Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Pedagogical-research designs to capture the symbiotic nature of professional

knowledge and learning about e-learning in initial teacher education in the UK
Keith Turvey *
School of Education, University of Brighton, Brighton BN1 9PH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper argues that if new communications technologies and online spaces are to yield ‘new relation-
Received 29 April 2009 ship[s] with learners’ (DfES, 2005, p. 11) then research that is tuned to recognize, capture and explain the
Received in revised form 14 August 2009 pedagogical processes at the centre of such interactions is vital. This has implications for the design of
Accepted 15 August 2009
pedagogical activities within Initial Teacher Education (ITE) intended to develop student teachers’ profes-
sional knowledge and understanding of e-learning strategies.
A case study is presented of an intervention, which attempted to synthesize a face-to-face and online
Keywords:
school-based experience with University-based lectures, in order to develop student teachers’ capacity to
Virtual learning environment
Learning platform
theorize and reflect upon the development of their online pedagogical practice. Theory that focuses on
E-learning the complex and symbiotic nature of professional knowledge and learning was developed to analyse data
Pedagogy in the form of interviews with student teachers and archived extracts from their online interactions with
Professional knowledge the children. The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pedagogical-research design based upon the
authentic and situated use of e-learning strategies and technologies for developing student teachers’ pro-
fessional knowledge and understanding of online pedagogy.
Ultimately the paper concludes that, from the perspective of a dynamic conceptualisation of e-learning
as continuously emerging (Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007) then a pedagogical-research design that
develops and captures student teachers’ capacity to reflect upon the development of their own online
pedagogy and professional knowledge and understanding in relation to e-learning is vital.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. The milieu: shifting perspectives

With the shifts in the wider socio-cultural landscape around new technologies it is difficult to see how the face of education and formal
schooling can remain unchanged. The backdrop of increasing informal use and growth of social networks has led key think tanks such as
Futurelab to try to scope the future face of education hypothesising ‘future scenarios’ (Facer & Daanen, 2007). Similarly others call for a
response from formal education to harness the educational potential offered by the plethora of new social networking technologies exploit-
ing ever increasing band widths (Owen, Grant, Sayers, & Facer, 2006). In their report for Futurelab, Owen et al. claim:
‘‘The list of social software activity is long and is growing. However, there is also a need for a response in formal education. These tech-
nologies do provide a mechanism for transformation in education that appropriates these technologies for educational advantage.” (p.
58).
Whilst it is argued here that it is unwise to adopt a determinist approach to the role of new technologies in education, it would be
equally unwise not to explore the ways in which the appropriation of new communications technologies for learning may also have the
potential to yield new, ‘transformative’ approaches to education that Owen et al. hint at (2006). However, Kress and Pachler (2007) indicate
a far more fundamental shift in response to new technologies with the potential to challenge the underlying power relations within the
existing pedagogical paradigm thus:
‘‘In all learning these are the central issues: Whose agenda is at work, with what power, with what principles of recognition of learning.
How is that agenda presented and is it accepted or recognised by those who are potential learners? As ‘learning’ escapes the frames of
institutional pedagogy – a matter in which the e-technologies are deeply implicated – these are questions of increasing importance”
(2007, p. 19).

* Tel.: +44 1273 643378.

E-mail address: k.turvey@brighton.ac.uk

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.013
784 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790

Kress and Pachler argue strongly that the proliferation of new networks and mobile devices promulgates ‘a new habitus of learning’
(2007, p. 27). That is, learning itself has become mobile with learners aligning themselves differently towards knowledge and internalising
different dispositions towards the process of learning. So how has the formal education establishment responded thus far to the shifting
technological landscape?
There has been no let up in the pace to provide access to online communication tools and technologies in formal schooling in the UK.
Many schools, secondary and primary now provide their pupils with a Learning Platform (LP) or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to
access educational resources and information beyond the school gates. If they do not already provide this facility they will be expected
to provide it by 2010 as outlined in the Department for Education and Schools e-strategy (DfES, 2005), latterly the department for children
families and schools. Similarly, there has been some recognition of these shifting perspectives on the part of the Training and Development
Agency for Schools (TDA) in the UK with the introduction of the development of e-learning strategies being identified as a necessary area of
proficiency for those qualifying for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS, TDA, 2007). The UK Government sees such technologies as having the
potential to transform children’s services, targeting support for those in most need through more effective exchanging and sharing of infor-
mation between children’s services such as education, health and social care. Furthermore, claims are made about the potential of such
environments facilitated by online communication to develop ‘new relationship[s] with learners’ (DfES, 2005, p. 11). Such ‘new relation-
ships,’ it is suggested could place more value and emphasis on ‘listening to children, young people and their families when assessing and
planning service provision’ (DfES, 2004, p. 4) in line with the Every Child Matters agenda. However, this begs the question for those in-
volved in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) of how student teachers’, let alone serving teachers,’ professional knowledge and understanding
of e-learning strategies can be developed effectively? E-learning as a strategy is referred to in the QTS standards for teachers (TDA, 2007)
but it is one standard of 41 within a view of professionalism that is, according to Pachler, ‘predicated on a view of teachers as technicians
and deliverers’ (2007, p. 249). This issue is further compounded by the difficulty in identifying an adequate definition of the notion of e-
learning itself.

