Classroom Technologies – Final Post

An informed and considered approach to the use of technology in the classroom can result in a redefinition of activities and curriculum that promote higher order thinking skills in the classroom. Developments in Web 2.0 Internet technologies such as Wikis, blogs and microblogging applications offer affordances for classroom pedagogies to evolve toward the use of more constructivist learning theories because students are able to collaborate on and publish materials that have previously been inconceivable (Puentedura, 2013; Stanton, 2013; Harasim, 2009). Recent research into the success of Web 2.0 technologies has demonstrated that education policy and institutions need to place more value in teacher training so that there is less of a focus on learning the technology and instead using the technology to address curriculum (Finger, Russel, Jamieson-Proctor and Russell, 2007; Harasim, 2012). Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK framework should be used by teachers integrating these new technologies into the classroom as part of Roblyer and Doering’s (2013) TIP so that students can be involved in more meaningful activities that have been shown to help them create knowledge through collaboration (Daniels, 2002).
Inclusive Web 2.0 technologies such as the MOODLE LMS with a social constructionism pedagogy can also provide a range of activities that can be accessed by learners who may be restricted in or from the physical environment of the classroom (Dougiamas, 2006). A considered design of digital education environments using TPACK and TIP can promote interactive use of wikis, blogs and forums as tools for collaboration between a student’s teachers and peers (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010). Students who are actively engaged in these types of meaning making activities through collaboration are using technology rather than learning it and participating in tasks that have been redefined toward meeting higher order thinking curriculum outcomes (Puentedura, 2013; Stanton, 2013).
Bigum (2012) and Seimens (cited in Paikin, 2013) have highlighted the need for education institutions to make more strategic policy decisions in an environment of increasing technological change so that previous failed integration policies can be avoided. A move toward more learner centred approaches founded on constructivist pedagogies are more likely to prepare students for the knowledge economy of our 21st C society (Finger, Russel, Jamieson-Proctor, Russell, 2007; Harasim, 2009; Seimens, 2005). Starkey (2012) also argues that students need further innovation toward integrated pedagogies that use connectivist learning theories so that they are prepared for complex relationships that utilise the affordance of digital devices and social networking in our society.
The challenges faced by teachers in developing much needed technical knowledge about new devices, software and Web 2.0 applications are made more complex by the need for flexible constructivist pedagogies that assist with their technological affordances. While the curriculum content may remain relatively stable, there are also increasing changes in this area of teaching with ACARA and NSW syllabuses, however, Wendy Worrell (cited in Finger, Russel, Jamieson-Proctor, Russell, 2007) argues that time and resource poor teachers are challenged by these complexities in schools that are in need of more funding. Cox (2012) also argues further that increased funding toward online classroom technologies (e-learning) will result in the identification of more specific and consistent measurements for areas of teacher training and development during a period of technological revolution. Gonski (2011) has also highlighted that technology integration funding findings from the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce that show a significant disparity in public vs private schools (See figure 1). Classroom technologies can be integrated by informed teachers and their knowledge networks to create innovative student centred learning spaces if they are supported with policy decisions that value their creative input into curriculum innovation.




Beauchamp, G. and Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers and Education, 54(3), 759-766.

Bigum, C. (2012). Schools and Computers: Tales of a Digital Romance. Transformative Approaches to New Technologies and Student Diversity in Futures Oriented Classrooms. L. Rowan and C. Bigum, Springer Netherlands: 15-28.

Chai, C. S., Lim, W. Y., So, H. J., and Cheah, H. M. (2011). Advancing collaborative learning with ICT: Conception, cases and design. Retrieved from:

Cox, M.J. (2012), Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00483.x

Daniels, H. (2002). Vygotsky and pedagogy. Routledge. [Sample] Retrieved from:

Dougiamas, M. (2006). Pedagogy. MOODLE Documentation. Retrieved from:

Finger, G., Russel, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R and Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning and teaching ; what does 21st –century learning and teaching look like. In Transforming learning with ICT : making it happen (pp. 72-107). Frenchs Forest, NSW. : Pearson Education Australia.

Gonski, D. M. (2011). Review of funding for schooling: final report. Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Review of Funding for Schooling, 2011. Retrieved from:

Harasim, L. (2012). Introduction to learning theory and technology. In Learning theory and online technology (pp. 1-14). New York, NY : Routledge.

Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. A guide to composition pedagogies, 54-70. Retrieved from:

Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Paikin, S. (2013). George Siemens: Changing Schools, Changing Knowledge, The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Retrieved from:

Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. Retrieved from:

Roblyer, M. and Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Education Limited. Kindle Edition.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Simmons, C., and Hawkins, C. (2009). Planning to teach an ICT lesson. In Teaching ICT (pp. 54-105). London ; Sage Publications Ltd.

Stanton, B. (2013). TPACK and SAMR. Adobe connect meeting. Retrieved from:

Starkey, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in the digital age. Oxon: Routledge.

One thought on “Classroom Technologies – Final Post

  1. Hi Iain,

    After reading this post and as a Foundation teacher, I am now wondering, what would a design for a digital education environment look like for an Early Years classroom? You have some great examples of collaborative learning experiences for students when integrating ICT. Do you think this would look the similar in an Early Years setting? In my experience, when integrating technology activities and student learning tends to be heavily scaffolded and there is a lot of explicit teaching involved. This is mainly due to the students’ age, exposure and experience with technology as well as classroom management.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *