TEACHERS INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF … · 2019-08-26 · Teachers’ interpretation...

TEACHERS’ INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF IMMERSIVE

EDUCATIONAL SIMULATIONS

Shane Thomas Weir

DipBus, D.DipVET/TDD, BEd(Sec)(Hons)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2019

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations i

KEYWORDS

Business education, Economics and Business, digital disruption, digital technologies,

disruptive technologies, educational simulations, educational technology, immersive

educational simulations, pedagogical practice, signature pedagogy, teacher belief

ii Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

ABSTRACT

This study investigated how teachers interpret or re-interpret their own pedagogy as a result

of teaching within and through an immersive educational simulation. It explored secondary

teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology within Economics and Business education and

the challenges and disruptions faced when teaching in this unique learning environment. The

study sought to identify the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the

technology and the teaching of Economics and Business. It also sought to investigate the

change in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs when designing the curriculum within and through

an immersive educational simulation.

There is a significant challenge for teachers when faced with the complexities of

teaching with new disruptive technologies in the context of current policy and curriculum

change in Australian school education. When teaching the Australian Curriculum:

Economics and Business curriculum, a relationship exists between the need to make “real”

connections between the concepts and principles inherent in subject-specific content

knowledge and the pedagogical practices needed to allow students to engage with

technology in order to apply their learnt knowledge to a practical simulated environment.

The introduction of immersive educational simulations into this environment presents a new

challenge for teachers, as the duality approach of teaching “in-world” and “out-world” is a

new addition to the teaching practice and teachers are forced to re-interpret their own

practice.

This qualitative study adopted a Grounded Theory approach to reveal the

pedagogical complexities of teaching with disruptive technologies. The construction of

analytic codes and categories from the data and the use of a constant comparative method of

analysis was selected to inform the research design. It is worth noting that the research

setting was in a non-physical space. The study was positioned within each teachers’ practice

in Economics and Business, and within the immersive educational simulation, the “PierSim

Business Island Simulation,” to create the learning environment for each teachers’ class. The

collated data provided sufficiently rich detail to identify signature pedagogies as possible

theoretical models to inform the effective teaching of Economics and Business within and

through immersive educational simulations.

The results of the study revealed that those teachers who effectively engaged with

immersive educational simulations needed to effect change to their own current pedagogical

beliefs in order to confidently and competently teach simultaneously and contiguously in

these in- and out-worlds environments. This change was evident in teachers’ beliefs about

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations iii

needing to employ their own expert content knowledge and current industry knowledge to be

able to support students in enhancing the students’ higher order thinking skills. There was

also an awareness of how specific teaching and learning affordances would positively

influence how teachers would engage in the application, integration and transformation

within and through the immersive educational simulation to allow students to effectively

create, communicate, and manage and operate their own learning experience.

Therefore, a new signature pedagogy, titled emergence pedagogy, was offered as a

theoretical model to describe the transformation of pedagogical practice when teaching with

the duality of an in- and out-worlds learning environment. This signature pedagogy is worth

consideration as a theoretical model to advance understandings of pedagogy when

implementing disruptive technologies, specifically an immersive educational simulation, in

order to teach a subject-specific curriculum learning area within secondary education.

iv Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix

Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................................................. xi

Statement of Original Authorship ......................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to the study ................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Aim of the study ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Teacher ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Technology..................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 Pedagogy ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.7 Affordances of technologies in teaching and learning ................................................. 13

1.8 Teaching within and through digital technologies ....................................................... 14

1.9 Challenges and disruption ............................................................................................ 15

1.10 Research design ............................................................................................................ 17

1.11 Overview of the study .................................................................................................. 22

1.12 Overview of the thesis .................................................................................................. 23

1.13 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 2: Technological context ..................................................................... 25

2.1 Structure of PierSim Business Island ........................................................................... 25

2.2 Teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island Simulation ....................... 37

2.3 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 3: Pedagogical context ........................................................................ 43

3.1 Policy demands ............................................................................................................ 44

3.2 Professional demands ................................................................................................... 45

3.3 Curricular demands ...................................................................................................... 48

3.4 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 4: Literature review ............................................................................ 54

4.1 Pedagogy ...................................................................................................................... 54

4.2 Technology................................................................................................................... 58

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations v

4.3 Teacher .........................................................................................................................66

4.4 Teacher adoption of technologies .................................................................................74

4.5 Chapter summary ..........................................................................................................86

Chapter 5: Research methodology ................................................................... 88

5.1 Research aim and questions ..........................................................................................90

5.2 Research design ............................................................................................................90

5.3 Data collection and analysis .........................................................................................94

5.4 Trustworthiness ..........................................................................................................101

5.5 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................103

5.6 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................104

Chapter 6: Findings - Survey .......................................................................... 105

6.1 Online Survey: Item 1 .................................................................................................105








6.9 Summary of Survey Findings .....................................................................................128

Chapter 7: Findings - Interview ..................................................................... 136

7.1 PierSim Business Island as a learning environment ...................................................138

7.2 Changes to teaching practice ......................................................................................145

7.3 Transformative practice ..............................................................................................161

7.4 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................168

Chapter 8: Discussion ...................................................................................... 170

8.1 Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................171




8.5 The development of a relational schema as a theoretical model ................................205

8.6 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................208

Chapter 9: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 210

9.1 The development of a signature pedagogy – Emergence Pedagogy ...........................210

9.2 Summary of the emergence pedagogy ........................................................................224

9.3 Limitations of the study ..............................................................................................225

9.4 Recommendations for further research .......................................................................227

vi Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

9.5 Endnote ...................................................................................................................... 227

References ............................................................................................................... 231

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 245

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework. .......................................................................... 5

Figure 1.2. Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org). .............................................................................................. 7

Figure 1.3. Characteristics of meaningful learning (after Jonassen, 1999). ........... 12

Figure 1.4. Research setting. .................................................................................. 19

Figure 1.5. Participants. .......................................................................................... 19

Figure 2.1. “Map” of the islands in the in-world of PierSim Business Island........ 28

Figure 2.2. Finance Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation. .......... 29

Figure 2.3. Wholesale Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation. ..... 31

Figure 2.4. Retail Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation. ............. 33

Figure 2.5. PierSim view showing HUD (upper left) ............................................. 34

Figure 2.6. Hotel Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation............... 35

Figure 3.1. Organising elements of the ICT General capability (ACARA, n.d.-g). .................................................................................................. 49

Figure 4.1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) framework (Shulman, 1986). ................................................................................................... 56

Figure 4.2. Elaborated model of learning in 3-D VLEs incorporating unique characteristics and learning affordances (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010, p. 24). ................................................................................................... 59

Figure 4.3. Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002, p. 8). ..................................................................................... 75

Figure 4.4. SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006). ....................................................... 76

Figure 4.5. Comparison of the stages of models of teacher adoption of technology (extended from Lloyd, 2016, p. 301). ............................... 81

Figure 4.6. Conceptual framework illustrated through literature review. .............. 87

Figure 6.1. Themes from Item 3. .......................................................................... 112

Figure 6.2. Themes from Items 3 and 4. ............................................................... 115

Figure 6.3. Themes from Items 3, 4 and 7. ........................................................... 126

Figure 6.4. Characteristics and benefits of teaching within and through digital technologies. ........................................................................... 135

Figure 7.1. In- and Out-Worlds of PierSim Business Island. ............................... 139

Figure 7.2. Duality of the in- and out-worlds. ...................................................... 145

viii Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

Figure 7.3. Progression across levels of integration (Harmes et al., 2016, p. 143). ................................................................................................... 160

Figure 8.1. Grouping of affordances by meaningful characteristics (after Jonassen, 1990). ................................................................................. 188

Figure 8.2. Mapping of Diana’s recount to the career stages of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. ................................................. 201

Figure 8.3. Extended Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002). .................................................................... 203

Figure 8.4. A relational schema as a theoretical model to map teaching and learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation. ...................................................................... 207

Figure 9.1. “Emergence Pedagogy” based on the amalgamation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009); the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002); and the Australian Curriculum Organising Elements of the ICT General Capability (ACARA, 2014). .............................................................. 212

Figure 9.2. The in- and out-worlds marking the boundary of the emergence pedagogy. ........................................................................................... 213

Figure 9.3. The levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) within the emergence pedagogy. ......................................................................... 216

Figure 9.4 Adding teaching affordances to the emergence pedagogy. ................. 220

Figure 9.5 Adding learning affordances to the emergence pedagogy. ................. 223

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 ..................................................................................................................... 46

Descriptors of Standard 2.6 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers by career stage ............................................................................. 46

Table 3.2 ..................................................................................................................... 47


Table 3.3 ..................................................................................................................... 48


Table 4.1 ..................................................................................................................... 65

Principles and practice of “presence pedagogy” (Bronack et al., 2008, p. 67) ........ 65

Table 4.2 ..................................................................................................................... 72

TPACK framework constructs (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010, p. 564) ............................ 72

Table 4.3 ..................................................................................................................... 83

Infusion and Transformation levels of TIM (Harmes et al., 2016) ............................ 83

Table 5.1 ..................................................................................................................... 93

Teaching experience of survey respondents (sorted by experience with the program) (n=15) .......................................................................................... 93

Table 6.1 ................................................................................................................... 106

Summary of participants’ experience in teaching Economics and Business (n=15) ........................................................................................................ 106

Table 6.2 ................................................................................................................... 107

Summary of participants’ experience in using PierSim Business Island Simulation to teach Economics and Business ............................................ 107

Table 6.3 ................................................................................................................... 108

Thematic coding of statements in response to Item 3 (n=33) .................................. 108

Table 6.4 ................................................................................................................... 119

Participant responses to Items 6a and 6b ................................................................ 119

Table 6.5 ................................................................................................................... 122

Summary of participants’ beliefs as to which of the following is an outcome of the PierSim Business Island Simulation .................................................... 122

Table 6.6 ................................................................................................................... 127

Summary of respondents’ selection of belief statements .......................................... 127

x Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

Table 6.7 ................................................................................................................... 129

Responses to Item 6 (Respondents 3, 5 and 7) ......................................................... 129

Table 6.8 ................................................................................................................... 133

Mapping themes to Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics of meaningful learning....... 133

Table 7.1 ................................................................................................................... 136

Details of interview participants (n=6) by pseudonym in alphabetical order ......... 136

Table 7.2 ................................................................................................................... 137

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6d) ......................................................... 137

Table 7.3 ................................................................................................................... 151

Interview subjects survey responses (Items 6a and 6b) ........................................... 151

Table 7.4 ................................................................................................................... 153

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6c) ......................................................... 153

Table 7.5 ................................................................................................................... 155

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6e) ......................................................... 155

Table 8.1 ................................................................................................................... 178

Summary of beliefs of the roles of digital technology in education ......................... 178

Table 8.2 ................................................................................................................... 195

Pedagogical connections of affordances .................................................................. 195

Table 8.3 ................................................................................................................... 197

Summary of affordances and pedagogical connections of the PierSim Business Island Simulation ....................................................................................... 197

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

3-D World A 3-D or Virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment,

which allows multiple players represented by avatars. (see also

Simulation (game), Second Life (SL), Virtual World).