1.1. E-learning – defying definition

Possibly the most familiar definition of e-learning within higher education institutions in the UK is that offered by the Higher Education
and Funding Council for England (HEFCE) which describes e-learning as encompassing:

‘‘Flexible learning as well as distance learning, and the use of ICT as a communications and delivery tool between individuals and
groups, to support students and improve the management of learning.”
(Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2005, p. 5).

However, this definition is believed to be lacking according to Andrews and Haythornthwaite (2007) who criticize the way in which ‘the
HEFCE definition appears to portray technology as simply a delivery mechanism,’ (p. 2). The HEFCE definition is problematic in its coverall
approach. Others focus more on key aspects rather than all embracing approaches. Anderson and Garrison (2003) for example argue that
the most significant aspect of e-learning is ‘its capacity to facilitate communication and thinking and thereby construct meaning and
knowledge’ (p. XII). They lay greater emphasis upon online technologies facilitating communication through networks whose key purpose
is human interaction (Anderson and Garrison (2003)). This is a more dynamic approach to e-learning that foregrounds the importance of
human agency as others have done (Turvey, 2008). Indeed Andrews and Haythornthwaite go further in using a dynamic definition describ-
ing e-learning as ‘continuously emergent emanating from the possibilities of ICT in the hands of administrators, instructors and learners, and
created and recreated by use’ (2007, p. 19). This paper adopts a similarly dynamic definition of e-learning based upon the notion of evolving
pedagogies as learners and teachers explore, adapt and construct the new communicative networks available to education, the emphasis
being on communication and interaction. However, given such an evolutionary view of the nature of e-learning the questions remain:

 What are the contingencies for teachers’ and student teachers’ professional learning about the emergent processes of e-learning?
 What kinds of experiences are appropriate for student teachers to develop their professional knowledge of e-learning?
 What are some of the conceptual tools necessary for them to make sense of their experiences?

1.2. Unravelling professional knowledge about e-learning

The main focus of this paper concerns the micro-level contingencies for student teachers’ professional learning about e-learning that
may be put in place within Initial Teacher Education (ITE). However, it is also recognized that when acting at the micro-level of the class-
room – face-to-face or virtual – student teachers and the environments in which they work are also mediators of wider policy, attitudes
and cultural beliefs about education and the pedagogical use of technologies. Consequently, in order to address the fundamental issue
regarding the contingencies for student teachers’ professional learning about e-learning a conceptual approach is offered that attempts
to locate and characterize potential factors interacting within the micro-level environment of professional practice.
It is argued here that it is important to recognize the melded nature of any potential factors that may impact upon the development of
professional knowledge of e-learning. This stems from approaches that have attempted to characterize the complexities of professional
knowledge and learning within situated contexts (Eraut, 1994; Schön, 1987; Shulman, 1987; Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Lately Mishra
and Koehler (2006) have built upon Shulman’s original (1987) work on the symbiotic nature of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK),
attempting to characterize the ways in which learning and teaching with technology affects the relationships between different represen-
tations of PCK. However, it can be argued that the wider socio-cultural factors such as policy contexts or dispositions to the use of tech-
nologies derived from their use within non-formal or leisure contexts, is not made explicit within Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) conceptual
model of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). These are factors others have shown to influence the adoption of techno-
logical tools for pedagogical purposes (Engestrom, 2000; Engestrom, 2001; Loveless, 2003; Somekh, 2007). The conceptual approach of-
fered here attempts to encompass factors emerging from both the micro-level influences upon professional learning to more macro-
level socio-cultural influences.
 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790 785

In conceptualizing the contingencies required to maximize the potential for student teachers’ professional learning about e-learning, the
field of professional engagement has been termed the ‘micro resource ecology,’ be it a face-to-face classroom or virtual environment such
as a VLE. Thus, an ecological approach has been taken that attempts to go beyond merely describing the loci of different factors affecting the
development of student teachers’ professional knowledge about e-learning, to unravel more the nature of their interventions with online
communication tools in professionally situated contexts.
Such ecological approaches to innovation and learning with new technologies have been posited before as a useful conceptual approach
to making sense of the interrelated complexities at the interface of pedagogy and technology (Loi & Dillon, 2006; Luckin, 2005, 2008; Zhoa
& Frank, 2003; Luckin et al. 2006). According to Loi & Dillon:
‘‘In an ecological view of learning, any part of the environment, human or physical, may be regarded as a resource: emphasis is placed on
tools for mediating between people and resource. Again tools may be conceptualized broadly, but their use cannot be dissociated from
pedagogies and contexts.” (2006, p. 365).

