Developing Educators for The Digital Age

Front matter

DEVELOPING EDUCATORS for the

Digital Age

A Framework for Capturing Knowledge in Action

Contents

Thanks and Acknowledgements vii Chapter 1: Building Knowledge: Foundations 1 Chapter 2: Technology, Knowledge, and Workshops 21 Chapter 3: Insider Research and Fthical Issues 39 Chapter 4: The Drive from Inhibitions to Adoption 57 Chapter 5: The Shift to a More Individual Focus 75 Chapter 6: Observations in the Thick of Practice 89 Chapter 7: Resources and Technology Use 101 Chapter 8: The Embedding of Development 115 Chapter 9: Blended Learning’s Consistent Presence 127 Chapter 10: Understanding Espoused and Actual Practice 143 Chapter 11: Teachers, Development, and the Centre 159 Chapter 12: Conclusion 169 Appendices 181 Notes 185 References 187

Index 207

List of Figures and Appendices

CHAPTER 2 2.1 - Contextualisation Technologies in the language centre

Increasingly, teacher knowledge needs to incorporate an understanding of integrating technological resource into course content and pedagogy. This, of course, is not new because technology has been a part of classroom life since long before the coming of the digital age (McGrath et al, 2011). However, in recent decades, new conversations and circumstances have evolved around the position of technologies within the higher educational domain. Going back two decades, Diana Laurillard proposed ‘rethinking university teaching in the digital age’ (1993). In her book of that precise title, she advocated greater integration of technology into the higher educational curriculum, and designed a practical framework for such integration, so as to move the discussion beyond theory and resource, to meaningful usage of technologies.

The aspiration for meaningful use of technologies was one that the language centre held from the outset. There had been considerable investment in two resources intended to serve as a staple of cutting edge educational provision to students. The first of these came in the form of Hitachi Cambridge Starboards, with which each classroom was equipped, and the second was the shared learning platform of a Moodle Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Although VLEs have become an established feature of higher educational provision, the Star Boards, also known as interactive whiteboards, are more generally associated with ‘school teaching. However, they also provide a suite of functions that make them highly suitable for use in Higher Education. Branzburg (2008) describes these boards as ‘being connected to a computer and LCD projector’ which can be used for the purposes of display, input, annotation, projection, and recording. He goes on to say that these offer classrooms ‘the next

Breen, P. 2018. Developing Educators for The Digital Age: A Framework for Capturing Knowledge in Action. Pp. 21-37. London: University of Westminster Press. DOE: https://doi.org/10.16997/book13.b. License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 generation interactive whiteboard’ through multi-touch gestures similar to those of an iPhone (ibid, p. 3). However, he does note that this brand originates in the corporate world, unlike such tools as Promethean’s Activboard designed ‘by teachers for teachers’ (ibid, p. 7).

In the beginning, many of the teachers found these whiteboards quite clunky and awkward, inhibiting their favoured classroom practices. Some teachers used the boards for simple projection of PowerPoint or internet images onto the screen, thereby using technology for technology's sake and defeating the purpose of investing in such high-tech equipment. The boards also seemed best suited to the teaching paradigm of presentation, production and practice, commonly known by its acronym PPP and now seen as outdated, as outlined in Richards & Rodgers (2014). This is a model of teaching used more commonly in yesterday's language schools than today’s universities. The Moodle Virtual Learning Environment, on the other hand, created scope for pedagogic approaches that were not necessarily as teacher-centred. Thus, right from the outset, Moodle seemed to have greater potential to become as natural a part of teachers’ everyday life as their morning arsenal of board markers or Friday evening socialising in the pub.