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

ACOT Apple Classroom of Tomorrow

Active Worlds Active Worlds is a popular 3D virtual world launched in 1995.

AR Augmented Reality, an image augmented by computer-generated

sound, video or graphics.

Avatar An online graphical representation of a participant/player in a 3D or

Virtual World. An avatar is the user’s character (alter ego) that moves

or carries out the user’s wishes in the 3D or Virtual World. An avatar

is visible to the user and to other participants/players.

BYOD

CK Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

HUD

ICT

Heads Up Display

Information and Communication Technology/Technologies

Internet (From 1969) Globally-connected computers using predefined Internet

protocols, also defined as a network of networks.

LAN Local Area Network

LMS Learning Management System

mLearning Mobile Learning or learning across multiple contexts, platforms and

devices.

MCEETYA

MUVE

Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

Multi-User Virtual Environments

NMC New Media Consortium

PCK Pedagogical Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

PK Pedagogical Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

PLE Personal Learning Environment

PLN Professional Learning Networks

Second Life (SL) Second Life is a widely-used free 3D virtual world

Simulation

(game)

Computer simulations are usually used to model real data, such as

weather patterns. Simulation games (from c.1989) represent aspects

xii Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

from real life for training, analysis or prediction. They are typically

set in a 3D or Virtual World.

SLE Smart Learning Environments

TCK Technological Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

TEL Technology-Enhanced Learning

TPK Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

TK Technological Knowledge (a component of TPACK)

TPACK Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

VLE Virtual Learning Environment

VSEW Virtual Social and Educational World

VW Virtual Worlds (see 3D Worlds)

Web 1.0 The original World Wide Web (WWW) confined to static web pages

connected by hyperlinks; a technical evolution of the Internet.

Web 2.0 (From 2004). Addition of user-generated content and social

networking sites, such as blogs and wikis.

Web 3.0 (From 2007, also referred as Semantic Web). Evolution of the WWW

to focus on connecting data, concepts, applications and people.

WLAN Wireless local area networks

Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations xiii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for

an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person

except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 10 August 2019

QUT Verified Signature

xiv Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to my supervisors, Dr Vinesh Chandra, Adjunct Professor Margaret Lloyd and Dr

Alan Roberts for their feedback throughout my study. A special thank you to Marg for her

tireless support and guidance throughout this entire process, of which I am truly grateful. I

would not have completed this journey without Marg’s expert mentoring and encouragement

from start to finish. Her wisdom and knowledge in the field of technologies within secondary

education is quite remarkable. I am grateful that she has shared this with me and has also

challenged me to continually question my own thinking in this exciting era of education.

I would also like to thank the participants of this study. While they remain

anonymous, their willingness to give their time and provide me with invaluable insights as to

how they teach within and through such emerging technologies is quite extraordinary. They

are true pioneering practitioners in the field of Economics and Business education.

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family and friends who have unreservedly

supported me throughout this epic journey. Their continual words of encouragement and

“just get it done so we can go and do something” really does put things into perspective and

has enabled me to still have some resemblance of a life while burning the midnight oil at my

desk all too often.

While completing this study, I have come to the realisation that my personal

affordance of investigating this research aim was the ability to simultaneously and

contiguously complete major milestones while still holidaying around the world! Therefore,

it is timely that I ask Marg if my personal overarching question can now be answered; that is,

“Marg, can I pretty please have my passport back so that I can go travelling again?”

Therefore, I dedicate this thesis to those Economics and Business teachers who continue to

embark on the exhilarating journey of engaging students in the wonder and excitement of

Economics and Business.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Three decades ago, Sendov (1986) asked “how do we build education in the presence of the

computer” (p. 16). Since this critical question was posed, educational researchers have

continued to consider the disruption to pedagogy wrought by the introduction of new

technologies such as: augmented reality (Phillips & Li, 2016); mobile technologies including

iPads (McNaughton & Light, 2013); educational games (Psotka, 2013); Skype and

podcasting (Godwin-Jones, 2005); virtual reality (Orman, Price & Rusell, 2017); and

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) (Conole, 2013; Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby,

2008). This qualitative study, informed by Grounded Theory, has continued this legacy by

investigating the disruption to teacher practice caused by the PierSim Business Island

Simulation, an immersive virtual environment designed specifically for teaching and

learning in Economics and Business, one of four Year 7-10 subjects in the Australian

Curriculum: Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) learning area (Australian Curriculum,

n.d).

For the purposes of this study, Sendov’s (1986) question could be updated to ask:

how do we build education in the face of new disruptive technologies. The PierSim Business

Island Simulation offers both an in-world or immersive virtual environment and supports a

parallel out-world where student:student and teacher:student interaction happen in physical

classroom spaces. This affords a new environment for teaching and learning in Economics

and Business. Students being avatars in a virtual world meant that they were learning within

rather than merely “with” the technology. In theoretical terms, the simulation has allowed

students to “interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes” (Jenkins, 2007,

p. 100).

Sendov’s (1986) question in relation to this study can be further refined to be: how

do we interpret pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations. This expression

of the question supports the overall aim of this study and has resonance in the concept of

signature pedagogies defined by Shulman (2005) who observed that:

New technologies of teaching via the Internet; Web-based information seeking;

computer-mediated dialogue; collaborations and critiques in the design studio;

powerful representations of complex and often unavailable examples of professional

reasoning, judgment, and action – all create an opportunity for re-examining the

fundamental signatures we have so long taken for granted. (p. 59, emphases added)

2 Chapter 1: Introduction

This study, at its simplest, sought to identify the theoretical models of teaching Economics

and Business and how these can be disrupted by new technologies.

This chapter will outline: the background to the study (Section 1.1); its overarching

aim and research questions (Section 1.2); the conceptual framework which guides the study

(Section 1.3); aspects of the conceptual framework relating to the teacher (Section 1.4),

technology (Section 1.5) and pedagogy (Section 1.6); the affordances of technologies in

education (Section 1.7); models of teaching within and through technologies (Section 1.8);

challenges and disruptions posed by technology (Section 1.9); the research design (Section

1.10) including the role of the researcher and the significance of the study; an overview of

the study (Section 1.11) and an overview of the thesis (Section 1.12). The chapter will

conclude with a brief summary (Section 1.13).

1.1 Background to the study

I am an experienced teacher and am active within secondary education in Queensland. I have

been involved in moderation and assessment panels with the Queensland Curriculum

Assessment Authority (QCAA) and have been an Executive Committee member of the

Business Educators’ Association of Queensland (BEAQ) for over a decade. Through these

roles, I know and am known by a large number of teachers in this discipline area. At the

beginning of this study, I was Head of Faculty at a metropolitan girls’ school with

responsibility for 27 teachers. This makes me an “insider” with a close association with the

context and potential participants of the study. Understanding the value of this position

strengthened my decision to base my study in Grounded Theory, particularly in Charmaz’s

(2006, 2010, 2014) interpretation, which maintains its inductive strategies while “shift[ing]

away from the objective stance of the researcher and a recognition of the researchers role in

constructing the data and theory” (Levers, 2013, p. 2).

During 2006, I was approached by the Head of the Academics Program at the

International Education Services (IES) at the University of Queensland (UQ) to become

involved in the development and review of the PierSim Business Island Simulation

environment for implementation in secondary schools in Australia (see Craven & Weir,

n.d.). In 2010, the PierSim Business Island Simulation was piloted in a metropolitan boys

school in Queensland. A number of key industry businesses provided their support by

allowing the program to use their logos and branding to help build the “real-life” experience

for students of owning and operating their virtual businesses. These businesses included a

well-known pizza store, coffee shop, bank, taxi service provider, to name but a few. From

the outset, the program was designed so that secondary school students could engage with


the association of these “real-world” businesses so that they were able to research these

businesses and then apply those business’s operational strategies into the virtual trading

environment.

At the time of the study, the PierSim Business Island Simulation was an emerging

approach to delivering the Junior Economics and Business subject within secondary

schooling. I was one of the teachers involved in the pilot of the simulation and have since

made a significant contribution to its design, particularly in its alignment to the Australian

Curriculum for Economics and Business. The University of Queensland’s International

Education Services (IES) Limited was responsible for the initial marketing and promotion of

PierSim Business Island Simulation to secondary schools within South-East Queensland. IES

developed a foundation cluster of schools, consisting of 27 state and private schools, to pilot

this simulation. These were the schools approached to take part in this study.

In 2014, the PierSim Business Island Simulation was showcased to the world, where

students from 20 different countries came to Brisbane, Queensland and competed in a

PierSim Business Island Simulation challenge with students from the 27 cluster schools. This

was an educational event held at the City Hall in Brisbane (Queensland) during the G20

Summit in 2014.

My abiding interest in how teachers, particularly those in the Faculty I managed,

would adapt to teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island Simulation emerged

from my involvement in the development and participation in the pilot. Coupled with this

was my observation that, despite their experience, some teachers remained as novices in the

pedagogical use of technologies and are unsure of the appropriate strategies to get optimum

outcomes from the technologies available. A significant component of teaching with the

PierSim Business Island Simulation throughout these years has been attributed to the “trial-

and-error” pedagogical approach of working with the program to achieve the learning

outcomes of the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business. Therefore, this study was

a manifestation of my concern and interest in how teachers reflect on, interpret and re-

interpret their own pedagogy as a result of incorporating the PierSim Business Island

Simulation into their practice.

I have personally gone through the process of re-interpreting my own teaching

practice as I taught within and through the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Investigating

this process and understanding how others’ processes (and solutions) may differ became

important to me. I also hoped that this research would help me identify new theoretical

models, namely a relational schema and a signature pedagogy suited to the teaching of

Economics and Business through immersive educational simulations. My motivation was to


bring a systematic lens to what has effectively been a trial-and-error approach and thus help

others to navigate the challenges of new ways of teaching in my subject area.

1.2 Aim of the study

This study sought to describe and examine how current secondary school teachers in

Australia respond to teaching within and through technology when an immersive educational

simulation is introduced as part of the Economics and Business curriculum learning area.

This is a hitherto unresearched topic of study. A broad research aim was developed,

expanded (as noted) from Sendov’s (1986) question, in order to explore this phenomenon.

The research aim for this study was to determine:

How teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the face of immersive educational

simulations.

This aim was designed to investigate changes to teaching within and through immersive

educational simulations and, by doing so, to identify theoretical models suited to the teaching

of Economics and Business with new technology/ies. Four research questions were adopted

to guide the investigation:

1. What do teachers believe to be the role of ICT (Information and Communication

Technologies) in education, particularly in the use of immersive educational

simulations in the teaching of Economics and Business?

2. What are the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers in the adoption of

immersive educational simulations into their teaching practice within the Economics

and Business curriculum area?

3. What are the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the technology

and the teaching of a particular content domain noted by teachers in the adoption of



4. To what extent and in what way do teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy

change as a result of teaching within and through an immersive educational

simulation?

1.3 Conceptual framework

The aim and research questions of this study (see Section 1.2) are guided by the conceptual

framework presented in Figure 1.1. It maps the main areas of interest to this study. At the

centre of the framework are the intersecting elements of Teacher, Technology and Pedagogy.


They cumulatively represent the learning environment of the contemporary Australian

classroom.

Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework.

As noted, this framework aims to shows the connection and interrelationships

between the teacher (Section 1.4), technology (Section 1.5) and pedagogy (Section 1.6). The

“teacher” is the individual charged with the responsibility for teaching and learning within

the classroom. Teachers’ practice is guided by their beliefs (Section 1.4.1) and knowledge

(Section 1.4.2). Teachers develop their pedagogy and enact their adoption of digital

technology in accordance with the policy, professional and curricular demands imposed on

them. In the instance of this study, teachers are required to make meaningful use of digital

technologies (introduced in Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2).

The “pedagogy” described in this study refers simply to the practice of teaching (see

Section 1.6). It aims to describe the particular signature pedagogy appropriate to teaching

within and through digital technologies (Section 1.8). The “technology” described in the

conceptual framework are digital technologies (both hardware and software) adopted in


teaching and learning (Section 1.5). Of particular interest are the affordances of digital

technology in regard to their support of meaningful and relevant teaching and learning (see

Section 1.7). Further, these pose challenges and disruptions to teaching and learning and

present new or unfamiliar situations which teachers and students both need to face and

counter (Section 1.9). The challenges and disruptions to teaching included in the framework

are also addressed in the literature and the findings in later chapters, particularly in response

to Research Question 2 (Section 8.2).

1.4 Teacher

How teachers of Economics and Business reinterpret their pedagogy in “the face of”

technology is the core investigation in this study. Hativa and Lesgold (1996) suggested

teachers’ beliefs and attitudes may either decrease or increase the influence of the other

barriers, for example, the lack of resources or the lack of technical and administrative

support. Further, a lack of teacher knowledge in how to teach with technologies has been

identified as the major barrier to effective ICT implementation (Bingimlas, 2009; Hew &

Brush, 2007; Zhao, 2007).

1.4.1 Teacher beliefs

Pajares (1992) noted that “all teachers hold beliefs about their work, their students, their

subject matter, and their roles and responsibilities’’ (p. 314). In this study, the teacher beliefs

of interest are concerned with the use of digital technologies in education. Research

consistently suggests that teachers’ adoption of technology in their practice is influenced by

their beliefs and attitudes (see, for example, Ertmer, 2005; Fives & Gill, 2015; Tondeur, van

Braak, Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017). For example, it has been shown that teachers

tend to “select applications of technology that align with their selections of other curricular

variables and methods (e.g., teaching strategies) and that also align with their existing beliefs

about ‘good’ education” (Tondeur et al., 2017, p. 2). To acknowledge the critical role that

beliefs play in the adoption of digital technology in teaching and learning, two research

questions (RQ1 and RQ4) were concerned with teacher beliefs (Section 1.2). Teacher beliefs

concerning digital technologies are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3.1.

1.4.2 Teacher knowledge

Teacher knowledge in this study was represented by the TPACK (Technological,

Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) framework (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Koehler &

Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) (see Section 4.3.2). TPACK has been defined as “a

teacher’s knowledge of how to coordinate and combine the use of subject-specific ... and


topic-specific activities using emerging technologies to facilitate student learning” (Cox &

Graham, 2009, p. 64). It builds on the seminal work of Shulman (1986, 1987) in describing

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).

TPACK has three main components: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical

knowledge (PK), and technological knowledge (TK). These are graphically presented as

intersecting circles (see Figure 1.2). Harmes, Welsh, and Winkelman (2016) explained that:

… Content knowledge encompasses what the teacher must know about the subject

matter he or she is teaching. Pedagogical knowledge refers to the methods for

teaching this content, including planning and assessment. Technology knowledge …

includes an understanding of how to use various technology resources and tools, as

well as when to apply them. (p. 141)

Figure 1.2. Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org).

The areas of intersection between the three circles describe additional constructs of

teacher knowledge: pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge

(TCK), and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) (see Table 4.2). The outer circle,

shown as a broken line in Figure 1.2, delimits the context(s) in which the teacher knowledge

(TPACK) is applied. This implies that different knowledges are needed/employed in

different contexts and that “considerations of the factors influencing effective integration of

digital technologies [need to move] beyond simple binary choices of adoption and non-

adoption” (Phillips, 2015). TPACK is described in detail in Section 4.3.2. The TPACK

framework has been applied to data analyses of the survey, particularly Item 6 (Section 6.6)


and the interview findings relating to the challenges of teaching with the PierSim Business

Island simulation (Section 7.2.1).

1.5 Technology

The terminology used to refer to technology in policy, curriculum documents and the

literature has changed over time. In this thesis, ICT (information and communication

technology) has been used in regard to the Australian Curriculum, particularly the ICT

Capability (see Section 3.3) and to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers,

particularly Standards 2.6 and 3.4 (see Section 3.2). More generic terms, such as “digital

technology” and “technology/ies,” are used in this thesis to relate to:

… those technologies that are used for accessing, gathering, manipulating and

presenting or communicating information. The technologies could include hardware

(e.g. computers and other devices); software applications; and connectivity (e.g.,

access to the Internet, local networking infrastructure, videoconferencing).

(Toomey, 2001, para. 3)

Terms in direct quotations cited in this thesis stay true to the original text to add to

an understanding of the time and context of the reference. Irrespective of naming

conventions, what is most critical in this study in regard to technologies are their potential

for disruption to existing practice.

The disruption wrought by technology has been introduced in the preamble to this

chapter. It is represented in the conceptual framework (Figure 1.1) and underpins the aim

and four research questions of this study (see Section 1.2). Disruptive technologies are what

Postman (1995) imagined when he proposed that “a new technology usually makes war

against an old technology. It competes with it for time, attention, money, prestige, and a

‘worldview’” (p. 192). In business, some disruptive technologies are ground-breaking

innovations which create new markets at the expense of others. In education, disruption

frequently comes through the introduction of digital technologies into the traditional

practices of teaching and learning (Flavin, 2017).

The technology at the centre of this study, PierSim Business Island, is best described

as an “immersive educational simulation,” alternately referred to as virtual worlds or virtual

learning environments. Examples of similar technologies include Second Life (SL) and Active

Worlds, which allow the player/participant to “move through” a three-dimensional

environment. 3-D worlds typically display three key features: (i) the representation of the

user as an avatar, (ii) the establishment of a 3-D environment where interaction occurs, and

(iii) the availability of an interactive chat tool for communication between users (Dickey,


2005b). However, the use of an avatar is of significant importance in any virtual

environment, as this custom-animated person with various actions such as walking, running

and jumping, allows for the sense of “user-embodiment” within the virtual space, affording a

sense of control and engagement (deFreitas, Rebolledo-Mendez, Liarokapis, Magoulas &

Poulovassilis, 2010; Hew & Cheung, 2010). This unique feature, in turns, allows the user to

become immersed within the experiences as they are revealed in real-time (Gazzard, 2009).

Virtual worlds also allow for the incorporation of a variety of digital tools such as: blogs,

wikis, social networking and the integration of a Learning Management System (LMS)

(Duncan, Miller, & Jiang, 2012).

Further, Bronack, Sanders, Cheney, Riedl, Tashner & Matzen (2008) introduced the

notion of “presence pedagogy” in relation to immersive educational environments (using

Second Life as an example). They explained that:

We call this new model Presence Pedagogy or the P2 Model. Students and faculty

share in the expectation that, at any given time, others will be present in the virtual

world. The perpetual presence of others is a critical attribute of P2 learning

environment. (p. 61)

This adds a genuinely human element to the simulation and opens up the possibility of

interaction and collaboration with others. Specific details of the PierSim Business Island are

presented in Chapter 2.

1.6 Pedagogy

In this study, the term “pedagogy” takes its semantic meaning referring to the practice of

teaching. This meaning extends to “be the set of skills, abilities, and dispositions one

employs when helping others learn. This skill set often manifests itself as a collection of

strategies, techniques, and styles for doing so” (Bronack et al., 2008, p. 61).

This study also adopted a particular focus on “signature pedagogies” (Shulman,

2005) introduced at the beginning of this chapter. Laurillard (2012) explained that “the best

teaching ideas are most likely to be developed in very specific subject matter contexts. They

have been referred to as the ‘signature pedagogies of a discipline’” (p. 220). For example,

design subjects, based on individual creative processes, are well suited to studio practice

(Crowther, 2013) while chemical sciences, based on reproducible and objectively testable

investigations, are better suited to guided laboratory experiments (Lim, 2013). The design of

the PierSim Business Island is predicated on the idea that the curricular goals of the

Economics and Business subject are best met through experiential learning. The Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business encourages students to develop:


enterprising behaviours and capabilities that can be transferable into life, work and

business opportunities and will contribute to the development and prosperity of

individuals and society.

understanding of the ways society allocates limited resources to satisfy needs and

wants, and how they participate in the economy as consumers, workers and

producers.

understanding of the work and business environments within the Australian

economy and its interactions and relationships with the global economy, in particular

the Asia region.

reasoning and interpretation skills to apply economics and business concepts to

make informed decisions.

understanding of economics and business decision-making and its role in creating a

prosperous, sustainable and equitable economy for all Australians.

understandings that will enable them to actively and ethically participate in the local,

national, regional and global economy as economically, financially and business-

literate citizens.

(ACARA, n.d.-a)

The simulation affords the opportunity to develop these entrepreneurial skills and to operate

a business in competition with other students who are also operating businesses. This is in

line with Bronack et al.’s (2008) observation that “virtual worlds provide unique

opportunities for designing spaces and activities conducive to activating background

knowledge and expertise in useful ways” (pp. 62-63).

1.6.1 External demands on pedagogy

There are three interdependent and somewhat fluid external demands confronted by teachers

who are adopting new technologies and, in parallel, are re-interpreting their pedagogy (see

Figure 1.1). These “demands” are used in this thesis to organise its discussion of the external

demands driving the integration of digital technologies in teaching and learning (see Sections

3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 respectively). The current demands on teachers in Australian schools are: (i)

policy demands; (ii) professional demands; and, (iii) curricular demands.

the policy demands to adopt digital technology in teaching and learning (Blake, 2013;

West, 2012) are illustrated by the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling

in the Twenty-first Century (MCEETYA, 1999) which promoted the argument that all

students should leave school as “confident, creative and productive users of new

technologies, including information and communication technologies, and understand


the impact of those technologies on society” (Goal 1.6). The policy demands imposed by

the more recent Melbourne Declaration will be discussed in Section 3.1.

the professional demands on teachers to integrate digital technology into their teaching

are manifested through national regulatory requirements, such as the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) (Section 3.2). Further detail on the

professional demands on pedagogy is offered in Section 3.3.

the curricular demands to integrate information and communication technology (ICT)

through the Australian Curriculum: General Capabilities (ACARA, n.d.-f). The

Australian Curriculum, first released in 2010, is underpinned by General Capabilities

namely: Literacy; Numeracy; Information and Communication Technology Capability;

Critical and Creative Thinking; Personal and Social Capability; Ethical Understanding;

and, Intercultural Understanding.