In a broad conceptualization of mediating tools, pedagogic form itself, language, the online and face-to-face environment and its avail-
able e-learning tools are all pedagogical tools held in relation to each other; enabling or restricting the other, working in agreement or dis-
cord towards different outcomes. In this sense the conceptualization of the micro resource ecology is a symbiotic one; although different
entities can be identified, they cannot be dissociated from each other.
It is argued here that the strength of an ecological view of student teachers’ professional learning is that it has the potential to provide a
useful ‘framework for the characterization of a learning context’ (Luckin, 2005, p. 8). That is one can begin to explore the nature of the
dynamic relationship between different factors as one considers ‘how to identify and provide what it takes to learn’ (Laurillard, 2008, p.
140). Consequently an ecological view of the broad micro resource ecology is an important factor in designing contingencies for student
teacher’s professional learning about e-learning because it enables the identification and understanding of the character of the various
interactions between student teachers and the various pedagogical, virtual, physical and conceptual tools they draw upon in facilitating
their own pupils’ learning online. Such an ecological view of professional learning is also based upon the premise that the role of the tea-
cher in orchestrating a range of resources to provide effective learning opportunities for their pupils is vital as Kennewell et al. point out:
‘‘a teacher is not merely a manager of the activity which takes place. Their role can be seen as orchestrating the features so as to ensure
that the activity proceeds fruitfully” (2008, p. 65).

Similarly, Luckin (2005), (2008) and Luckin et al. (2006) argue that the teacher has a significant role to play in effectively designing and
facilitating the learner’s journey. They characterize this journey as a process in which the learner and teacher narrow the ecology of re-
sources based upon knowledge of the learners’ needs. This is akin to the process of orchestration identified by Kennewell, Tanner, Jones,
and Beauchamp (2008) in which learners together with teachers draw upon the ‘features of the setting’ and the ‘features of the learner’ (p.
67) to facilitate effective learning outcomes. That is e-learning tools themselves are not seen as individual entities but as affording different
opportunities according to different learners’ needs.
This interdependence between different aspects of the micro resource ecology was also evident in a recent study of student teachers’ use
of language as a pedagogical tool in online interactions with primary school children (Turvey, 2008). It was possible to identify various
taxonomical features of the dialogue between student teachers and their pupils drawing upon contributions from computer mediated con-
ferencing (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer 2001; Dennen, 2005). However the overall orchestration and timing of various pedagogical
speech acts was inextricably linked to ‘insightful interpretation’ (Blake, 2000, p. 193) by the student teachers;
‘‘of children’s written texts in much the same way as teachers’ interpretations of children’s responses within the face-to-face classroom
will influence their pedagogical course of action.” (Turvey, 2008, p. 327).

That is, the deployment of different pedagogical speech acts was an interpretive process responsive to and linked to student teachers’
perceived professional judgments about the children’s needs as implied in their online responses.
From these perspectives it can be argued that in order to develop this fine-grained and organic professional knowledge of e-learning,
opportunities need to be designed within ITE for student teachers to actively engage in these processes in near authentic contexts. A
useful analogy can be made with the apprentice composer learning the art of musical composition. To develop they need to explore
and draw upon a range of tools because the process of musical composition is contingent upon so many different interrelated factors
such as understanding the melodic range of the instruments available, how to combine the different instrumental voices or timbres
and how melody works, not to mention the use of harmony or contrapuntal devices such as canon. Furthermore these micro-level deci-
sions are also prone to wider macro-level influences such as preferred musical genre or paradigm combined with an appreciation of
audiences. Ultimately too the composer will want to hear his/her composition performed. So too it is argued that in order to develop
their professional knowledge of e-learning teachers or student teachers need to be given control and agency (Turvey, 2008) over the
process of designing and instigating e-learning opportunities within authentic contexts that allow for the exploration of the organic
and symbiotic relations between a range of significant factors. Laurillard (2008) acknowledges this when she remarks that ‘teachers
who want to innovate want control over the process, not the uncritical adoption of others’ products’ (p. 144). This then calls for ped-
agogical designs in ITE that cast student teachers as researchers of their own pedagogical practice of e-learning. What might such a de-
sign look like?

