Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Avril Loveless*
University of Brighton, UK
(Received 7 December 2010; nal version received 2 May 2011)
In 2004 Technology, Pedagogy and Education published a review of literature
which framed current understandings of pedagogy and the implications for the use
of ICT in learning and teaching in formal educational settings. This article revisits
the topic in the light of more recent developments in understandings of pedagogy.
It offers three theoretical frameworks for understanding what teachers know, do
and believe when using digital media in their practice: pedagogy and design; pedagogy and Person-Plus; and pedagogical reasoning and ICT. Examples of pedagogy and ICT are then illustrated by selected examples of research and related to a
model of teacher knowledge which acknowledges the interaction between context,
tools for learning and teaching, and content. The conclusions draw attention to
how an approach to pedagogy which is constructive, interactive and complex is
accomplished through praxis, the core of teacher education.
Keywords: teacher education; digital technology; ICT; pedagogy
Introduction
In 2004 Technology, Pedagogy and Education published a review of literature which
framed current understandings of pedagogy and the implications for the use of ICT in
learning and teaching in formal educational settings (Webb & Cox, 2004). This article
revisits the topic in the light of more recent developments in understandings of pedagogy. It discusses three frameworks for thinking about the What?, How? and
Why? questions of teaching with information and communications technologies
(ICT): pedagogy and design; pedagogy and Person-Plus; and pedagogical reasoning
and ICT. Examples of pedagogy and ICT are then illustrated by selected examples of
research. The discussion is underpinned by an understanding of pedagogy as relationship, conversation, reection and action between teachers, learners, subjects and tools.
The intention of the article is to contribute to teacher education which is able to understand the wider context, the tools and the content of teachers pedagogy with digital
media as Freire urged, to read the world of our practice (Freire & Macedo, 1987).
Pedagogy and teacher professional knowledge: rening our understanding
Models of pedagogy have developed over the decades to inform thinking in theory
and practice, highlighting interaction, integration and complexity. Starting with the
*Email: A.M.Loveless@brighton.ac.uk
ISSN 1475-939X print/ISSN 1747-5139 online
2011 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2011.610931
http://www.tandfonline.com
302
A. Loveless
premise that good teachers are intellectually curious about pedagogy, Leach and
Moon address understandings of the contextual, political and socio-cultural nature
of pedagogy (2008, p. 1). Seven inter-related dimensions of pedagogy are described
as: goals and purposes; views of mind and knowledge; views of learning and learners; learning and assessment activities; roles and relationships; discourse; and tools
and technologies. An earlier work (Banks, Leach, & Moon, 1999) proposed a
model of teacher professional knowledge which drew upon a range of understandings of teacher knowledge (Shulman, 1987); intelligence (Gardner, 1993); situated
learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991); transposition of subject knowledge (Chevellard,
2007); and overlapping identities in communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).
Shulman addresses the nature of professional knowledge which enables teachers
to be ready, willing and able to teach, locating individuals clearly within the communities in which they act, and the wider policy and resource contexts in which they
practise (Shulman & Shulman, 2004). His later work acknowledges the capital of
the social, cultural and political contexts in which learning and teaching take place,
and draws attention to the complex interactions and relationships between teachers,
learners, knowledge domains, communities and wider factors (see Figure 1).
Pedagogy and design
Watkins and Mortimore offered a denition of pedagogy as any conscious activity
by one person designed to enhance learning in another (1999, p. 17). Design for
learning encapsulates contemporary understandings of teaching which focus on a
Figure 1. Levels of analysis: individual, community and policy (from Shulman & Shulman,
2004, p. 268).
303
systematic approach with rules based on evidence, and a set of contextualised practices that are constantly adapting to circumstances (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p.
6). Good pedagogical design needs to express the congruence between the content,
teaching strategies, learning environment, assessment and feedback, and reect
underlying theories of learning and value (Hudson, 2011; Kalantzis & Cope, 2010;
Mayes & de Freitas, 2007).