The General Capability of prime concern to this study is Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) Capability. It has five interrelated organising

elements: Applying social and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT; Creating

with ICT; Communicating with ICT; Investigating with ICT; and, Managing and

operating ICT (see Figure 3.1). The organising elements of the ICT Capability, with

reference to relevant research, are described in greater detail in Section 3.3.1. Each

elements is described in terms of sub-elements in the ICT Continuum and benchmarked

against six levels of achievement (ranging from Level 1(students at Foundation Level) to

Level 6 (expectations for students at the end of Year 10)) (see Appendix A).

1.6.2 Intrinsic demands

The intrinsic goal of classroom teachers, system leaders and curriculum designers is to use

digital technologies to improve outcomes for students. This goal is the daily realisation of the

policy, professional and curricular demands described in Section 1.6.1. There are explicit

references to digital technologies in the Australian Professional Standards which make it

clear that Australian teachers are now required to actively integrate technologies into their

teaching in meaningful ways (see Table 3.1, Section 3.2.1)

A useful model of the characteristics of meaningful learning was offered by

Jonassen (1999). These characteristics, represented in Figure 1.3, are: Active, Constructive,

Cooperative, Authentic and Intentional. Harmes et al. (2016) explained that:

– Active learning is where students working on meaningful tasks, including making

adjustments and observing the results.


– Constructive learning is where students connect new experiences and observations

with prior knowledge and understanding.

– Cooperative learning is where students interact in knowledge-building communities,

conversing with each other to create common understandings related to their tasks.

– Authentic learning is situated in meaningful, real-life contexts.

– Intentional learning is where students articulate goals and planning strategies for

achieving them.

Figure 1.3. Characteristics of meaningful learning (after Jonassen, 1999).

Jonassen, Strobel and Gottdenker (2005) further explained that:

It is important to point out that these characteristics of meaningful learning are

interrelated, interactive, and interdependent. That is, learning and instructional

activities should engage and support combinations of active, constructive,

intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning because they are synergetic.

Learning activities that represent a combination of these characteristics results in

even more meaningful learning than the individual characteristics would in isolation.

(p. 3)

Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics have been widely adopted and adapted in the

research literature. For example, they are foundational to a model known as the

Technology Integration Matrix (Section 4.4.1). The characteristics, referred to alternately

as benefits or themes, have informed this study in its response to Research Questions 1

and 3 as well as the design and analysis of survey items (see Sections 6.7 and 6.9.2).

They have been instrumental in identifying affordances (Research Question 1) and in

responding to Research Question 3. They also provided guidance in the development of


the signature pedagogy, to be known as the ‘emergence pedagogy’ developed by this

study (see Chapter 9).

1.7 Affordances of technologies in teaching and learning

The acknowledgement and utilisation of affordances of technology/ies is an amalgam of the

pedagogy and technology of the Conceptual Framework (see Figure 1.1). This study accepts

the definition of affordances as “opportunities for action; the perceived and actual

fundamental properties of a thing that determine how the thing could possibly be used”

(Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns & Beers, 2004, p. 49). McLoughlin and Lee (2007) explained

that “blogging entails typing and editing posts, which are not affordances, but which enable

the affordances of idea sharing and interaction” (p. 666). Dalgarno and Lee (2010) suggested

that the affordances of 3-D Virtual Learning environment include “the facilitation of tasks

that lead to enhanced spatial knowledge representation, greater opportunities for experiential

learning, increased motivation/engagement, improved contextualisation of learning and

richer/more effective collaborative learning as compared to tasks made possible by 2-D

alternatives” (p. 10).

There have been a number of attempts in the research to identify the affordances of

educational technology, that is, those qualities which are brought to the learning environment

by the technology itself (see, for example, Bower, 2008; Conole & Dyke, 2004). West

(2012) offered that digital technologies have the potential to transform education through the

affordances of: overcoming geographical distances, improving access, personalising

learning, and making information available. Further to this, West (2012) contended that

“technology can deepen education by altering the way students master core content, teachers

operate their classroom, and parents and policy makers can evaluate education” (p. 8). These

observations imply that traditional conceptions of teaching and learning will change thus

making it possible to realise Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994) argument that “nobody wants

to use technology to recreate education as it is” (p. 256).

This study has rebadged characteristics or qualities as affordances when the

author’s/authors’ intention was aligned with the accepted definition of affordance. This

appropriation of qualities as affordances lies in Hutchby’s (2001) contention that

“affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the

possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object” (p. 44) and Kirschner’s (2002)

contention that educational affordances can be defined as the relationships between the

properties of an educational intervention and the characteristics of the learner that enable

certain kinds of learning to take place. An example of this afforded agency lies in the

characteristics of meaningful learning described by Jonassen (1999), namely: Active,


Constructive, Cooperative, Authentic and Intentional (Section 1.6.2). In specific regard to

virtual or immersive worlds, Bronack et al. (2008) offered that they provide: the previously

cited “presence” pedagogy where others populate the space affording social interaction and

collaboration; and, a “cognitive” presence which “provide a platform for both peers and

experts to serve as catalysts for explicit, intentional learning” (p. 62).

1.8 Teaching within and through digital technologies

This study has adopted the prepositions within and through to explain the interaction that

teachers and students have with the immersive educational simulation at the heart of this

study. This shifts from the more commonly used and expected term, “with,” which is applied

to the use of most software packages used in schools. It is of interest that term “with” was

once considered unusual in reference to the educational use of digital technologies. Harmes

et al. (2016) explained that “some researchers have described a shift from learning about

technology, to learning from technology, to learning with technology” (p. 139, emphases

added). They went on to explain that “such a shift requires a change from an outdated

transmission model of technology integration to a model that focuses on the pedagogy that

technology enables and supports, rather than on the technology itself” (p. 139). This study

represents a further shift from “with” to “within” and from “from” to “through.” These

changes to wording better represent the notion of technology as a component of a larger

learning environment rather than a simple “add-on” to a traditional setting. The adoption of technologies in teaching and learning is an amalgam of the concepts

of teacher and pedagogy of the Conceptual Framework (Figure 1.1). How teachers adopt

digital technologies is typically mapped to models showing progressive stages which Lloyd

(2016) described as being “from lower to higher and from naivety to mastery” (p. 302).

There are a number of models in the research; those selected for discussion in this thesis (see

Section 4.4) are:

ACOT Stages of Instructional Evolution (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Haymore-Sandholtz,

1990).

Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson,

2002).

SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) (Puentedura,

2006).

LoTi (Level of Technology Integration) (Moersch, 1995, 2010).

Innovativeness of ICT use (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012).


Phases of Realisation (Jacka, 2015).

The Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002) was

employed in this study in the analysis of data, particularly in the positioning of teacher

survey responses above or below this framework’s “critical use border” (see Sections 6.5,

6.8) and in the response to Research Question 2 (see Section 8.2). The Innovativeness of ICT

use model (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012) informed the study in the formulation of a survey

item namely, Survey Item 8 (see Sections 5.1.7, 6.8). The ACOT Stages, along with

Jonassen’s (1990) “meaningful characteristics,” are referred to in connection with their

adoption into the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) (Welsh, Harmes, & Winkelman,

2011) (see Section 4.4.1, Appendix B).

1.9 Challenges and disruption

It is commonly held that teaching and learning, particularly in the context of schooling, is

conservative (Jacka, 2018). This is evidenced in the current focus on national and

international standardised tests and metrics of success interpreted through student

achievement (Apple, 2014; Goodman, 2012; Hattie, 2017; Hattie & Anderman, 2013). In this

environment, any innovation or change in curriculum or practice represents a significant

challenge to risk-averse teachers.

An example of this is seen in Phillips and Li’s (2016) recent description of the

challenges and disruptions faced by teachers designing out-of-classroom learning

experiences using augmented reality. They explained that:

One of the challenges … is that the change in physical location represents more than

a change in the teaching and learning setting. The move from in-classroom to out-of-

classroom settings fundamentally changes the ways in which teachers need to

consider, and reconsider, their pedagogical knowledge. (p. 165)

There are clear parallels in this observation between the challenges faced by the teachers in

the Phillips and Li (2016) study and those in this study interpreting and re-interpreting their

pedagogy when teaching within and through an educational simulation. The second research

question informing this study is directly concerned with the challenges and disruptions faced

by teachers in the specific context of teaching the Australian Curriculum: Economics and

Business and in the specific adoption of the PierSim Business Island simulation.

Shulman (1986) contended that changes to the learning environment challenges

teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action due to: changes to the physical organisation of

students, access to references, and changes to the ways in which content might be

represented. He further contended that changes might also disrupt the content knowledge


(CK) formerly used in a lesson perhaps drawing on lived experience rather than textbook

approaches. Shulman (1986) concluded that any disruption to a teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK) forces them to reconsider their teaching practice.

The research into the early adoption of microcomputers (precursors to

personal/desktop computers) into classroom teaching is marked by challenge and disruption.

This is evident in the question which introduced and inspired this study, namely, “how do we

build education in the presence of the computer” (Sendov, 1986, p. 16). It is also evident in

Ertmer’s (1999) contention that “computer technology is not as readily assimilated into

teachers’ existing routines, typically requiring change along multiple dimensions of practice

(e.g., personal, organizational, pedagogical)” (p. 47).

Further, the element of challenge and disruption are evident in research into the

anxiety that teachers felt in relation to the adoption of digital technologies, for example, the

CBAM (Concerns-Based Adoption Model) (Hall & Hord, 1987). Ertmer (1999) summarised

these as a set of rhetorical questions (described as personal fears, technical and logistical

concerns, and organisational and pedagogical concerns), including:

What will I do if the technology fails and my lesson can't proceed?

How will I gain the confidence I need?

How does this software package work?

Where or when should I use computers?

How can I ensure that students obtain adequate computer time without missing other

important content?

How do I weave computers into current curricular demands?

Ertmer (1999) introduced the concept of challenges and disruptions as first- and

second-order barriers. First order barriers are institutional and extrinsic/external to teachers.

They are typically related to resources, that is, equipment, time, training and technical

support. Second-order barriers are personal/internal and are “rooted in teachers’ underlying

beliefs about teaching and learning” (Ertmer, 1999, p. 51).

This study has focussed on teacher beliefs as a fundamental component of how

teachers interpret or re-interpret their practice when faced with a new technology. Makki,

O’Neal, Cotten and Rikard (2018) noted that studies relating to second-order barriers

addressed such areas as: teachers’ attitudes towards technologies; level of confidence in

integrating technology into the curriculum; and beliefs about the potential learning outcomes

associated with the introduction of a specific technology. The first research question

informing this study is concerned with teacher beliefs while the fourth is concerned with

how teacher practice and beliefs change as a result of teaching within and through an

immersive educational simulation (see Section 1.2).


Tsai and Chai (2012) suggested a third-order barrier, namely, the design of learning

experiences making use of digital technologies. They described this barrier as arising when

teachers are “confronted with the advancement of ICT and its associated pedagogical

affordances” (p. 1058). The third research question (RQ3) informing this study seeks to

determine the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the immersive simulation

being used and the curriculum context of Economics and Business.

It can be contended that teachers’ responses to the challenge and disruption of digital

technology in teaching and learning form the basis the models of adoption (introduced in

Section 1.8 and explored in depth in Section 4.4). These frequently begin with limited or no

adoption through to transformative practice.