2. Pedagogical-research design

Fig. 1 represents the constituent case that was constructed, bringing together student teachers’ action learning trajectories as they ex-
plored and applied e-learning tools within the face-to-face and online classroom context, with the researcher’s own insider research tra-
jectory. The term pedagogical-research design is intended to convey the complexity of the design on two tiers. That is, the design served
pedagogical and research intentions both at the level of the student teachers in university and that of the primary school children through
the school-based intervention. A module was designed for a group of ICT specialist student teachers on undergraduate primary and key
786 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790

Fig. 1. Building the cases.

stage 2/3 QTS courses, which enabled them to follow an action learning trajectory; left hand half of Fig. 1. At the base of the diagram – Stage
1 – the student teachers completed a questionnaire about their own use of new communications technologies and were introduced to a
range of e-learning tools through a VLE to which they were given administrator access using the VLE, Moodle. They were also given read-
ings and engaged in discussion around how such tools might be integrated into their pedagogical practice. In order to orientate the student
teachers they met face-to-face with a class of year four children (8–9 years old) from a local primary school with whom they were to work
later in the module. At Stage 2 the student teachers planned for the use of the VLE to support an intervention to develop the children’s
understanding of environmental issues. They developed an online resource area with links to appropriate websites, games and short videos
on a range of issues to do with caring for the environment; for example matters concerning recycling, saving energy around the home and
other steps that children themselves could take to be more environmentally friendly were raised. A synchronous session was then set up
with the year four class of children from a local primary school where some of the student teachers worked face-to-face with the children
in school and some of them worked online. At Stage 3 the student teachers reflected on the intervention, posting their reflections to a stu-
dent teacher forum and then planned for a second intervention focusing on the same theme. Again, a synchronous session – Stage 4 - was
set up with the children, with some student teachers engaging in online discussion with the children and the others facilitating activities in
the classroom environment. After this last intervention, the student teachers posted their reflections on the experience to a discussion for-
um as before and a random sample of five student teachers participated in semi-structured interviews.
The research was based within an interpretivist paradigm. However, a phenomenographic approach was taken as it offered an appro-
priate way of making sense of the interrelated entities involved in the development of the student teachers’ professional practice and learn-
ing with e-learning tools. That is, what was given prime significance was the student teachers’ perceptions and the way they made sense of
their experiences. It was ‘the qualitatively different ways in which different people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand
various kinds of phenomena,’ that was important to observe (Richardson, 1999, p. 53). Or, as Marton himself puts it, the starting point
in phenomenographic approaches is ‘the relation between the individual and some specified aspect of the world’ (1988, p. 146). From this
perspective each of the randomly chosen five student teachers were conceived of as individual cases within the whole study. The unit of
analysis was each student teacher and the data each had generated. This constituted the trace they had left online including the online
discussions they carried out with the children, their own online reflections and the semi-structured interviews conducted by the research-
er. Each data set was analyzed as a single unit with themes being identified and generated within the data sets. A narrative was then con-
structed to represent each of the student teachers’ experiences and drawing out the themes that characterized them. These written
narratives were then shared with each of the student teachers to validate and authenticate the perceived meaning of their experiences.
Interestingly none of the student teachers questioned or contested the narratives but in some cases offered further insights into their
use of technologies beyond their professional practice.
For the purposes of discussion and analysis for this paper, two contrasting cases have been selected who will be called Laura and Maria.
Due to the fine-grained detail of each of the student teacher’s constructed narratives any of the five cases could be selected as interesting
and idiosyncratic cases. However, these two have been selected because they contrast particularly in relation to the boundary between
informal, leisure use of technologies and professional use. In discussing Maria and Laura’s perceptions of the intervention the different fac-
tors that appeared to be acting upon the development of their professional practice with e-learning tools will be considered.
The following narrative accounts of these two students’ experiences begin by establishing the wider socio-cultural contexts for their
use of new communications technologies and social software. They then go onto examine in more detail the micro-level interplay that
emerged as both student teachers negotiated the affordances of the e-learning tools and environment, using language as a tool to shape
the pedagogical experiences for their learners. That is how did they navigate the micro resource ecology available to them and their
learners?
 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790 787