Moodle is an acronym for Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment and also ‘a verb that describes the process of lazily meandering through something, doing things as it occurs to you to do them, an enjoyable tinkering that often leads to insight and creativity’ (Cole & Foster, 2008, p. ix). This was very much a feature of the early months of Moodle’s usage in INTO UEA London. Such a sense of ‘tinkering’ (Cole & Foster, 2008, p. ix) and stumbling upon a sense of identity and better practice, almost by accident rather than design, fits in with Etienne Wenger’s earlier work with Jean Lave on organic communities of practice (1991). Significantly too, according to Robb (2004), the learning platform itself had been born out of such a mood of experimentation, created by Martin Dougiamas ‘while working on his PhD. at Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia’

Out of frustration with the university’s existing course management system and his role as Web CT administrator, Dougiamas ‘developed it as a tool for his dissertation which was on a Socio-constructivist approach to learning’ and incorporated ‘features which supported this approach to education’ (Robb, 2004). Part of the design included an emphasis upon ‘community building, which was very much in line with my stated aspiration to draw upon Communities of Practice theory and help teachers develop as a team (ibid). Moodle is thus a system that is designed to be built by educators rather than engineers (Cole & Foster, 2008, p. ix). However, as Hung & Chen point out, the fact of simply ‘creating these environments does not ensure that these facilities are well used by participants’ (2001, p. 3). It was my responsibility as manager and teacher educator to facilitate everyday usage of Moodle, and also the interactive whiteboards, but I decided to start with the former.

Contextualising technologies in ELT, EAP, and beyond

Technology has thoroughly permeated the lecture theatres of contemporary institutions within higher education, according to Liz Hamp-Lyons, a leading theorist in English for Academic Purposes (2011, p. 96). This is as true of the EAP context as in all other subjects and disciplines within academia. However, when it comes to Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), English Language Teaching has often been ahead of the game in many respects. There has long been a tradition of incorporating technology into English Language classes (Warschaeur, 1996; Bax, 2003; Beatty, 2003; Motteram & Sharma, 2009; Chapelle, 2010; Motteram, 2013), and thus EAP teachers can draw on pre-existing strategies for doing so. Traditional phases of CALL (behavioural, communicative, and interactive) also broadly relate to a combination of language teaching methodologies and software available (Warschauer & Healey, 1998; Warschauer, 2000/2003; Motteram, 2013).

Bax (2003) further amended the categories of CALL development to ‘Restricted, Open, and Integrated, and spoke of a normalisation of technology’s usage in the classroom to a point where it would be as natural and ‘unremarked’ as ‘the coursebook or the whiteboard’ (Motteram, 2013, p. 182). Gary Motteram (ibid, p. 5) adds that ‘in this early part of the 21st century the range of technologies available for use in language learning and teaching has become very diverse and the ways that they are being used in classrooms all over the world [...] have become central to language practice’? Some of these technologies are listed as blogs, wikis, Second Life, Skype, Songify, teacher feedback videos, Windows Movie Maker, learners’ own mobile devices, and audio blog software (p. 8). Julie Watson provides further examples such as content curation tools, data capture tools, screencasting facilities, social networks and referencing resources amongst others listed in a BALEAP keynote speech in November 2012 on the subject of ‘An A to Z of Technologies’. Jarvis and Achilleos (2013) update this landscape with mobile devices such as smartphones, MP3 players, podcasts, iPads, eBook readers and other resources which facilitate Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL). Four years down the line, the list keeps on growing, such is the speed of advancement in the use of technologies in teaching.

There is much more, though, to this relationship between ELT and technologies than just a practical element defined by the tools that people are using at a particular point in time. There has long been a substantial research component attached to the usage of technologies and their intersection with such areas as pedagogy and second language acquisition. Research has been conducted too within the domains of EAP and ESP. As far back as 1997, Huw Jarvis ‘conducted a survey amongst BALEAP members to discover the extent to which Information Technology (IT) formed a part of pre-sessional EAP studies; according to Jordan (2002, p. 76), who adds that this research fits into studies on the role of IT in academic culture as much as purely EAP teaching. Watson- Todd (2003, p. 151) echoes this in his claim that technology has become a strong driver in the teaching of EAP possibly because of the ‘innovative’ methodologies used in the subject (p. 149) and the fact of approaches based on sound teaching and learning principles, rather than methods and techniques, guiding its pedagogical ethos (p. 148).

Setting the right context for workshops to take place

My goal, then, was to further build upon ELT’s relationship between research, teacher education and classroom practice, by combining my PhD studies with a practical project in teacher development. Such a project would not just benefit myself but also the institution that I worked in, the broader field of EAP, and possibly other subjects and disciplines within higher education. Much like the evolution of Moodle, my PhD studies up to that point had involved a great deal of tinkering and exploration. It was important to move beyond these tentative steps and create something more solid from this platform of opportunity. BALEAP, after all, has long held aspirations for more research into EAP practice, going back to the creation of their Research Register in 1995 (Jordan, 2002). Furthermore, by researching topics of such contemporary importance as pedagogy and technology, EAP research could assume a less marginal role. The potential existed to set in motion a shared exploration with a group of teachers in the hope of generating findings of relevance beyond EAP. However, there was a lot of work to be done before such a point could be reached. To paraphrase the Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh, it was important to understand the local context - ‘the parish’ - before trying to understand the wider ‘universe’ of higher education (1967).

2.2 - Theoretical foundations TPACK’s evolution as a framework for knowledge

TPACK serves as an acronym for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Essentially, this is a framework for teacher knowledge and technology integration, which was originally known as TPCK, or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60). It is intended as ‘a professional knowledge construct’ designed to create ‘expert’ teaching in the classroom (ibid, p. 66). This adaptation of Shulman’s (1986) PCK framework has been variously described in the literature as a teaching model for the twenty first century (Pierson & Borthwick, 2010; McGrath et al, 2011) and an extension of PCK for the digital age (Kirk, 2012). Drawing on this sense of TPACK being an extension of an earlier model, it is important to firstly define PCK in order to get to grips with its later incarnations.

Back in the 1980s, Professor Lee Shulman lamented the absence of a recognised knowledge base for teaching. This, he argued, has an impact upon teacher education, and that is especially true in higher education where traditionally lecturers have been trained separately in their subject knowledge (Law, Bioscience, Criminology) and their pedagogic strategies for delivering this. If teachers could find an ‘intersection and synergy’ between these two components then it could engender ‘excellence in teaching’ (Hofer & Swan, 2008, p. 181). Thus, as a potential solution to this dichotomy of expertise, Shulman advocated the creation of a periodic table of knowledge for teachers (1987, p.4). Such a construct would be designed along the lines of Dmitri Mendeleev’s periodic table of chemical elements which, at the outset of its publication in 1869, contained ‘distinct gaps for the then unknown elements’ (Schwerdtfeger, 2011, p. 93). Shulman, though, provided a ‘rudimentary’ (by his own admission) outline of teacher knowledge (Ball et al, 2008, p. 397) with his formulation of the PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) framework.

Although some leading ELT theorists such as Donald Freeman have suggested that PCK is ‘a messy and possibly unworkable concept’ (2002, p. 6) within language teaching, others could argue that EAP should be treated the same as any other subject. All forms of teaching can involve ill-structured activity (Spiro & Jehng, 1990; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; McGrath et al, 2011). That does not have to be a negative feature, especially in the EAP context where teachers need to be reactive to the needs of students (BALEAP, 2008). Added to this, the forms of knowledge described by Shulman (1986) are highly transferable across contexts, and can be readily mapped to BALEAP’s (2008) competencies, which in themselves can be seen as a type of periodic table of EAP teacher knowledge. The following characteristics of PCK, summarised by Ball et al (2008, p. 391), appear particularly compatible - ‘knowledge of educational contexts’; ‘knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values’; ‘knowledge of learners and their characteristics’; and ‘principles and strategies of classroom management and organisation’? Another significant category within both the PCK and BALEAP models is ‘curriculum knowledge’ described by Ball et al (ibid) as the ‘particular grasp of the materials and programs that serve as tools of the trade for teachers:

Where Shulman’s (1986) PCK framework involved the interaction of two main bodies of knowledge, TPACK involves the interaction of a third: technology working in ‘dynamic equilibrium with the others (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1029). This then creates a set of sub-domains represented as PCK, TCK (technological content knowledge), and TPK (technological pedagogical knowledge), which together form TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The overall construct then fits the definition of what Piaget (1970) referred to as a broader ‘schema of knowledge’ Through practical and theoretical interaction of these knowledge bodies, there is creation of the flexibility ‘needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60), and a description of how understanding of educational

— — _ = _— Technological 7A Pedagogical Content a Knowledge Nie F (TPACK) \ Technological z Technological N f Pedagogical Technological Content Knowledge nE s jal Knowledge fi (TPK) T E (TCK) ) Pedagogical ™ Content "á ~x Knowledge _— ~ 1A

C s Pi ontexts _ —

Figure 1: The TPACK framework and its knowledge components. Reproduced from Koehler & Mishra (2009, p. 63)

technologies and PCK interact to produce ‘effective teaching’ (ibid, p. 62). The original depiction of the TPACK model, as first published in Teacher College Record (2006) is provided in Figure 1.

Knowledge components within TPACK

Within the framework there are six categories of knowledge, which intersect to form Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Pedagogical knowledge (PK) - This is very much in line with Shulman’s (1986) categorisation and represents ‘teachers’ deep knowledge about the processes and practices or methods of learning and teaching’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63). Similar to elements of BALEAP’s categories of “Teaching Practices; ‘Assessment Practices, and ‘Academic Contexts’ (2008), this necessarily entails an understanding of ‘overall educational purposes, values, and aims’ and ‘understanding how students learn, general classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student assessment’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63).

Content knowledge (CK) - Again, this draws heavily on Shulman’s original definition (1986, pp. 8-9). At its most fundamental it is ‘teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or taught’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63). Shulman (1986, p. 9) had previously defined this as ‘the amount and organization of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher’ which goes beyond ‘knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain, and requires a deeper understanding of ‘both the substantive and the syntactic structures’ of a discipline (ibid). Substantive structures are those that give shape to the body of knowledge within a discipline, whilst syntactic structures establish the rules of a discipline, much as grammar establishes the rules of language (ibid). Content knowledge thus needs to include ‘knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organisational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63). Significantly for EAP, it also involves knowledge of the differences in content across disciplines (ibid).

Pedagogical Content knowledge (PCK) - Koehler & Mishra (2009, p. 64) summarise this as being knowledge of pedagogy applicable to the teaching of specific content and creation of associated materials. This is essentially the same as Shulman’s original formulation and goes beyond subject matter per se ‘to the dimension of subject knowledge matter for teaching (Shulman, 1986, p. 9), thus allowing both theory and practice to inform teachers’ work. Early versions seemed to place greater emphasis on content, but later adaptations appear to have found a stronger equilibrium with pedagogy, and incorporation of student needs (Shulman, 2012).

Technological knowledge (TK) - The integration of technological knowledge is what sets the TPACK framework apart from PCK, and therefore plays a critical role in understanding the overall model. Koehler & Mishra (2009, p. 64) summarise this as being a productive working knowledge of technology, alongside a deeper understanding of how it can be used from a practical perspective. This, though, is not limited to ‘the traditional definition of computer literacy’ but requires ‘a deeper, more essential understanding; ‘mastery, and ability for adaptation (ibid).

Technological Content knowledge (TCK) - This entails an understanding of ‘the deep historical relationship’ between technology and content, plus ‘understanding the impact of technology on the practices and knowledge of a given discipline’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 65).