1.10 Research design

This qualitative study adopted a Grounded Theory approach (see Chapter 5). At its simplest,

Grounded Theory is a “qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures

to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon” (Strauss & Corbin,

1990, p. 23). It was chosen for this study because of its focus on developing theory from

data. Grounded theory offers a qualitative approach “rooted in ontological critical realism

and epistemological objectivity” (Levers, 2013, p. 1).

Drawing on the seminal development of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;

Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994, 1998), Charmaz (2006) summarised the defining components

of Grounded Theory as being:

simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis.

constructing analytic codes and categories from data, not from preconceived

logically deduced hypotheses.

using the constant comparative method, which involves making comparisons during

each stage of the analysis.

advancing theory development during each step of data collection and analysis.

memo-writing to elaborate categories, specify their properties, define relationships

between categories, and identify gaps.

theoretical sampling aimed toward theory construction, not for population

representativeness.

conducting the literature review after developing an independent analysis.

These components were generally adopted in this study (see Chapter 5, Research

Methodology). Particular attention was given to the construction of analytic codes and


categories from the data, the use of theoretical sampling and the use of a constant

comparative method of analysis (Fram, 2013; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The major exception

was in not conducting the literature review after the analysis of the data. The demands of

doctoral candidature, particularly the Confirmation process, and the need to ground the data

instruments in research require preliminary work on the literature review. The literature

review, was, however, completed after the analysis of findings and was used to inform the

final discussion and conclusion of the study.

The research setting is in a non-physical space. This is a point of difference between

this study and other studies on the use of digital technologies in education, particularly

Economics and Business, which typically are situated within given physical settings. For

example, Dickerson and Kubasko (2007) conducted a study which made use of a particular

technology, namely digital microscopes used with a classroom set of laptops, in a particular

setting, that is, a rural school in a low-socioeconomic area in North Carolina. This school

setting could be said to be struggling with first-order barriers in terms of access to resources

(Ertmer, 1999). The study focussed on student outcomes through observation and analysis of

student artefacts. This study, by comparison, is concerned with second- and third order

barriers, in terms of teachers’ interpretation of their practice.

A further point of comparison in regard to research settings is the study by McKnight,

O’Malley, Ruzic, Horsley, Franey and Bassett (2016) which was based in seven “exemplary

schools” in the United States. The purpose of the study was to document instructional

strategies and the roles played by technology in teaching and learning through classroom

observations. The study also surveyed teachers to determine their familiarity, use and

comfort with technology. While this is closer to the intent of the study reported in this thesis,

it resonates with older models of teacher “concerns” and the first-order issues of access and

technical skills.

The study is alternately positioned within each participating teachers’ practice in

Economics and Business, and within the immersive educational simulation, PierSim

Business Island Simulation, used as the learning environment for each teachers’ class (see

Section 5.2.1). The following diagram, Figure 1.4, represents how the components of

pedagogy and technology overlap to create the research setting for this thesis. The setting is

not a particular classroom or with a particular set of students in a particular location. It is not

concerned with teachers’ technical competence but is rather more broadly concerned with

their practice in teaching Economics and Business within and through an immersive

educational simulation.


Figure 1.4. Research setting.

The study adopted purposive sampling, that is, where specific participants were

invited because of their experience of teaching Economics and Business within and through

the PierSim Business Island Simulation. While this limited the study to a small population of

teachers involved in the foundation cluster (35 teachers in 27 schools across Queensland),

the deliberate selection provided insight to the phenomenon under investigation rather than

an empirical generalisation from a sample to a population (Patton, 2002). The theoretical

(purposive) sampling adopted by this study, in line with the cited defining components of

Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006), is aimed toward theory construction, not for population

representativeness. Invitations were sent to the 27 participating schools (through the

Principal). Fifteen teachers accepted the invitation to participate through the completion of a

survey, with six of these (from four different schools) agreeing to take part in a one-to-one

interview (see Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) (see Figure 1.5). The survey participants were not

asked to reveal the name or location of the school where they were employed, so this data is

unknown.

Figure 1.5. Participants.


The data collection was conducted during one calendar year. The survey items and

guide questions for the interviews were drawn from the literature. They yielded rich data and

“thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973; Holloway, 1997; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Charmaz

(2006) explained that, in Grounded Theory, “gathering rich data will give … solid material

for building a significant analysis. Rich data are detailed, focussed, and full. They reveal

participants’ views, feelings, intentions, and actions as well as the contexts and structures of

their lives” (p. 14). The collated data provided sufficient detail to develop new theoretical

models, taking the form of a relational schema and a signature pedagogy, suited to the

teaching of Economics and Business through immersive educational simulations. The

findings of the study are presented in Chapter 6 (Survey Finding) and Chapter 7 (Interview

Findings). The discussion of the findings is presented in Chapter 8.

1.10.1 Role of the researcher

As noted in Section 1.1, my employment, involvement with a teacher professional

association, and invited participation in the pilot of the PierSim Business Island Simulation

positioned me as an “insider.” For example, I used my knowledge of the professional

community of Economics and Business teachers to identify the schools where the PierSim

Business Island Simulation was being used and issued invitations, through the Principal, to

teachers eligible to participate in this study.

This closeness to the participants (see Section 1.1) and the research setting might

raise questions of subjectivity and conflict of interest (see Section 9.3 for a discussion of the

potential limitations of the study). To counter this, the first data instrument, the survey, was

anonymous allowing participants to respond freely. In the second data instrument, the

interview, I assured participants that I was neither evaluating the simulation nor focussing on

student outcomes as a result of using this program. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that

I was not evaluating them or their competence as teachers but that, rather, I was interested in

how they were coming to terms with teaching with the simulation. I took the role of an

empathetic peer rather than an objective critical observer. This was particularly important for

those interview subjects who were employed at the same school as I was and were members

of the staff that I managed.

More positively, however, the value of being involved in the research setting is

supported by Schatzman and Strauss (1973) who argued that a researcher “must get close to

the people… [being studied]; … understand[ing that] their actions are best comprehended on

the spot—in the natural, ongoing environment where they live and work” (p. 5). Further, my

involvement sits well with the preference in Grounded Theory to develop theoretical

sensitivity (Orland-Barak, 2002), that is, “an awareness of the subtleties of meaning of data”


(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 41). Charmaz (2006) argued that “grounded theorists’

background assumptions and disciplinary perspectives alert them to look for certain

possibilities and processes in their data” (p. 16). Sources of theoretical sensitivity are studies

of literature, professional experience and personal experience. My theoretical sensitivity was

of benefit in the analysis of collected data. From my own experience of teaching Economics

and Business and in working with the PierSim Business Island Simulation, I understood and

was empathetic to the demands and challenges that the study’s participants were confronting.

1.10.2 Significance of the study

This study has significance in three ways. First, significance lies in addressing the

complexities of teaching with new technologies in the context of current policy and

curriculum change in Australian school education (see Section 1.6). Peeraer and Van

Petegem (2012) highlighted that little research exists to measure the “[e]ffective integration

of ICT in teaching practice or on added value of ICT for teaching and learning in general”

(p. 1247). This means that teachers are faced, without research support, with needing to

make “real” connections between the concepts and principles inherent in Economics and

Business, and the pedagogical practices needed to allow students to engage with ICT to

apply their learnt knowledge to a practical simulated environment. This study will take a

further step into describing the pedagogies and affordances of educational simulations in

teaching and learning. In this, it enacts the role of educational research to develop practices

that enhance the education setting, providing descriptions, explanations and predictions

(Johnson & Christensen, 2008).

As Koehler and Mishra (2008) explained, integrating effective technologies within

the classroom learning environment is “a complex and ill-structured problem involving the

convoluted interaction of multiple factors, with few and fast rules that apply across contexts

and cases” (p. 10). The main issue arising from the expectation that teachers are to

effectively integrate ICT within their classrooms (see Sections 1.6, 3.2) is that today’s

teachers did not learn their subject-specific curriculum areas within and through new and

emerging technologies. This implies that support is needed for teachers to make realistic

connections with the curriculum as well as the development of an effective means to prepare

teachers to guide student learning with the aid of such technologies (Chai et al., 2013;

Doering, Veletsianos, Scharber & Miller, 2009).

Second, the study, heeding the advice of Campbell (2009), Farley (2014) and Savin-

Baden (2010) will provide insight into a new or renewed use for virtual worlds or 3-D

simulations in education. The introduction of immersive educational simulations, as a

subject-specific ICT tool for Economics and Business, changes the dynamics of the teaching


and learning environment. The PierSim Business Island Simulation, as an example of an

immersive educational simulation, has challenged teachers to consider how integrating this

form of technology presents implications for both the content and content-specific

pedagogies for a particular curriculum learning area (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik,

Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). Despite this, Gregory et al. (2014) synthesised predictions

from the NMC (New Media Consortium) Horizon Reports from 2007 to 2014 which showed

a fall in interest in virtual worlds and a failure over time to gain widespread adoption. They

asserted that it is “timely to ask whether the reality has matched the rhetoric or whether time

has told a different story” (p. 281). The findings of the study will be current and of

considerable value to educators and system leaders particularly in determining the effective

and practical use of immersive educational simulations within a secondary schooling setting.

Third, and finally, this study will contribute to theory through two new models of

practice for teaching within and through digital technologies, particularly immersive

educational simulations. The first is a schema which maps the role of technology in and the

relationships between teaching and learning affordances (presented in Chapter 8) both in

general and in the context of Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business. The second is

a new signature pedagogy, referred to as the “emergence” pedagogy, which incorporates the

identified affordances into a purposeful model of practice. This pedagogy builds on existing

models of teacher adoption of digital technologies in teaching and learning while

incorporating the unique learning environment comprising of a complementary and

contiguous in- and out-worlds.

1.11 Overview of the study

The study commenced with an establishment phase where formal ethical clearance was

sought from QUT and the cooperation was sought, through the respective school Principals

for relevant teaching staff, namely Economics and Business teachers who taught within and

through the PierSim Business Island Simulation, to participate in the study.

Data collection took place through the 2016 calendar year. The survey instrument

was made available online and was open for three weeks during June 2016 (see Section

5.3.1). Six interview subjects were identified through the survey and interviews were held

from August to December 2016 (see Section 5.3.2).

Data analysis, as noted in Section 1.10, was concurrent with data collection. This, in

accordance with the Grounded Theory approach adopted by this study, allowed making

comparisons during each stage of the analysis and the progressive development of theory

throughout the study (Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014). The final stage of the study was to revisit


the literature review in order to update the contents and to add material to support the

findings which emerged from the data.

1.12 Overview of the thesis

This thesis is presented in nine chapters. This chapter, Chapter 1, has introduced the study,

detailed its overarching aim and four research questions, outlined the research methodology

and the overview of the study, and described the significance of the study.

The following chapter, Chapter 2, will provide the technological context for the study.

It will explore the concepts of immersive educational simulations and the PierSim Business

Island Simulation as a disruptive technology to support the delivery of the Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business. It will describe the operations of the simulation and

explain terms used by survey respondents and interview subjects.

Chapter 3 provides the pedagogical context for the study. In this case, it is the

pedagogical context represented in the Conceptual Framework (Figure 1.1) as “demands”

namely, policy (see Section 3.1), professional (see Section 3.2), and curricular (see Section

3.3).