3. Maria’s story

Maria’s use of mobile and networked communication technologies was entrenched in her leisure life. Her mobile phone was the
source of a range of social activities from keeping in touch with friends predominantly by text messaging, to taking advantage of cheap
cinema tickets. She also took advantage of cheap entry to local clubs who send out promotions via text messages to those on their
‘guest lists.’ Financial considerations also partly motivated Maria’s use of internet communication networks; she described her use
of MSN and social networking sites as useful ‘to stay in touch with friends from home/at other universities when i have no credit
and cannot use my mobile.’ Maria did use her mobile to inform tutors of absence or lateness via friends and to ‘find out small amounts
of info about lessons i.e. any non contact tasks.’ In relation to discussion forums she scored these low in terms of usefulness both so-
cially and professionally, reporting that she occasionally read postings but did not post. Maria’s use of mobile and networked commu-
nication technologies was heavily biased towards the social and leisure aspects of her life with some cross over into her academic and
professional life.
Throughout the intervention, working face to face and online with the primary school children, Maria and her partner employed various
pedagogical strategies to engage their group in the online activities and resources they had designed to develop the children’s understand-
ing of environmental issues. A guiding pedagogical principle of starting with what the children already know and providing what were
believed to be enjoyable activities or games for the children was adopted as Maria related when interviewed:
‘‘We chose an issue. Our issue was recycling, because we assumed they’d know about it either at home or in school and obviously it’s an issue
that’s becoming more important. So we set up various activities and games as we knew we also needed them to enjoy themselves.”
Enjoyment and accessibility were perceived to be important factors in designing online activities for the children as she also commented
that ‘we knew we needed them to enjoy themselves.’ Interestingly however, Maria’s perception of the success of this approach, in terms of
it facilitating the children’s learning was ambiguous. To Maria it appeared that the children were more engaged in the online games and
activities and less interested in engaging in the online discussion about what they had found out about recycling. In the light of this obser-
vation Maria responded by adapting the layout of her online resources and identifying key questions that related to the resources and
which her and her partner believed would focus the children more. For example in her online reflection after the first intervention in school
she remarked:
‘‘Yeah it was clear the children were all really engaged. . . but it seemed that at times they were more engaged with the games and activities in
the link to a website than with the discussion. The children knew little about recycling and were not very confident using moodle so I’ve already
begun to change the layout to make it more clear. We have started to write key questions to direct their discussions, and encourage reflection
after playing a game or activity.”
That is, in order to focus the children more towards learning Maria and her partner adopted the strategy of making connections between
the various resources available. ‘Key questions’ were designed to pick up on the activities in the online games and during interview she
remarked that ‘we’d designed the quiz based upon what they were doing.’ Analysis of the online dialogue with the children illustrated this
making connections between the available online resources and using key questions much in the same way a teacher in a face-to-face set-
ting might make use of a wall display to support children’s thinking thus:
Maria: What else can you recycle?
Child 1: I think that you can recycle glass
Maria: Do you think you can recycle glass if it is broken?
Child 3: No I don’t think you can because it is sharp. Brighton and Hove council tell us not to put it in recycling boxes.
Maria: Great well done******! And well done***** for starting a new discussion. We can recycle glass but not if it broken. . . have a look on
the main page to see what happens to things after you have recycled them!
In an interview Maria also described on two occasions how she felt she had ‘to push them a lot,’ referring to the children and their re-
sponses online. Indeed this ‘pushing’ can be interpreted as indicative of the teacher trying to take control and steer the learning through the
use of language as can be seen in the dialogue above. For Maria the issue of control was a significant one and again one that she felt ambiv-
alence towards within the context of the online environment. When asked about the extent to which she valued the opportunity to engage
in dialogue online with the children she commented:
‘‘It was good but as a teacher from my point of view I’m someone that. . .I’m always a bit scared of discussion because obviously you know what
you want to get out of it and its. . .sometimes they’ll say something off topic which. . .it’s not wrong but because you’re not expecting it you
might disregard it because you don’t know whether to go down that road or not. . .so em I like to plan things in advance and it’s quite hard
to plan something because you’ve got no idea where it’s going to go so in some ways I’m quite scared of using it.”
Her reticence about using online discussion with children stemmed from her concerns about losing control and children going off topic.
However, she did not reject outright the use of online discussion and was able to put it in wider contexts making comparisons to classroom
face-to-face dialogue and seeing certain advantages too as the following exchange from her interview illustrates:
Interviewer: Right. . .but what is it that intimidates you about it again?
Maria: It’s the discussion . . .because I like to know exactly what I’m doing.
Interviewer: OK so you feel it can go out of control?
Maria: Well that can happen it’s not just like within e-learning it can happen within any situation.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s more likely to happen within an online environment then than in a classroom teaching and learning
environment?
Maria: Well having said that I think it’s easier if it’s online because you can read it and think about it for a few seconds. And like if
you don’t understand them they’re not going to see your facial expression. . .or you’re flicking through an encyclopedia or
something.
788 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790