It is the disciplinary emphasis that separates TCK from TK alone (Ward & Kushner-Benson, 2010). Kirk (2012) adds to this by speaking of how the simple act of setting up ‘a Facebook site or a blogging space for EAP learners’ is a form of TK. However, this evolves to TCK if teachers understand ‘how academic blogging may change relationships with knowledge, readership, dissemination, notions of academic style, and publicatior (ibid). In order to fully enact such instances of TCK, Koehler & Mishra (2009, p. 65) argue that teachers not only need to understand how to relate appropriate technologies to specific content but also ‘how the content dictates or perhaps even changes the technology - or vice versa.

Technological Pedagogical knowledge (TPK) - Koehler & Mishra (2009, pp. 65-66) state that this involves ‘an understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are used in particular ways’ according to purpose, and disciplinary ‘context. Unlike TCK, the emphasis in TPK is on how technologies shape teaching and learning, rather than how they shape content, as they are used in specific ways. As with Motteram’s (2013) examples of technologies being used for different purposes to those for which they were originally created, Koehler & Mishra (2009, p. 66) go on to cite ways of using popular software programmes not designed for educational purposes.

TPK thus requires an ability to reconfigure tools for ‘customized pedagogic purposes, and ‘a forward-looking, creative, and open-minded seeking of technology use, not for its own sake, but for the sake of advancing student learning and understanding’ (ibid).

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) - The six categories of knowledge that I have described intersect to form the core of the TPACK framework. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is defined as ‘an emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three ‘core’ components (content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge)’ and is based on their purposeful integration (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 66). Serving as the basis for effective teaching, this ‘professional knowledge construct’ (ibid, p. 66) establishes ‘a dynamic equilibrium’ (ibid, p. 67) amongst all of its component parts, and they must all be brought into play before an instance of TPACK is enacted. Going back to Kirk’s (2012) examples of blogging, as instances of TK and TCK, there is a greater need for ‘knowledge in action’ (ibid) before something can be defined as TPACK. One possibility that he offers is ‘scaffolding a group blogging project that centers around collaborative reflection on and critiquing of a selection of journal papers ona theme of disciplinary relevance to learners’ (ibid). Through doing so, teachers enact what Hofer & Swan (2008, p. 181) describe as going beyond a process of design and action, to a form of knowledge in action that involves understanding the specific needs of students, and then facilitating a learning experience around these needs, which is the essence of TPACK.

Potential benefits of relating TPACK to an EAP context

Key terms in the TPACK schema strongly echo those of the core competency statements conceptualised by BALEAP (2008). Terms such as disciplinary context, purpose, knowledge, creation of materials, and integration of ICT resonate across the descriptors of both. Discipline-specific content is of particular salience to the contemporary direction of EAP, as discussed in Hyland (2006), Dudley-Evans & St. John (2009), Sloan & Porter (2010), Alexander et al (2011), Gilbert (2013), and Bell (2016). Furthermore, even though EAP and ELT are not ‘subjects’ commonly featured in TPACK literature, there are many references to disciplines supported by EAP. These include History and Medicine (Koehler & Mishra, 2009); Physics, Engineering, and Sociology (Harris et al, 2009); and Education (Dickenson, 2014).

In the specific context of EAP, Steve Kirk (2012) talks about using technology in sync with discipline-specific work by getting ‘our hands dirty with e-AP tools, which are those electronic tools available for use in the teaching of English for Academic Purposes. He goes on to define TPACK in this context as being ‘knowledge that develops to enhance EAP practice through technology’ which needs to be turned into ‘techknowlogy, before it can be enrolled into pedagogical practices’ (ibid). This new sense of practice amalgamates EAP and e-AP

(Fenwick & Edwards, 2010) which come together and connect to make technology an essential part of a new ‘EAP practice ecosysten’ (Kirk, 2012), where new tools are not simply applied to past pedagogy (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