Chapter 4, the Literature Review, will be structured around the Conceptual

Framework (Figure 1.1). This means that it will have main sections on: Pedagogy (Section

4.1), Technology (Section 4.2) and the Teacher (Section 4.3). It will also present details of

the existing models of teacher adoption of technology in the classroom (Section 4.4).

Chapter 5 (Research Design) will explain how this research will draw on Grounded

Theory (Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994,

1998). Such an approach was selected in order to qualitatively describe, explain and (most

importantly) gain an insight into understanding the complex pedagogical issues that exist for

teachers to integrate immersive educational simulations into one’s real-life classroom and

general schooling environments. This chapter will provide details of the research design,

participants, data collection and analysis methods for this study.

Chapter 6 (Findings – Survey) presents the outcomes from the online survey. Survey

items included: participants’ range of experience in teaching Economics and Business with

the aid of the PierSim Business Island Simulation; their beliefs in the role of digital

technology in Economics and Business; their understanding of the purpose and effectiveness

of the PierSim Business Island Simulation; and their level of engagement with the PierSim

Business Island Simulation.


Chapter 7 (Findings – Interview) presents the findings from the one-to-one semi-

structured interviews (n=6). The interviews provided insight on the participants’ beliefs

towards how their teaching of the Economics and Business concepts might have changed as

a result teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation; their understanding and

engagement with the in- and out-worlds learning environments; and, the change in their own

confidence and mastery of the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Following the presentation of the findings of the study, Chapter 8 (Discussion)

responds to the research questions and provides a detailed discussion of the outcomes of the

study, draws conclusions derived from the literature and findings, as well as proposes

recommendations for further research in this particular field. It also presents the first of two

theoretical models developed in this study, namely, the relational schema which maps

teaching and learning affordances within and through an immersive educational simulation.

The final chapter, Chapter 9 (Conclusion) concludes the thesis by presenting a

response to the overarching aim of the study. A new signature pedagogy, as a theoretical

model, is proposed to advance understandings of pedagogy when teaching subject-specific

concepts and skills within and through immersive educational simulations. It is referred to as

an “emergence pedagogy” and is the outcome of the findings of this study blended with

existing research and policy considerations.

1.13 Chapter summary

This chapter has introduced the study and outlined its research question and aims. It has

provided the background to the study and described its significance. A brief description of

the research methodology has been presented. The following chapter, Chapter 2, will

described the technological context for the study, that is, the immersive educational

simulation which participating teachers had adopted in their teaching of Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business.

Chapter 2: Technological context 25

Chapter 2: Technological context

This chapter presents the technological context for the study by exploring the concept and

features of an immersive educational simulation by describing the concept of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation as a disruptive educational tool to support the curriculum

delivery of the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business education. This chapter

has two sections: the structure of the PierSim Business Island Simulation (Section 2.1); and,

an outline of teaching practice within and through the simulation (Section 2.2). The chapter

concludes with a brief summary (Section 2.3). This chapter exists to provide a detailed

explanation of the Pier-Sim Business Island Simulation; therefore, the literature review for

this study is presented in Chapter 4.

This thesis will use the term “immersive educational simulation” to describe a virtual

world that can exist on a controlled platform (private virtual space) and can allow the learner

to modify the virtual environment so as to change the learning experience (while having

custom-use of the avatar for educational purposes only). An example of an immersive

educational simulation is the “PierSim Business Island Simulation,” developed in Australia

by the International Educational Services (IES), in association with the University of

Queensland (UQ). It is the simulation at the heart of this study and effectively forms part of

the research setting (Section 1.10, Figure 1.4). The PierSim Business Island simulation is

described in detail in the following sections, namely, Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

2.1 Structure of PierSim Business Island

The PierSim Business Island Simulation is an immersive 3D simulation experience using an

Open Sims platform to assist students to learn business concepts, principles and practices1.

PierSim Business Island Simulation attempts to challenge the way in which Junior Business

Education is delivered in the secondary schooling classroom. Based in a private virtual

space, which is situated internally on the school’s server, students establish and operate a

virtual business that is a replica of businesses in the real-world (for example, Domino’s Pizza

Enterprises Limited, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and Di Bella Coffee) in an in- and

out-world virtual simulation. From designing their products to seeing how the share price of

their business is trading on the virtual stock exchange, the students adopt the role of an

1 A useful introductory video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfTGkTe2Tmc. It shows how the PierSim Business Island, referred to as VBE, is used in an Accounting unit at the University of Queensland Business School (URL correct at time of writing, December 2018).

26 Chapter 2: Technological context

avatar and must trade within the virtual community, in order to stay alive (and thus continue

to stimulate the economy). The mechanics of the PierSim Business Island Simulation

revolves around an economic system that allows for the practical application of course

material in different areas of business management. A key difference of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation to other game-based educational programs is that the PierSim

Business Island Simulation allows the teacher to log in as the “Virtual Administrator” and

control certain elements of the students’ businesses so as to stimulate economic and

environmental scenarios for classroom learning purposes.

The PierSim Business Island Simulation attempts to create a learning experience that

encourages the students to engage in strategic business decision-making within a unique

learning environment. Using the principles of experiential learning, students are able to

action their strategies and reflect on the outcomes. The experience engages the learner and

develops the skills of self-evaluation, reflection and initiative that are essential skills in the

constructivist learning environment. By immersing the student in a challenging learning

environment, the student has to actively problem solved with others and to evaluate the

effectiveness of their solutions. Anecdotal evidence illustrates that students become active

participants in the learning process and become more responsible for their own learning.

Students are faced with the challenge of having to maintain the health, satisfaction and

relationship of their avatars (staff) in order to produce quality products. The student must

manage the profitability of their company, the pricing strategy, the purchasing and inventory

strategy, the sales and marketing strategy, change management, customer relationships and

the risk management strategy. The student must evaluate the moves of their competition and

the changes in the environment. The student must then develop and implement their

competitive responses. This is often performed in the context of a team. They maintain

accounting records and prepare and deliver business plans and annual reports. This enacts

the presence pedagogy described by Bronack et al. (2008) introduced in Sections 1.5, 1.6 and

1.7. This pedagogy:

… advances a peer-based approach to teaching and learning. The model promotes a

flattened approach toward instruction that removes the preset hierarchy of expertise

that is common across most educational models and replaces it with one in which all

members of a learning community share in the responsibility for encouraging,

challenging, and supporting one another. (p. 63)

Once students have participated in the virtual trading environment under “normal”

conditions, they are then presented with a range of scenarios where certain “variables” can

be modified by the teacher. Students must demonstrate effective strategic business-decision


making and develop strategies for action so as to respond to the changed market conditions

and continue to successfully operate their virtual business.

The learning environment mixes in- and out-worlds environments to create a seamless

marketplace. Students operate their businesses within the virtual world and the classroom

simultaneously. Screens are placed around the perimeter of the classroom. The students

develop strategies as a management team in the classroom and implement them both within

the virtual world and within the business world of the classroom. The teacher is able to

control all the variables in the game thus enabling the recreation of a wide range of in-world

scenarios. These include events such as booms, recessions, environmental disasters, supply

problems and command economies. The teacher becomes as much a player in the game as

the students. Within the learning environment, the economic decisions of the company

management affect the environment. Students must work on a collaborative approach that

can both sustain the environment and the profitability of the business. The open-ended

environment of virtual worlds is ideal for these ethical decision-making processes as there

are no rights and wrongs only decisions and consequences.

2.1.1 The “islands” and virtual administration

There are five “islands” which comprise the simulation: (i) Location One – Finance Island;

(ii) Location Two – Wholesale Island; (iii) Location Three – Retail Island; (iv) Location

Four – Hotel Island; and (v) Location Five – Legal Island. The activity within the islands is

managed through a Virtual Administration control panel. Figure 2.1 represents the islands

and the connection between them.


Figure 2.1. “Map” of the islands in the in-world of PierSim Business Island.

The following sections describe the islands and the control panel.

Location One – Finance Island

When the group of students, operating a virtual business, engages in a round within the

PierSim Business Island Simulation, they must decide how to secure enough funds to

commence operations. Each group initially has a small capital injection of a nominated

amount which is primarily used to pay for their transportation around the island or to

purchase minimal products from the wholesaler. The Finance Island consists of the

“Australian Bank” where students are able to purchase up to three loans within any given

round; the “Virtual Advertising” store which enables students to draw up a contract with this

supplier and purchase advertising space within world; and the virtual stock market board

which provides “real-time” data on the share price of each of the operating stores within the

virtual world for that particular round.

The Australian Bank provides the virtual businesses with the opportunity to acquire up

to three loans within each round. Figure 2.2 is a screen capture showing the avatar, operated

by the students of the associated virtual business, entering the bank to view the available

interest rate on each particular loan. Students, as the business, must adopt a specific business

strategy to determine if the interest rate is suitable at the time of purchase and whether the


injection of the loan into the business is potentially going to achieve the Key Performance

Indicator/s (KPIs) that the business is working towards. If the students proceed with the

acquisition of the loan, they must then go out-world (engage physically in the classroom

environment) to source and complete the required loan documents. The completed loan

documents must then be presented to the Board of Directors of the virtual business for

approval. Once approval is obtained, then the students are able to go back in-world to move

their avatar to the “loans counter” where the students then select which loan (at three

aggregated amounts) they wish to acquire. The avatar then confirms the loan and, through

the algorithms within the game, the loan is transferred to the virtual business’s bank account

and interest is instantly charged at frequent intervals throughout the round. In order to

students to quickly repay their loan, they must ensure that their pricing strategy of their

products incorporates a percentage to allow for the efficiency of their loan repayments, as

well as them realising that they must generate enough sales in order to quickly repay their

newly acquired loan.

Figure 2.2. Finance Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

The Virtual Advertising store enables students to purchase different levels of

marketing campaign packages which allow the virtual business to physically advertise and

promote products within the virtual environment. If students wish to pursue a specific

marketing strategy, they need to develop suitable marketing material out-world through

available software applications, for example, Adobe Photoshop, and then deposit their files

in a specific storage area. Once the students have selected an appropriate marketing package,

they are then able to source an available advertising space of that category, for example, bus

shelter signs or the advertising blimps in the sky. Once selected, the students’ own marketing


materials appear on that advertising space within the virtual world. The distinct benefit of

this feature allows students to “visibly” see their creations in-world and have a deepened

sense of ownership of their virtual business. In accordance with the business’s marketing

strategy, the students are then able to promote the sale of their “premium products” through

their advertising material and, if other avatars walk past the business’s advertising and then

directly go to purchase the premium product from the business, then the business receives

extra benefits from the success of their marking campaign. This is calculated through the

program’s “Artificial Intelligence” that is operating behind the scenes within the virtual

environment.