Thus Maria’s position towards the use of online discussion with the children was ambiguous; she had certain fears about losing control
but could also see benefits and parallels to the use of face-to-face dialogue for learning. However, her last remark about being able to flick
‘through an encyclopedia or something,’ whilst at the same time being in online discussion with the children is also significant. She was
referring to what she perceived to be a specific advantage of the medium. That is, due to the non-linear nature of the intervention and lack
of physical presence compared to a face-to-face situation, she was able to develop her subject knowledge ‘on demand.’ In her reflection
after the intervention she remarked that ‘as I only hold a basic knowledge about recycling, I found being online at the university quite help-
ful as if a pupil were to ask me a question I could use the internet.’ Similarly, by using websites targeted at the children’s age group she felt
that she could take advantage of the pre-mediation that had been done in representing particular subject knowledge for the children as this
passage from the interview illustrates:
Maria: Yes I had websites around me at the same time [as communicating with the children online].
Interviewer: So how did you use those then?
Maria: Well I made sure that I used websites that they’d use themselves. . .the language. And some times when it was going fast it was a
case of copying text. . .
Interviewer: So what were you using the websites for again?
Maria: If like during a discussion I was asking them something to do with recycling and they were like they really didn’t know I couldn’t
just leave it there I’d have to explain to them what it was so I’d like almost for research.
Despite this benefit, however, the non-linear nature of the intervention afforded by the technologies was also problematic for Maria as
she commented ‘it’s quite hard as a teacher to have input if it’s all scattered like that.’ That is, there were times when she felt it was difficult
to follow and develop the online discussion with the children as they were generally new to using the medium of discussion forums. Again,
Maria’s position towards the intervention and the use of e-learning tools was one of ambivalence.

3.1. Laura’s story

In contrast to Maria, Laura’s perception of online communication technologies appeared to value them more equally in terms of their
usefulness and potential both in her social and professional life at the outset as reflected through her questionnaire responses. Her mo-
bile phone was just as important for keeping in touch socially with friends and family as it was for keeping in touch with mentors and
teachers when on school placement or university friends relating to ‘work issues.’ A similar perception was reflected in relation to her
use of discussion forums; she ‘occasionally read and posted’ to forums. Professionally, she believed that discussion forums could act as
an extension to face-to-face learning, commenting that it enabled her ‘to read thoughts and opinions that perhaps weren’t shared in
class’ and that sometimes she felt online discussions led to ‘more involved/focused discussion.’ From the outset it appeared that Laura’s
perception of e-learning tools was that they offered significant educational opportunities as well as being useful tools within her social
world.
With regards to the intervention carried out with the children, there were certain similarities between Laura’s perception of this expe-
rience and Maria’s. These similarities centered upon Laura’s orchestration of the online resources she had made available to the children
and the connectivity between these online activities and the discussion she facilitated. That is, like Maria and her partner, Laura and her
partner discussed strategies for getting the children to make connections between the online games and activities they were engaged with,
bringing their observations to the discussion forums. For example, Laura remarked in her interview:
‘‘It was hard I think having all the resources there and trying to get them to make the link between doing that and then having a conversation
about it or you know leaving a post about it and even talking it through with Sam talking about how to phrase a question so that it drew on
what they’d been doing in the lesson or during the week or something. . .it was quite hard.”
That is, it was important to make connections through the discussion to the online activities and significantly Laura saw this as being
achievable through her own and her partner’s use of questioning online. The use of language to control the pedagogical direction of the
online dialogue with the children was something that she referred to again during interview drawing on the terminology of ‘pushing’
as Maria had done, to control the dialogue as Laura noted:
‘‘So it wasn’t sort of starting off and then letting them go wherever it went. We kept coming back into help things or push it in the right direction
which actually worked I think quite well in the second go because we hadn’t planned for that in the first one because obviously we weren’t sure
how it would go but the second one I think was probably more successful.”
Laura and her partner like Maria and hers had identified key questions relating to the resources made available to the children in order
to steer the online conversations with the children towards the knowledge and understanding they wanted the children to engage with.
This was evident in the analysis of the online dialogue as can be seen from this exchange:
Laura: Having had some time to look around the site and explore the games and activities, what do you think it means to be green?
Sam (partner student teacher): I think it means we should question everything we do and think about its effect on the environment. If the
effect is to damage the environment, then we should change our habits to cause less damage. What do you guys think?
Child 1: Doing lots of recicing
Laura: I think you are right******. What sort of things do you recycle?
Child 2: Glass, plastic, cardboard, paper and metle. What do you recicle?
Laura: I recycle paper, plastic bottles and cardboard. Apart from recycling, what else do you think it means to be green?
Child 1: You could have green bins what collect worter
Laura: That’s an excellent idea*****! Water is something a lot of people take for granted so making an effort to save it in anyway we can is
a great start! Do you know anyone that has a green bin?
Child 1: My gandad has a recing bin
Laura: Recycling definitely means you are green. Do you recycle any of your rubbish at home******?
 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790 789

