarly, a biology teacher from school B was quoted saying;
…with the use of technology, you bring a problem to students and ask them to
discuss what they hear and see….
In summary: Teachers experienced an increase in students’ interest in science
subjects, more active involvement of students during the lesson and a deeper
understanding of science subjects. Teachers became aware that they had to be well
prepared in order to answer students’ questions.
Conclusions and Discussion
This study used the IMPG model to investigate how a professional development
arrangement leveraged ‘learning technology by design’ and contributed to teachers’
development of technology integration knowledge and skills for science teaching.
Findings showed an increase in science teachers’ technology integration
knowledge and skills between pre- and post-intervention results, as reported by
teachers through a questionnaire, the interview and confirmed by lesson plans and
the classroom implementation of technology-enhanced lessons. Similar results have
been reported by Agyei and Voogt (2012), and Jimoyiannis (2010). These findings
confirm that a professional development program that practices ‘learning
Table 10 Teachers’ reflections on the support offered
Support School A (N =10) School B (N =10)
1st design M
(SD)
2nd design M
(SD)
1st design M
(SD)
2nd design M
(SD)
Collaboration guidelines 4.4 (0.21) 4.6 (0.30) 4.3 (0.24) 4.5 (0.33)
The expert 4.9 (0.14) 4.7 (0.60) 4.5 (0.66) 4.9 (0.13)
Exemplary lessons 4.7 (0.30) 4.7 (0.36) 4.2 (0.47) 4.8 (0.28)
Online materials 4.6 (0.24) 4.5 (0.53) 4.4 (0.13) 4.6 (0.36)
Scale: 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 =neutral, 4 =agree and 5 =strongly agree
690 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
technology by design’ through collaborative lesson design in teams, lesson
implementation in the classroom and reflection on outcomes, when properly
supported, is effective in developing technology integration knowledge and skills.
Overall, the teachers’ enhancement of the knowledge and skills in integrating
technology in science teaching (personal domain) resulted from the interplay
between collaborative design and lesson implementation (domain of practice) and
reflection on outcomes (domain of consequence), while the support offered (external
domain) leveraged the design and implementation of technology-enhanced science
lessons in teams. Although this is a small case study, the findings provide a better
understanding of how different forms of support facilitate learning technology by
design.
During collaborative lesson design teachers shared knowledge, reflected on their
pedagogy and encouraged each other to try new tools (Jimonyannis, 2010). This
process was facilitated by collaboration guidelines, exemplary lesson materials,
online materials and the expert. Since teachers were not familiar with design in
teams, the collaboration guidelines guided teachers in managing the design process,
and therefore left room to focus on the product that had to be designed (Handelzalts,
2009). The exemplary materials provided the teachers with a picture of a
technology-enhanced science lesson, and provided therefore clarity of the task that
was expected from the teams (Wong, 2009). The availability of relevant online
materials (video, animation and pictures) simplified the design process. Teachers
did not have to develop their own animations, which appeared to be time consuming
in a previous study (Kafyulilo et al., 2014). The expert broadened teachers’ teaching
repertoire and made teachers’ think about the preparation of students’ activities
during the design process (Voogt et al., 2009). The expert was also important in
providing pedagogical support during design and implementation, and reflected with
teachers how to cope with problems met during implementation.
During lesson implementation, teachers practiced the teaching of the lessons they
designed in teams. When teaching with technology, they encountered some
unexpected challenges with technology. Such experiences exposed teachers to
learning beyond the workshop and design teams; as they were to find out the
solution for the problem they encountered. This helped them to develop knowledge
and skills of dealing with the technology in the classroom (Jimoyiannis, 2010). In
addition teachers interacted with students in new ways through lesson implemen-
tation in the classroom. Teachers in this study developed an understanding of
applications of technology in the real classroom environment.
The expert in particular supported teachers in overcoming technical and
pedagogical problems. In this way teachers were able to further expand their
technological and pedagogical knowledge (Voyiatzaki & Avouris, 2014) Teachers
indicated that, a technology-enhanced lesson was very interactive, with a lot of
questions and discussions, which required teachers to have sufficient preparation for
the lesson, technologically, pedagogically and content wise. Use of technology in
science teaching made the teachers’ role in the classroom to change from instructor
to peer (Jimoyiannis, 2010). The expert facilitated these reflections of teachers and
advised them in improving their lesson. Reflection is considered an important part
of teacher learning (Jimonyannis, 2010).
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…691
123
In conclusion, all four kinds of support offered to the teams were important in
facilitating teachers’ learning. Our study showed that the process of collaboratively
designing and implementing technology enhanced science lessons offered ample
opportunities for teachers to learn how to integrate technology in their lessons,
because it offered the experience of instructional design, authentic experience
through classroom implementation, modeling collaboration in teams, feedback and
reflection (Tondeur et al., 2012).
This study also has its limitations. When it comes to measuring TPACK several
authors (e.g. Graham et al., 2009; Voogt et al., 2013) addressed the problems with
self-report surveys in validating the seven distinct knowledge domains of the
TPACK framework. Given the discourse on measuring TPACK and our believe that
‘‘ultimately, (student-) teachers need to demonstrate what they can actually do with
technology in their subject for enhancing teaching and learning’’ (cf. Voogt et al.,
p. 119), we deliberately used a combination different instruments to study teachers’
learning about the integration of technology in their teaching (cf. Fisser et al., 2015).
The professional development program presented in this study informs a new
paradigm for teacher development of technology integration knowledge and skills in
Tanzania. Teacher professional development programs in Tanzania are usually
organized as short seminars and workshops which in most cases had a negligible
impact (Swarts & Wachira, 2010). Most of the seminars and workshops are
organized outside the school, and teachers are trained on topics which lack
relevance for school contexts. Voogt et al. (2011) propose that professional
development programs are situated in meaningful contexts, engage the learners (in
this case, the teachers) in active learning processes, and adopt collaboration (Glazer,
Hannafin, & Song, 2005). The professional development approach presented in this
study could be relevant to the integration of technology by (science) teachers in
Tanzania secondary schools, because it is designed within school contexts, and
takes teachers’ knowledge requirements based on available technologies, and the
support that can be offered within the school context into account.
The findings of this study show that the professional development arrangement
was effective in developing teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills.
However, Harvey and Hurworth (2006) argue that with a view to sustainability the
long term outcomes of the professional development need to be evaluated.
Therefore, we recommend for a sustainability study to be conducted in the near
future to unveil the long term impact of the professional development arrangement
presented in this study.
References
Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service
mathematics teachers through teacher design teams. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(4), 547–564.
Alayyar, G., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT Integration through design teams in science teacher
preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6, 125–145.
Allan, C. W., Erickson, J. L., Brookhouse, P., & Johnson, J. L. (2010). Eco science works: Teacher
professional development through a collaborative curriculum project—An example of TPACK in
Maine. TechTrends, 54, 36–43.
692 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
Bakah, M. A. (2011). Teacher professional development through collaborative curriculum design in
Ghana’s polytechnics (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.
De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Fessakis, G., Dimitracopoulou, A., & Palaiodimos, A. (2013). Graphical interaction analysis impact on
groups collaborating through blogs. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 243–253.
Fisser, P., Voogt, J., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2015). Measuring and Assessing TPACK
(technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge). In J. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia
of Educational Technology (pp. 490–493). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through collaborative
apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 57–67.
Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development
in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service science teachers. TechTrends,
53(5), 70–79.
Groth, R., Spickler, D., Bergner, J., & Bardzell, M. (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing
technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(4), 392–411.
Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design team (Doctoral
Dissertation) University of Twente, Enschede.
Hare, H. (2007). Survey of ICT in education in Tanzania. In G. Farrell & I. Shafika (Eds.), Survey of ICT
and Education in Africa: A Summary Report, Based on 53 Country Surveys (pp. 1–9). Washington,
DC: infoDev/World Bank.
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration
assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833–3840). Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
Harvey, G., & Hurworth, R. (2006). Exploring program sustainability: Identifying factors in two
educational initiatives in Victoria. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6(1), 36–44.
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science
knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55,
1259–1269.
Justi, R., & van Driel, J. (2006). The use of the interconnected model of teachers’ professional growth for
understanding the development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modeling. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 22, 437–450.
Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., Pieters, J., & Voogt, J. (2015). ICT use in science and mathematics teacher
education in Tanzania: Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology., 31(4), 382–399.
Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher design in teams as a professional development
arrangement for developing technology integration knowledge and skills of science teachers in
Tanzania. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-014-9321-0
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design
seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740–762.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality &
Quantity, 43(2), 265–275.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE Publication.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Punya, M., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an
assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42, 123–149.
Swarts, P., & Wachira, E. M. (2010). Tanzania: ICT in education: Situational analysis. Dar-Es-salaam:
Global e-School and Communities Initiative (GESCI).
Tilya, F. (2007). ICT in education in Tanzania: Lessons and experiences from IICD-supported projects.
Dar-Es-Salaam: IICD.
Supporting Teachers Learning Through the Collaborative…693
123
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Guoyuan, S., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreitt-Leftwich, A. S. (2012).
Preparing student teachers to integrate ICT in classroom practice: A synthesis of qualitative
evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.
van den Akker, J. (1988). The teacher as learner in curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 20(1), 47–55.
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding inter-observer agreement: The kappa statistic. Family
Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.
Voogt, J. (2010). A blended in-service arrangement for supporting science teachers in technology
integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 83–109.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & Van Braak, J. (2013). Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK)—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,
29, 109–121.
Voogt, J., Tilya, F., & van den Akker, J. (2009). Science teacher learning for MBL-supported student-
centered science education in the context of secondary education in Tanzania. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 18, 429–438.
Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & de Vries, B. (2011).
Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,
1235–1244.
Voyiatzaki, E., & Avouris, N. (2014). Support for the teacher in technology-enhanced collaborative
classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 129–154.
Witterholt, M., Goedhart, M., Suhre, C., & van Streun, A. (2012). The interconnected model of
professional growth as a means to assess the development of a mathematics teacher. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28, 661–674.
Wong, N. Y. (2009). Exemplary mathematics lessons: What lessons we can learn from them? ZDM, 41,
379–384.
694 A. C. Kafyulilo et al.
123