The placement of the share market within Finance Island allows all users to

continually view the current value of their share price within each round. Through the use of

the program’s “Artificial Intelligence”, the shares are calculated based on the business’s

available funds within their bank account, the level of debt within the organisation and the

available products for sale within their stores. The students also have the opportunity to

engage directly in share trading by visiting their own control panel and buying and selling

shares of the other companies within the round. This adds another level of students’

engagement, as the organisation must develop a specific strategy to perform market research

of the share trading patterns so as to work towards making appropriate business decisions as

to the level of investment they wish to participate in. As students become more familiar with

the simulation and develop a more in-depth understanding of corporate business practices,

specifically aimed at senior schooling, they are able to participate in the merger and

acquisition of organisations within the virtual environment. Students need to go out-world to

conduct a Board meeting where they will develop a strategy and plan to merge with or

acquire other businesses. Students will also research the process of merges and acquisitions

within Australia and complete the necessary documentation to simulate what would likely

happen if they were in the real-world completing this transaction. Likewise, for the virtual

businesses that are performing at a loss and are going-concern, they too will participate in

the process of foreclosing their store and going into liquation. Again, students come out-

world to research how this process is achieved within the Australian free-enterprise

marketplace and complete the necessary steps to cease trading as an entity.

Finance Island is managed and operated by the simulation’s Artificial Intelligence in

the beginning phases of students participating in this learning experience. As students

become more familiar with the software application itself, as well as develop a more

comprehensive knowledge and understanding of business management practices, they are

then able to operate the Australian Bank and the Virtual Advertising store as a trading

business. However, through computer algorithms, the computer always maintain control over


the virtual share marketing so as to ensure accuracy and accountability of the data being

produced which, in turn, acts as the catalyst for allowing students to participate in effective

strategic business decision-making and respond to the business challenges that are presented

to them.

Location Two – Wholesale Island

Throughout each round, students determine when the most suitable time is to purchase their

inventories for their virtual business. Within the classroom learning environment, students

need to develop an inventory management strategy, for example, just-in-time management,

and then use their business’s avatar to access the Wholesale Island “in world.” Once at the

Wholesale Island (represented in Figure 2.3), students need to firstly examine the market to

locate their specific products for their particular business. Students then need to visit the

ticket ordering area to commence the ordering process. During this timed period, the student

(through his/her) avatar needs to select the appropriate products and then move to the

processing register, in order for the Wholesale business to tally their purchases and confirm

the order. Once a price has been negotiated, the avatar of the business pays for the products.

To simulate appropriate real-world supply chain management practices, the inventories are

then delayed in transit and will soon appear on the shelves of the avatar’s business.

Figure 2.3. Wholesale Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

The Wholesale business is principally owned and controlled by the simulation’s

Artificial Intelligence where products populate within each business’s wholesaling area at

differing intervals. Students are made aware that sometimes their preferred product choice

may not be available for purchase and, therefore, they need to consider this supply chain

management issue within their business decision-making. Additionally, the prices of each of


the products available for sale at the Wholesale Island are interchangeable in response to the

current economic condition within the virtual environment. For example, prices will be

automatically altered, by the Artificial Intelligence’s use of algorithms to respond to the

changes in the economy’s inflation, Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the environment’s

Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The Artificial Intelligence of the Wholesale Island also takes into consideration the

environmental impact that the businesses collectively have on the eagerness to purchase a

large volume of products. Therefore, as each business continues to purchase their

inventories, the environment starts to deplete. This is evidenced by the trees diminishing

throughout the simulation as more products are purchased. The impact of this is that the

economy starts to become “deleveraged” as businesses are too concerned about making

profit rather than exhibiting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to preserve the

environment. If a suitable environmental policy is not developed by the businesses and

implemented in a timely manner, then the Wholesale Island will cease trade. This, in turn,

would have detrimental impact for each business, as the avatar of each business relies on the

purchase of products for sale from the other businesses, in order to stay alive and continue to

trade with their own organisation. Each business is able to contribute to an “Environment

Fund”; however, there is no minimal amount required unless a deleveraged state occurs, and

then collectively the businesses must raise a certain amount, in order for the Wholesale

business to commence trade again.

As students become more familiar with the trading practices of a wholesale

organisation, there is the opportunity for a group to own and operate the Wholesale Island.

The level of knowledge and understanding required for this specific organisation is more

suited to students studying in the senior secondary curriculum subject area, for example,

Accounting, Economics or Business Management related subjects. A condition of students

operating Wholesale Island is dependent upon these individuals developing a specific action

plan so as to continually engage in market research of the condition of the virtual economy

and then implement effective strategies so as to allow the other retail businesses to respond

to the challenges they have created within each round of the simulation.

Location Three – Retail Island

Retail Island (represented in Figure 2.4) consists of forty stores, ranging from: fast-food

outlets, coffee shops, health care providers, cinema complexes, music and electronics stores,

to name but a few. The stores are located in a two-storey shopping complex that enables each

avatar to be able to explore a range of retail opportunities. The stores are physically designed

to replicate those real-life store equivalents. For example, Domino’s Pizza Enterprises

Limited and Di Bella Coffee have become industry partners of the PierSim Business Island


Simulation and these stores have been designed in-world to replicate their out-world physical

corporate stores. Each store is operated by an avatar that symbolises the “health” of the

organisation. Students in the out-world are invited to apply for a position within any

organisation and would submit a Curriculum Vitae (CV) for that position. If successful, they

would be appointed to one of the management roles: Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief

Financial Officer (COO), Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) or Chief Operating Officer

(COO). Each role is responsible for the completion of specific tasks; however, every group

member can contribute to the completion of each task requirements.

Figure 2.4. Retail Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

As a newly formed partnership, the students would complete the necessary documents

to register the business in accordance with Australian legal requirements. Once completed,

they receive entry into that particular store. Students must then employ the management

skills of these roles in order to make their business a success. For example, the Chief

Financial Officer (CFO) would be responsible for the development and maintenance of the

computerised Accounting system and would ensure the accuracy of the transactions

disclosed. This role holder would also be responsible for the overseeing of the development

of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in relation to the financial performance and financial

stability of the organisation.

In order to manage and operate the virtual business, the students must control their

avatar to make effective business decisions. There is a “Heads-Up-Display” (HUD) where

students are able to quickly determine the current level of success of their business. Within

the HUD, based on Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” theory (Maslow, 1943), students are able

to view the “health,” level of “satisfaction,” and “relationship” status of their business. In

terms of health, students are able to determine what percentage of the business’s staff is


happy with the working conditions of the business imposed by the group as well as the

simulation’s Artificial Intelligence.

Figure 2.5. PierSim view showing HUD (upper left)

The level of satisfaction is representative of how the business’s customers have

responded to the purchase of the business’s products. Finally, the relationship bar illustrates

the level of engagement that the avatar has with other businesses. Each business’s avatar

must purchase products from other companies, in order to stay alive (and this is what drives

the economy). If any of these levels decrease below 50%, then the students, acting as the

Board, must implement effective strategies to improve their business. The organisations

should not purchase any product from the Wholesale Island if any of their HUD levels are

below 50%. The reason for this is that the wholesale products the business purchases would

become faulty (calculated by the simulation’s Artificial Intelligence). The risk of this

practice would be that other businesses could potentially sue this business for malpractice if

the other business was to consume a faulty product.

Students are able to rely on a range of strategies to ensure that products are being sold

within their virtual organisation. There is an embedded chat feature within the program

allowing the avatars to communicate with each other. Students can also rely on out-world

promotional strategies to entice other business’s avatars to visit their store. Students are also

able to design social media advertising and promotional avenues which can be directly

linked into the game. For example, students can create their own Twitter® account for the

virtual business and have twitter feeds appear within a block on the screen during each round

of the virtual simulation. Additionally, students can create their own Facebook® page and,

through the design of their advertising, promote the Facebook link on their billboard signs

that are displayed “in-world.” The availability of products for sale is clearly visible of the

shelves of the store; however, students can participate in promotional pricing of their

products by rearranging their product display to maximise the sale of a particular


promotional item. The students can also easily determine the amount of funds needed to

repay the business’s loan by retrieving this information from the store’s office computer

(located at the back of the store). Students are able to see real-time data of their virtual

businesses through a control page setup as a website database running parallel to the

program. This is where students can adjust the prices of their products, purchase shares from

other businesses, repay their loan commitments and view additional economic and business

data that may be distributed by the Virtual Administrator.

Location Four – Hotel Island

Hotel Island (represented in Figure 2.6) enables two groups of students to own and operate

two large hotel organisations. The implications of operating these two hotels are that they are

located a considerable distance from Retail Island. This could discourage other avatars to

make the journey to purchase products from these hotel organisations. However, to address

this, the direct health and satisfaction that avatar consumers will receive, after purchasing the

products, will almost double their current levels. This is seen as an attractive incentive for

avatars as other businesses only increase such levels by a minimal amount. Another

implication of these hotel businesses is that the products can only be sold as packages; thus

making them considerably more expensive than the single items for sale at other stores.

Again, the trade-off is that these packages return significantly better value for the

consumers’ money than that of competing businesses within the Retail Island.

Figure 2.6. Hotel Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Hotel Island is also host to the “Environmental Protection Agency” where all

businesses need to be mindful of the environmental impact that their business has on the

virtual environment and economy. Therefore, all avatars will need to visit this island at


specific intervals throughout each round, in order to contribute funds to the environmental

levy.

Location Five – Legal Island

Legal Island allows students to simulate what it would be like to appear in a court hearing.

Within the PierSim Business Island Simulation, each business is able to sue another business

for either engaging in misleading or deceptive business practices, or as a result of their avatar

receiving faulty products from the other business. Students would issue a notice to the other

business of their intent to engage in legal action with the organisation in question. The avatar

of both organisations is then summoned to appear in court at a specific point in time.

Students are given time to prepare the necessary documents for the case in the out-world of

the classroom. The Virtual Administrator then acts as the judge to hear the case and

determine an outcome.

Virtual Administrator Control Panel

The Virtual Administrator Control Panel enables the teacher to manage and operate the

entire round for the PierSim Business Island Simulation. The teacher is able to monitor and

advise on the fluctuations in the interest rates, raise awareness of the changes in the

wholesale product prices, inform the businesses of the current state of the environment and

the funds available within the environmental levy. The teacher can monitor and

communicate various issues in relation to the current economy by sending updates through

the chat functionality. Additionally, the teacher is able to view the business’s actual

transaction history against the financial records submitted by the organisation indicating their

version of their transaction history.

Once students become familiar with trading in the virtual economy, the program is

designed to allow the teacher to impose specific economic and business challenges which

assesses the students’ ability to participate in effective business decision-making strategies in

controlled situations. For example, the teacher can impose a global virus which initially is

reported within a near distant location to the PierSim Business Island’s economy and advise

that an action plan needs to be developed to respond to this potential threat. Therefore,

students need to continue operating in-world while a representative from each business

attends a forum out-world to discuss the action needed. Within moments, the teacher issues

another statement to indicate that there are reported cases of the global virus within the

community and this has now impacted the supply and distribution chains from Wholesale

Island. Within moments, the economy deleverages into a state of recession and it is critical

that the representatives from each group immediately respond to the latest threat. A final

statement is then issued declaring that trading is starting to cease with the directive that all


members of the community remain within the confines of their homes until a solution is

reached. Students must then realise they need to work together in order to prepare an

effective response to the global virus so as to not allow the virtual economy to decline into a

state of depression where all trade and communication ceases. Other examples of the

“instances” include the economy preparing a response to the global warming concerns and

developing a united policy to combat multinational and transnational organisations from

creating tax havens.