The implications of thinking of design in pedagogy are echoed in recent thinking and research which elaborate upon European understandings of Didaktik, a
concept which is not clearly reected in Anglo-American traditions of approaches
to teaching and learning. Didaktik can be described as the focus on the planned
support for learning to acquire Bildung, which is often translated as formation,
education or erudition in becoming an educated person able to engage purposefully
in the world. Klafki (2000) identies elements of Bildung as self-determination,
co-determination, and solidarity, in which individuals rights and contributions to
society are justied in association with helping others.
Taking pains is how Hillocks describes how teachers represent and transform
subject concepts appropriately for learners (Hillocks, 1999). It is this taking pains
in preparing to teach, that Klafki describes as didactic analysis. This process is
itself draft in nature, it is the design of opportunities and possibilities for pupils,
and requires an openness of mind in the relationship between content, teacher and
pupil. It is similar to the preparation for processes of creative improvisation in the
moments in which teachers and pupils make conceptual connections within subject
domains (Loveless, 2007, 2011).
Klafkis approach to didactic analysis starts with the signicance, meaning and
value in preparing teaching activities grounded in relationship to learners:
(1) What wider or general sense of reality do these contents exemplify and open
up for the learner? What basic phenomenon or fundamental principle, what
law, criterion, problem, method, technique or attitude can be grasped by
dealing with this content as an example?
(2) What signicance does the content in question or the experience, knowledge,
ability or skill to be acquired through this topic already possess in the minds
of the learners?
(3) What constitutes the topics signicance for the learners future?
(4) What is the structure of the content which has been placed into a specically
pedagogical perspective by questions 1 and 2?
(5) What are the special cases, phenomena, situations, experiments, persons, elements of aesthetic experience, and so forth, in terms of which the structure
of the content in question can become interesting, stimulating, approachable,
conceivable, or vivid for learners?
These questions root understandings of pedagogy in the Why? questions, making critical connections with the wider landscapes of knowing in our society and
time, embodying what is to be human through our teaching. Didaktik is therefore
closely linked to universal, educational questions, placing the discussions of pedagogy clearly in wider social, cultural and political meanings for teachers and education systems. Hudson (2007) describes how our growing familiarity with concepts
of Didaktik has offered fresh perspectives on meaning and intentionality, attention
to studying, tools for holding complexity, and the role of the teacher.
304
A. Loveless
305
cultural phenomenon; as a resource for learning and teaching; and as a new eld of
concepts and affordances for learning and teaching. The challenges to pedagogy lie
in the weaving together of these three perceptions. It is, however, interesting to note
that the use of ICT to support learning and for its own sake in the present moment
of teaching, rather than as a rehearsal for vocational purposes, is not often the
teachers rst reported reason for using ICT in their work (Loveless, 2003). It is
important to recognise the place of our interest in technology in education within
the wider landscape of political and social change (Dale, 1999; Facer, 2011; Selwyn, 2011). The perception of ICT as a social and cultural phenomenon is echoed
in UK government policy initiatives, such Harnessing Technology (Becta, 2008),
and the identication of trends affecting the use of technologies in learning, such as
economic policy, globalisation, capital investment programmes, expanded childrens
workforce, non-traditional education providers, and commercial technological innovations (Chowcat, Phillips, Popham, & Jones, 2008). Morgan and Williamson
(2008) present an overview of a longer history of contexts for educational policy,
discussing some of the contemporary connections between neat capitalism and
neat schooling, characterised by informality, social conscience, innovation, listening to customers, exibility, and fun.
As well as perceiving the economic and vocational implications for ICT in education, teachers make pedagogical decisions within the wider context of society and
culture. In economically developed societies, technologies are becoming embedded
in the fabric of every activity they are part of the infrastructure that supports
learning, communication and participation (Livingstone, 2008, p. 6). It can be
argued that the contemporary world of childhood and youth in developed countries
is permeated by digital media which shape communication and interaction. These
changes challenge our understanding of the digital divide, digital culture, digital
safety and digital media literacy for young learners (Buckingham, 2007; Livingstone, 2009; Sefton-Green, 2006).
There are some key themes in the use of mobile technologies that educators
might nd challenging, but might recognise and incorporate into pedagogic design
and teaching strategies. Gathering contextual information might cross boundaries of
privacy or anonymity. Mobility and access beyond traditional classrooms might take
learners into unplanned places. Mobile learning experiences over periods of time
and extent of place might need to be captured, organised and retrieved meaningfully. Informality and authenticity might be threatened if the boundaries of students
social networks are crossed or invaded by formal educational activities. Ownership
and control of personal technologies might pose challenges in formal educational
settings such as classrooms (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004).
Research studies highlight the potential that mobile and wireless technologies offer
for the intensication of connections between learners and the extension of learning
communities and contexts (Roschelle, Sharples, & Chan, 2005; Sharples, Taylor, &
Vavoula, 2007).
Kress and Pachler argue that digital technologies and media have shaped not
only social and cultural contexts, but also approaches to, and environments for,
learning. Their discussion of mobile learning focuses not on the technologies, but
on the changes in the ways we engage with information. Learning experiences can
be more uid, interactive and multimodal. They are more mobile, not because the
technologies are necessarily mobile, but because the learner can be placed more
centrally, given access to information and opportunities to make meanings in a
306
A. Loveless
variety of linked environments. Where such a linked, wider world is the curriculum,
there are important questions to be asked about the place of individuals and communities within a neo-liberal view of markets in which the possession of an education might be approached as a global commodity to be traded, rather than a quality
of public good for those individuals and communities (Kress & Pachler, 2007).
Metaphors for ICT and pedagogy
The metaphors that have been used to describe the roles of ICT in pedagogical
designs and activities offer insights into how teachers and software designers understand the relationship between learners, teachers, knowledge and digital technologies. Stevenson (2008) discussed a model for pedagogy, based on Activity Theory,
which highlighted these relationships between the rules, management and artefacts
in a teaching activity. In 60 snapshots of teachers and learners in schools, he identied four common metaphors of ICT as resource, tutor, environment and tool. The
metaphors demonstrate different degrees of control, motivation, access and choice
for learners and teachers.
The metaphor of resource expresses the ways in which teachers have different
digital technologies to hand, and are able to select them according to their needs.
They are often used to reproduce or imitate other resources to support familiar or
common practice in a non-digital curriculum, such as interactive whiteboards for
presentation.
Using ICT as a tutor draws upon learning theories which support a range of
learning experiences, from practice of skills, to developing conceptual understanding. The ICT resources are designed to respond to and scaffold learners needs, and
learners have more control and access and some degree of task choice. Early examples of such applications were the Integrated Learning Systems, but there is still
work to be done to understand the learners contexts and how applications might
adapt and adopt intelligent strategies for dialogue and re-use (Ravenscroft &
Cook, 2007).
ICT as an environment was a useful metaphor with applications which provided microworlds where learners could explore, build and present their understandings of different concepts, from programming in Logo to working with
mathematical models or designing multimedia and hypertextual texts. Such microworlds are characterised by the high degree of learner control and autonomy, and
are an intrinsic part of the conceptual learning process itself. The environment
metaphor encourages the approach to the learner teaching the computer, rather
than the computer as a resource which teaches the learner.
The metaphor of ICT as a tool is commonly used, although not always with a
shared understanding of the possibilities of the term. ICT can be described as just
a tool to be picked up and used to do a task, rather like the resource. However digital technologies can also be used to support conceptual understanding and extend
thinking. Jonassons description of applications such as spreadsheets, databases and
simulations as mindtools, captures some of this more nuanced understanding of
the role of tools in mediating and shaping activities (Jonassen, 2006). Recognising
the potential and constraints of ICT as a tool which supports and shapes learning,
requires teachers to have a knowledge of the subject domain and competence in the
appropriate use of the technologies a capability to orchestrate the affordances
and constraints in the setting (Kennewell, 2001, p. 107).
307
308
A. Loveless
309
310
A. Loveless
311
312
A. Loveless
313
educational policy and the provision of ICT resources for learning and teaching; to
reect an informed and nuanced use of ICT as tools for learning and teaching; and
acknowledge the interactive and situated nature of professional knowledge with to
ICT. Continuing professional development for learning professionals will model the
integration of context, community and individual needs within learning communities in which professional knowledge, like intelligence, is not transmitted as a possession, but dynamically accomplished (Pea, 1993; Pickering, Daly, & Pachler,
2007).
Downloaded by [The Library, University of Witwatersrand] at 05:17 24 March 2016
Acknowledgement
Becta (formerly the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency)
commissioned a research review on pedagogy and ICT from the author in 2009. This article
is a revised and reviewed version of that report, available from http://www.itte.org.uk/node/
453 under Open Government Licence for public sector information.
Notes on contributor
Avril Loveless is Professor of Education at the University of Brighton, UK. Her research
interests focus on understandings of creativity; pedagogy and teacher knowledge; and ICT
capability within an early 21st century education system.
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK. Advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education, 52, 154168.
Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (1999). New understandings of teachers pedagogic knowledge. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 89135). London:
Paul Chapman Publishing in association with The Open University Press.
Becta. (2007). Harnessing Technology review 2007: Progress and impact of technology in
education. Coventry: Author.
Becta. (2008). Harnessing Technology: Next generation learning 200814: A summary.
Coventry: Author.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age.
In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing
and delivering e-learning (pp. 110). Abingdon: Routledge.
Benzie, D.H. (2000). A longitudinal study of the development of information technology
capability by students in an institute of higher education. University of Exeter, Faculty
of Education.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Childrens learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Carmichael, P. (2007). Introduction: Technological development, capacity building and
knowledge construction in education research. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 16,
235247.
Chevellard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 131134.
Chowcat, I., Phillips, B., Popham, J., & Jones, I. (2008). Harnessing Technology: Preliminary identication of trends affecting the use of technology for learning. Coventry: Becta.
Crook, C. (2008). Theories of formal and informal learning in the world of Web 2.0. In The
educational and social impact of new technologies on young people in Britain: Theorising the benets of new technology for youth. Economic and Social Research Council
Seminar Series. Oxford: ESRC.
Daiute, C. (1985). Writing and computers. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalisation effects on national policy: A focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 14, 118.
De Freitas, S., Oliver, M., Mee, A., & Mayes, T. (2008). The practitioner perspective on the
modeling of pedagogy and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 2638.
314
A. Loveless
Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Harnessing Technology: Transforming learning
and childrens services. London: Author.
Dillon, P. (2004). Trajectories and tensions in the theory of information and communication
technology in education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 138150.
Dillon, P. (2006). Creativity, integrativism and a pedagogy of connection. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 1, 6983.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. London:
Routledge.
Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies:
A review of research and projects. Bristol: Futurelab.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin and Garvey Paperback.
Gall, M., & Breeze, N. (2005). Music composition lessons: The multimodal affordances of
technology. Educational Review, 57, 415433.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
General Teaching Council for England. (2006). PELRS summary of research ndings: The
Pedagogies with E-Learning Resources project. London: Author.
Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Hudson. (2007). Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning: what can we
learn about teaching and learning? European Educational Research Journal, 6, 135146.
Hudson, B. (2011). Didactical design for technology enhanced learning. In B. Hudson &
M.A. Meyer (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe (pp. 223238). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Teaching and learning with ICT: New technology, new
pedagogy? Education, Communication and Information, 4, 101107.
John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical implications
of ICT. Educational Review, 57, 405413.
Jonassen, D.H. (2006). Modelling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change.
Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age.
E-Learning and Digital Media, 7, 200222.
Kennewell, S. (1995). Information technology capability How does it develop? In J.D.
Tinsley & T.J. Van Weert (Eds.), World Conference on Computers in Education VI:
WCCE 95 Liberating the Learner. London: Chapman and Hall.
Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information
and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10, 101116.
Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury,
S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reective practice: The German didaktik tradition (pp. 197206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers and
Education, 49, 740762.