As can be seen here Laura and her partner adopted the strategy of finishing their posts with a question that either focused the discussion
with the children further or opened up another line of enquiry as she commented ‘either I or [Sam] would come up with another point and
it would either keep them focused on task or they might think actually I hadn’t thought about that.’
Where Laura’s experience of the intervention and using the online communication tools with the children differed to Maria’s was the
lack of any ambivalence towards the use of the tools. Whilst Laura acknowledged that it was difficult at times to focus the discussions with
the children and to get them to make connections between the games and activities they were engaging with overall she perceived it to be
‘incredibly valuable because I’d read quite a lot about it and heard a lot but I’d never actually taken part in something like that and espe-
cially with the children.’ That is, the authenticity of the experience appealed to Laura. Furthermore, Laura made connections between the
use of the tools and the wider pedagogical context commenting that:
‘‘just either me being one end and [Sam] the other and talking to them as they’re taking part in a conversation and what they’re saying is so
much more than what they’re able to type and that sort of thing. You know just the chatter amongst them when they do the games and the
activities that you wouldn’t get from just sort of hearing about it.”

That is, Laura’s perception was one that valued the online activities and discussions with the children as representative of a richer expe-
rience not always evident or represented in the online textual responses from the children. The lack of detailed or focused responses from
the children in the online discussions were not seen by Laura to invalidate the use of these tools for learning and did not appear to lead to
any feelings of ambivalence towards their educational use. On the contrary Laura and her partner, having reflected upon this issue took
steps to address this during the second intervention in which they ‘used the previous week as an example, looking at the previous posts’
to illustrate to the children certain key ideas about using discussion forums more effectively. That is, the children’s and student teachers’
own previously generated content became an educational resource itself.

4. Drawing conclusions

Analysis of the data illustrates the ways in which the pedagogical-research design has both captured or failed to capture in some cases
the complexity of the student teachers’ emergent professional knowledge of e-learning. The opportunity for student teachers to explore the
micro resource ecology of e-learning tools within near authentic contexts offers an opportunity to some extent to capture the interplay
between different factors affecting the emergent development of their online pedagogical practice. The online resources and e-learning
tools that both Maria and Laura drew upon were integral to the ways in which they used language as a pedagogical tool. They both orches-
trated the online discussions with the children, making connections where they could to facilitate the children’s learning and encouraging
the children to make connections too. Further, Laura and her partner inverted this relationship between the online resources and the dis-
cussions, turning a previous discussion itself into a resource for developing the children’s understanding about how to use forums more
effectively. Thus, they exploited the way in which online dialogue affords reflection and can easily be revisited in contrast to the ephemeral
nature of classroom discussion. That is, a pedagogical form of revisiting and analyzing previous online utterances evolved which cannot be
dissociated from the affordance of the e-learning tools and environment or the student teachers’ intention to exploit this aspect of the nat-
ure of online dialogue; a complex and symbiotic recipe of factors affecting their professional learning.
However, in other ways it appears that key factors emerged from the pedagogical-research design, which were absent from the concep-
tual model. The ways in which both student teachers exploited the affordances of the tools differed according to their own priorities and
concerns. Maria expressed doubts about the extent of her own subject knowledge in relation to environmental issues and therefore found
the lack of physical presence online to some extent liberating. This lack of physical presence enabled her to develop her subject knowledge
as and when necessary, together with taking advantage of the pre-mediation of subject matter through the repurposing of information
from appropriate, child-centered websites. Consequently, her exploitation of this affordance emerged out of her own insecurity over some
of the subject knowledge. This symbiotic interplay between Maria’s own subject knowledge, and the affordance of the e-learning environ-
ment leading to the pedagogical strategy of repurposing information, echoes Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) conceptual model of technolog-
ical pedagogical content knowledge. This would suggest that the potential interplay between teachers’ subject knowledge, e-learning tools
and the development of pedagogy is more significant than initially acknowledged within the conceptual model offered here.
On another level the conceptual approach was more successful in capturing some of the interplay between the attitudes and values that
the student teachers brought to the experience of the intervention and the ways in which these were manifest throughout the intervention.
Making sense of the way in which both Laura and Maria differed in the level of ambivalence they felt towards the use of e-learning tools we
could look to their experiences with these technologies beyond the immediate context of the intervention carried out in school. Laura came
to this experience already having had experience of using and valuing the technologies within her own professional role and learning. In
contrast, for Maria, these tools were mainly embedded within her leisure and social life and it would appear that she had little experience
of using them within her professional role or her own learning; despite opportunities to participate in discussion forums at University Mar-
ia only occasionally read posts and never posted herself. Also, when asked about how she valued the potential of online communication
tools after the school-based intervention, Laura offered another significant piece of information about how her mother had taken part
in an online course in the recent past. This had obviously been a positive learning experience for her mother which seemed to also influence
and frame Laura’s approach to the use of the technologies within her own practice as she said:
‘‘from personal experience . . .but my mom did. . .I can’t remember what it was but basically she did some course and it was all online and you
know she met up with these people. And she learnt so much from doing it you know and when I said I’m doing this she’s probably the one who’s
convinced me most that it would be worth giving it a shot and that’s from not taking part so actually taking part gives you a different view
Emm yes I think it’s definitely something worth exploring.”