This new ecosystem can create ‘a new learning environment’ (Spires et al, 2012, p. 4) where teachers’ professional knowledge can make a ‘pedagogical shift to accommodate learning that is continuous, changing, and above all exponential’ (Spires et al, 2009, p. 10). The emphasis on learning for both students and teachers again links TPACK’s underlying values to those of BALEAP (2008). Further to this, and particularly salient to the EAP context, where there has been a historical demand for sharing of ideas and practice (Johns, 1981; Jordan, 2002), Mishra & Koehler argue that TPACK can help connect ‘isolated pieces of the puzzle in our separate classrooms and discrete research studies’ (2006, p. 1019). However, in making this claim, the door is opened to potential criticisms of TPACK because it assumes a popular knowledge of the framework that does not come across in the broader literature as yet, because of its relative newness.

Addressing a potential drawback of TPACK

Mishra & Koehler, from the outset, have admitted that it is ‘extremely difficult’ to represent teacher knowledge ‘within one overarching framework or theory’ and that any such representation of knowledge needs to reflect its ‘socially constructed and dynamic nature’ (2006, p. 1045). As such, elements of their framework remain as rudimentary as that of Shulman (1986/1987); hence why these constructs are best viewed as evolutionary frameworks of teacher knowledge. McGrath et al (2011, p. 1) support this notion by suggesting that TPACK ‘does not appear to be a model that can be used as a single source of conceptual guidelines’ They go on to cite Angeli & Valanides (2008) who question ‘whether TPACK is an adequate analytical theoretical framework if used on its own (McGrath et al, 2011, p. 9). Largely, such concerns had arisen because of the absence of a sociocultural element in the framework.

However, TPACK’s creators have tried to address this by more latterly placing their framework within the broader domain of teacher cognition, with direct reference to such works as Jackson (1968) and Clark & Peterson (1986). Through doing this, they aspire to bringing technology integration into play with other forms of knowledge in teaching and the profession’s broader sphere of activity (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 67). More recent adaptations of the TPACK model have included sociocultural elements, as in Figure 2’s model of ‘Context Influence on TPACK Knowledge’ (Mishra & Koehler, 2012). This model takes a new set of variables and interlinks these in an outer ring composed of the labels ‘teacher training’ ‘experiences, ‘students; ‘resources, ‘objectives/aims, and ‘attitudes. This adaptation is shown in Figure 2 and provides a more solid theoretical framework than TPACK in its initial formulation in Figure 1 for the

Context Influence on TPACK Knowledge

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Technological Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Knowledge (TPK) (TCK)

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

~

Nee al Figure 2: Contextual influences on the TPACK framework. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org principles that guided the teacher education programme, around which the research study was sculpted.

2.3 - Practical considerations Preparation for the teacher education workshops

Preparations for the workshops began in the late summer of 2010, a time of great change and construction beyond the walls of the language centre. Every morning, on my journey to Liverpool Street Station, I passed through Stratford, deep in its last stages of preparation and development for the coming of London's 2012 Olympic games. Before events began, the country’s top athletes had to undergo an intensive training programme at Lilleshall National Sports Centre in Shropshire. As a result of such development, many would eventually progress to becoming champions and household names.

Medals are very rarely awarded to those in the teaching profession, but the same standards of excellence are expected of its practitioners. To achieve this, there is a need for education rather than training. After all, Edge (2003, p. 7) states that ‘to train is to instil habits or skills, and the word collocates just as happily with dogs and seals as with teachers’ Mann (2005, p. 105) suggests that teacher education is a ‘bottom up process’ that values the ‘insider’ view whilst training is ‘top down’ and places more emphasis on the ‘outsider’ view. This is again voiced by Diaz-Maggioli (2004) who suggests that too many professional development days have given rise to ‘images of coffee breaks, consultants in elegant outfits, and schools barren of kids.

Bearing this in mind, these workshops had to avoid such pitfalls, and place an emphasis upon ‘self-directiom (Mann, 2005, p. 104), where teachers were not ‘surreptitiously pushed in pre-determined directions’ (Tomlinson, 2003b, p. 2). The way of doing this was to consult the teachers throughout the design process and to plan sessions around an ethos of interactivity and reflection. The fact of this being a research study also served to create a distinction between these sessions and other ‘one-shot’ (Meltzer, 2010) workshops in areas such as HR training, management training, or Health & Safety. For reasons of both ethics and ethos, participation in workshops was voluntary, with invitations sent by email through a fellow programme manager, as shown in Figure 3’s authentic extract from the original contact with potential participants.

Dear all,

You are invited to consider taking part in a research study relating to developments in actions, knowledge, and practice that occur after a teacher education programme on the use of technologies in teaching.

This project is being undertaken by a colleague as part of his PhD research for the University of Manchester. Before you decide whether or not you wish to take part, it is important for you to understand why this research is being done and what it will involve and to this end, I have attached the information sheet alongside the consent forms which you are invited to sign if you decide to take part in the research.

Participation is entirely voluntary in both the workshops or the research. You are free to decide whether you wish to take part or not. If you do decide to take part you will be asked to sign two consent forms, one is for you to keep and the other is for our records. You are free to withdraw from

Thank you for your consideration of this request and I look forward to your response.

Dr.

Figure 3: Extract from the email sent to all teachers at the outset.

This email from my fellow Programme Manager also offered the proviso that teachers had the freedom to participate in the teacher education workshops, without having to become involved in the research study. He also explained that those who signed up as full participants in the study would be invited to participate in focus group sessions, leading to individual interviews. There would also be teacher observations at various points of the study, which again were for developmental reasons rather than performance management. It was important from the outset to create as much ofa distinction as possible between the research study and contractual obligations in the workplace.

To achieve this, I sought to give participants a sense of collaboration in the design of workshops, and perhaps even a form of ownership as envisioned in the work of Anne Burns in the field of collaborative action research (1999) or Wenger’s Communities of Practice theory (1998, pp. 200-202). Rather than following the traditional definition of ownership, Wenger defines this as having control over the personal meaning that we attach to our practice and seeing that sense of meaning valued in a shared repertoire (ibid). Schlager & Fusco (2003, p. 209) further suggest that ‘when professional development is embedded in a strong community of practice focused on instructional improvement, the community of practice owns a stake in the outcome of the activity’ It was thus important in setting up the teacher education programme that participants felt as if they had not just a stake and share in activities, but also a stake in the objectives and direction of the programme.

Establishing Moodle as a focus at the outset

In order to give teachers a meaningful stake in their own education, it was important to have a concrete focus for the introductory workshops, and the language centre’s Virtual Learning Environment served this purpose. The reason for this was that Moodle was the much-publicised platform of use within the organisation; it was something that participants were already familiar with, and there was a demand from participants for greater knowledge in how to use the Moodle site. This was in keeping with a belief expressed by Brooks-Harris & Stock-Ward (1999, pp. 12-15) that the needs and voices of participants must be listened to at the outset of the design process. A workshop was thus designed drawing on ideas from Cole & Foster’s (2008) publication ‘Using Moodle - Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System’ and Laurie Korte’s (2007) training handbook entitled ‘Moodle Magic: Make it Happen’. There was already a limited use of Moodle within the organisation and a half-formed, almost self-taught awareness of how to use it, but what was now required was for teachers to be shown to use it in a way that married together pedagogy and practice in the ‘love match; as defined by Ham (2010), rather than any form of coerced relationship. The goal was to work upwards from what teachers already knew, rather than starting out with the view that the solution to development was to give them new knowledge on its own. This meets Richards & Farrell's (2005, p. 26) suggestion that the topic of teacher education sessions should also ‘be one that participants have relevant experience in and ideas that they can draw on, or in cases where participants have little experience of the topic, a strong interest in learning more’ This also fitted in with Wenger's (1998, p. 249) assertion that the ‘trainer’ (sic) should find a point of leverage to ‘build on learning opportunities offered by practice?