Kress, G., & Pachler, N. (2007). Thinking about the m in m-learning. In N. Pachler (Ed.),
Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 732). London: WLE Centre, Institute
of Education.
La Velle, L.B., Wishart, J., McFarlane, A., Brawn, R., & John, P. (2007). Teaching and
learning with ICT within the subject culture of secondary school science. Research in
Science and Technological Education, 25, 339349.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2008). The power of pedagogy. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Seminar introduction: Setting the scene. In The educational and
social impact of new technologies on young people in Britain: Theorising the benets of
new technology for youth. Economic and Social Research Council Seminar Series.
Oxford: ESRC.
315
Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet: Great expectations, challenging realities.
Cambridge: Polity.
Loi, D., & Dillon, P. (2006). Adaptive educational environments as creative spaces.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 363381.
Loveless, A. (2003). The interaction between primary teachers perceptions of ICT and their
pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 8, 313326.
Loveless, A. (2007). Preparing to teach with ICT: Subject knowledge, Didaktik and improvisation. The Curriculum Journal, 18, 509522.
Loveless, A. (2011). Didactic analysis as a creative process: Pedagogy for creativity with
digital tools. In B. Hudson & M.A. Meyer (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics,
learning and teaching in Europe (pp. 239251). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Loveless, A., Denning, T., Fisher, T., & Higgins, C. (2008). Create-A-Scape: Mediascapes
and curriculum integration. Education and Information Technologies, 13, 345355.
Luckin, R. (2008). The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers and Education, 50, 449462.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H.
Beetham & R. Sharp (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 1325). Abingdon: Routledge.
Morgan, J., & Williamson, B. (2008). Enquiring minds: Schools, knowledge and educational
change. Bristol: Futurelab.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile
technologies and learning. Bristol: Futurelab.
Nardi, B.A., & ODay, V.L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
London: MIT Press.
Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 4787). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2006). Learning transformation with technology: A question of
socio-cultural contexts. Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 519539.
Perkins, D. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon
(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88
110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pickering, J., Daly, C., & Pachler, N. (Eds.). (2007). New designs for teachers professional
learning. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Ravenscroft, A. (2009). Social software, Web 2.0 and learning: Status and implications of an
evolving paradigm. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 15.
Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2007). New horizons in learning design. In H. Beetham & R.
Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 207218). Abingdon: Routledge.
Roschelle, J., Sharples, M., & Chan, T.W. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21,
159161.
Saljo, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26, 5364.
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions Psychological and educational considerations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplication with, of and through technology. In R.J. Sternberg & D.D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence
and technology (pp. 7186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sefton-Green, J. (2006). Youth, technology and media cultures. Review of Research in
Education, 30, 279306.
Selwyn, N. (2008). From state-of-the-art to state-of-the-actual? Introduction to a special
issue. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17, 8388.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis. London:
Routledge.
316
A. Loveless
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In
R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of elearning research.
London: Sage.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 122.
Shulman, L.S., & Shulman, J.H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 257271.
Somekh, B. (2001). Methodological issues in identifying and describing the way knowledge
is constructed with and without information and communications technology. Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10, 157178.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation.
London: Routledge.
Stevenson, I. (2008). Tool tutor environment or resource: Exploring metaphors for digital
technology and pedagogy using activity theory. Computers and Education, 51, 836853.
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, 317327.
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farrington-Flint, L., Hayes, M., et al.
(2010). Understanding the impact of technology: Learner and school-level factors. Coventry: Becta.
Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.),
Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 119). London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Watson, D., Cox, M., & Johnson, D.C. (1993). The Impact report: An evaluation of the
impact of Information Technology on childrens achievements in primary and secondary
schools. London: Department for Education and Kings College, London.
Watson, G. (2001). Models of information technology teacher professional development that
engage with teachers hearts and minds. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 10, 179190.
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to ICT. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 13, 235286.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Woollard, J. (2005). The implications of the pedagogic metaphor for teacher education in
computing. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 189204.