From these two case studies, a glimpse of the ecological complexity of the development of student teachers’ emergent online pedagog-
ical practice is revealed. The micro resource ecology, that is, the e-learning tools themselves, the online resources, the emergent pedagog-
ical forms and the kinds of pedagogical language adopted appear to exist within a symbiotic relationship to each other. However this
interdependence between different factors constituent in student teachers’ professional learning about e-learning is also susceptible to
790 K. Turvey / Computers & Education 54 (2010) 783–790

wider mezzo and macro-level influences embodied within the prior experiences that student teachers may have internalised. Laura’s per-
ceptions of her mother’s experience of e-learning appeared to be significant in framing her perception of the value of the intervention she
had engaged with through the project and module. Similarly, Maria’s predominantly social and leisure use of networks and new commu-
nications technologies appeared significant in the ambivalence she felt towards the educational use of such technologies.
The overall pedagogical-research design facilitated the development of their own online pedagogy and professional knowledge in rela-
tion to e-learning to a certain extent. They engaged with the tools and developed their own pedagogical strategies to address the limita-
tions they found when implementing the tools within near authentic contexts. However, the research also revealed some of the ways in
which these student teachers’ prior experiences and predispositions towards the technological tools influenced their use of the tools and
their perceived value of the tools within educational contexts. In focusing mainly upon the micro-level contingencies for student teacher’s
professional learning about e-learning the pedagogical-research design did not create enough opportunities for the student teachers to re-
flect in any depth upon the wider influences on their actions and emergent online pedagogical practice. Where the pedagogical-research
design was perhaps most successful was in beginning to map out through the design of the intervention and the conceptual framework
adopted, how we might begin to recognise, capture and explain the emergent pedagogical processes and practices as student teachers start
to explore how to ‘innovate’ and take ‘control over the process’ (Laurillard, 2008) of teaching and learning online. Ultimately the research
confirmed the need for pedagogical-research designs sensitive enough to encapsulate the complex interplay between the various factors
within the process of professional learning about e-learning; an interpretative process that this research suggests, student teachers nav-
igate and experience in qualitatively different ways.

References

Anderson, T., & Garrison, R. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),
1–17.
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The handbook of e-learning research. London: Sage.
Blake, N. (2000). Tutors and students without faces or places. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(1), 183–196.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Learning, 26(1), 127–148.
DfES. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. London: DfES.
DfES. (2004). Every child matters: Change for children. London: DfES.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Routledge.
Facer, K., & Daanen, H. (2007). 2020 and beyond: Future scenarios for education in the age of new technologies. Bristol: Futurelab.
Higher Education Funding Council for England, (2005). Strategy for E-learning. <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_12/05_12.pdf> Accessed April, 2009.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted
Technology, 24(1), 61–73.
Kress, G., & Pachler, N. (2007). Thinking about the ‘m’ in m-learning. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning towards a research agenda. London: Institute of education.
Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.
Loi, D., & Dillon, P. (2006). Adaptive educational environments as creative spaces. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 363–381.
Loveless, A. (2003). The interaction between primary teachers’ perceptions of ICT and their pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 313–326.
Luckin, R. (2008). The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers and Education, 50(2), 449–462.
Luckin, R. (2005). Learning contexts as ecologies of resources: Issues for the design of educational technology. <ftp://ftp.cogs.susx.ac.uk/pub/reports/csrp/csrp578.pdf>
Accessed April 2009.
Luckin, R., Underwood, J., Du Boulay, B., Holmberg, J., Kerawalla, L., O’connor, J., Smith, H., et al. (2006). Designing educational systems fit for use: A case study in the
application of human centred design for AIED. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 353–380.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. In R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in
education: Focus and methods. London: Routledge.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher’s College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Social software and learning. Bristol: Futurelab.
Pachler, N. (2007). Teacher development: A question(ing) of professionalism. In J. Pickering, C. Daly, & N. Pachler (Eds.), New designs for teachers’ professional learning. London:
Institute of education.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53–82.
Schön, D. A (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Wiley.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn; a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. London: Routledge.
TDA. (2007). Professional standards for teachers. London: TDA.
Turvey, K. (2008). Student teachers go online; the need for a focus on human agency and pedagogy in learning about ‘e-learning’ in Initial Teacher Education (ITE). Education
and Information Technologies, 13(4), 317–327.
Zhoa, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.