2.2 Teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island Simulation

Teaching within and through the immersive educational simulation is typically conducted in

“trading rounds” which mimic the way that businesses are set up and operate. Each round

enables the Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the program to build complexity over time, within

the round, to allow students to experience the varying degrees of economic difficulty within

the virtual trading environment. The round is divided into six stages:

Stage One – setting up the business in the out-world

Stage Two – gaining external financing

Stage Three – supply chain management

Stage Four – marketing campaign

Stage Five – the trading experience

Stage Six – responding to natural/economic disasters

Stage One – Setting up the business in the out-world

Students are informed of the specific virtual businesses and their products for sale within the

PierSim Business Island Simulation. The business available for selection are represented

from a range of industry; for example, a pizza shop, café, gym, medical practice, cinema,

clothing store, hotel, to name but a few. Students are briefed on the four key roles within

each business; them being: Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO),

Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), and Chief Operations Officer (COO). Students are then

invited to participate in the recruitment and selection process where they will apply for a

position. They will construct a curriculum vitae, covering letter and responses to key

selection criteria. Participation in the interviewing process will then occur and students are

informed of their successful appointment to a position. During this stage, teachers conduct

the interviews with the students and, in some cases, teachers have invited key industry

leaders to conduct the interviews so as to provide an authentic experience for the students.

Once in their business groups, students begin to research competitor businesses in the real-


world to determine the operations, marketing, financing and human resourcing within that

particular industry. Emphasis is placed on developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for

each of the disciplines of business which is conducted in both in- and out-worlds.

Students are then invited to prepare a business plan for their specific business. The

business plan is then presented to a panel of judges (usually invited business industry

representatives) to determine if the business would be successful in gaining external

financing to commence operations. Upon approval of the business plan, students then begin

to construct their intended marketing campaign (i.e., develop their marketing objectives,

their marketing strategies, develop a marketing plan and develop their advertising and

promotional material). Prior to commencing the round in the lesson, students are invited to

set up a physical stall/shop in the classroom for their business. The shop design layout must

replicate that of the online virtual trading business. The reason for this is that other

businesses will physically need to discuss in-world issues (such as providing promotional

incentives to purchase from the business and discuss how each business would contribute

funds in response to economic or natural disasters) so having a physical presence out-world

will allow for more effective business communication. Once each physical stall has been set

up, students are able enter the in-world and make their way to Financial Island where the

ringing of the stock exchange bell will occur and students can begin operations in-world.

Stage Two – Gaining external financing

Students are encouraged to seeking external financing as soon as the trading round

commences. They need to decide which loan would most suit their operations. The teacher

would provide advice on the available financing options and then review the business’s

operational plan to assist the students in deciding which loan option is most feasible. It is

anticipated that students gain a solid understanding of the implications of varying loans at

different interest rates, and their repayment options. The teacher would lead a class

discussion on the various options and perform a SWOT analysis of each. The students,

through the use of their avatar, would then go back in-world to visit the Finance Island and

then acquire a loan from the financial institution. Students would complete the necessary

business loan application documentation and submit these forms to the teacher (acting as the

Management at the financial institution) to authorise approval of the loan. Once approval has

been given, students will have the funds automatically transferred to their business’s bank

account and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) would record this in the computerised

accounting package file. As a result of acquiring additional funds, the students are now able

to purchase additional inventory from the wholesaler and engage in a comprehensive

marketing campaign to promote their product range.


Stage Three – Supply chain management

After obtaining appropriate financing, students are encouraged to attend the Wholesale

Island to purchase the necessary raw materials for their inventory. Students will then engage

in supply chain management processes, including appropriate legislative packaging and

labelling requirements, so that their products are legally ready for sale in their virtual trading

stores. Emphasis is placed on the specific importing regulations for the purchase of the raw

materials. The teacher is able to work with each group’s business to ensure that appropriate

regulations are adhered to for that particular industry. The group also has to decide whether

they are purchasing raw materials for the development of a standard product line or whether

they source higher quality raw materials to develop a premium product line. Students will

then have the choice as to how they position the types of products within the stall so as to

maximise sales at critical points throughout the allocated round. Students would specifically

focus on what pricing strategies are to be used in order to feasibly assign sales prices to each

of the products. After the group has finalised their selection of their raw materials, the

business then processes the transaction and waits a variable period of time for the products to

be manufactured and distributed to the business’s store. The Artificial Intelligence (AI)

within the program continually adjusts the supply chain management process. Students are

then able to see “real-time” how different conditions affect the supply chain management of

their products. The teacher is then able to ask each student for a report on the supply chain

management progress of each business, and this would usually be incorporated into the

business’s operations management plan.

Stage Four – Marketing campaign

Once the raw materials have been purchased for the manufacture and sale of inventory,

students begin to focus on a targeted marketing campaign for their business. Students are

able to critically reflect on their business’s vision and mission to ensure that their marketing

goals are in alignment. An initial due diligence would be conducted to ensure that the

business is aware of how to best attract their customers to their organisation. The teacher will

then guide students through completing a marketing plan for their business. Key concepts

include market research techniques and processes; customer analysis, competitor marketing

analysis; market targets; environmental/industry analysis; marketing strategy; advertising

and promotional strategy; financing for marketing; to name but a few. Students will then

concentrate of developing specific advertising and promotional material for their business

and products. For example, students develop a website to market their business to other in-

world businesses and consumers, create A4 advertisements which will then be uploaded onto

the billboards signs throughout the PierSim Business Island Simulation environment;

develop promotional cards to attract more customers to buy in bulk; and create a social


media presence to advertise their business. Students then visit the Virtual Advertising shop

to pay for an advertising package so that their advertisements can be displayed as soon as

possible “in-world.” They are also conscious of the marketing techniques and materials used

in their out-world stalls so as to attract even more customers. The teacher will then provide

students with the opportunity to implement various monitoring and measuring activities to

ensure that the group’s marketing campaign is increasing sales and meeting the desired

marketing goals.

Students are informed of the need to plan for a specific change to their marketing

strategy when the natural disaster or economic issue is applied to the virtual business trading

environment. The embedded Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the programs also tracks whether

the students’ different marketing approaches for the standard and premium product lines are

view by their customers and then sales occur simultaneously or straight after the exposure to

the marketing strategy. The 4 Ps of marketing (i.e., product, price, place and promotion) are

observed in order for the business to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the group’s

marketing approach for their business (both in- and out-worlds). Finally, students are

encouraged to engage in a post-campaign analysis (PCA) to understand which strategies

worked, how the target audience responded to the campaign, how differing stakeholders

viewed the marketing campaign, and what would be revised to further enhance sales in

future marketing campaigns.

Stage Five – The trading experience

After completing stages one to four, students are now in a position where they are able to

trade with other organisations. Students refer to the Web Control Panel to monitor their

inventory levels and view the amount of sales from both the standard and premium product

lines. In order to stimulate the economy, the students use their avatar from their own

business to visit another business and purchase goods and/or services from those businesses.

Teachers allow students to commence trading under normal conditions for the first fifteen

minutes of the round. Students are able to practically observe and engage in their marketing

campaign and operational management strategy to gain an in-depth understanding of how

businesses operate under typical economic market conditions. Students need to ensure that

their management effectiveness of their inventory is appropriate to the market conditions at

that point in time. Emphasis is placed on sales forecasting so that students are able to ensure

they have sufficient inventory on hand when the natural disaster or economic disaster is

imposed. Teachers proactively move throughout each business (both in- and out-worlds) to

provide real-time advice on how the business should best proceed within the current market

conditions. At this time, students are also encouraged to consider making repayments on

their business loan. This is to ensure that they are accountable to the increasing variable rates


on their loan which significantly increases towards the end of the round, as determined at

regular intervals by the Artificial Intelligence (AI). Teachers also request students submit

their Accounting financial statements halfway through the round to assess how well each

business is performing financially and whether they are in a strong financial position to be

able to survive the impending natural and/or economic disaster. The teachers also begin to

modify the conditions of other essential services (for example, increasing the sales price for

taxi fares and increase the interest rates of the business loans in the event that businesses try

to obtain further financing before the natural and/or economic disaster occurs).

Stage Six – Responding to natural/economic disasters

At the halfway point in the round, teachers call for an out-world special company meeting

where all students cease trade within in-world and await the direction of the teachers. A brief

is given as to the context and scope of the natural and/or economic disaster. Teachers

communicate that each business has ten minutes of planning time to devise a strategy to

implement when they are able to enter back “in-world.” This strategy must align with the

organisation’s vision and mission statement and must also uphold a sense of Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR). Teachers work with each group to ensure that the group has

appropriate considered a range of issues when dealing with such natural and/or economic

disasters. Some groups might need to amend their KPIs or even develop a disaster recovery

plan in order to survive in the changed market conditions. Teachers then physically

manipulate the in-world environment to simulate the impact of the natural and/or economic

disaster. Once the variables have been inputted, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) then

interprets and assesses all of the variables so as to have a roll-on effect within the economy.

This will promote a significant contractionary economic response which will increase

inflation and disrupt all industry sectors within the virtual trading environment.

Students are then able to enter in-world and must instantly respond to the seriously

declining economic and market conditions. Students employ a range of strategic business

strategies and communication techniques in order to engage with other business and with the

program’s Artificial Intelligence (AI). They carefully track their inventory levels and

implement a revised marketing campaign to try to entice customers to purchase from them.

Students will inevitably see a serious decline in sales as the wholesalers can no longer supply

raw materials and the cost of production has significantly increased. Therefore, to elevate the

supply and demand issues, more successful businesses begin to increase their own sales

prices to capitalise on the economic downturn, or to try to regain some sales capacity in

order to not go into liquidation. Teachers then work with students to evaluate whether the

students’ responsive strategies are effective in the current climate or whether yet another


approach is warranted. Business become savvier and try to merge with other businesses in

order to provide more enticing promotional opportunities and encourage sales.

At the conclusion of the round, students cease trading and begin to determine how

well the business has been in terms of its financial performance and financial position.

Students evaluate their own management approach to the differing trading scenarios based

on their roles they performed within the business. Each student is then responsible for

collating their own section of work required for submission as a business portfolio. Teachers

then lead a group and class discussion on how each student and each group participated in

enhanced higher-order thinking skills to transfer their learnt knowledge of Economics and

Business concepts and skills to a real-world practical simulated environment. Students are

then able to provide targeted feedback on how such concepts and skills learnt in this virtual

trading learning platform could be applied to the current industry marketplace. Students are

then able to participate in subsequent rounds where, while the process is similar, the

environments become very different due to the varying issues experienced from changing

natural and/or economic disasters. Each level is designed by the teacher to become more

complex in the students’ application of the Economics and Business concepts and skills in

order to experience a deeper understanding of the interrelationships between theory and

current industry practice.

2.3 Chapter summary

This chapter has provided details of the in- and out-worlds of the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. It has described the roles played by both students and teachers in this learning

environment. Students, through their avatar, operate a virtual business and must employ a

range of business decision-making strategies in order to respond to economic challenges that

are imposed on them. Students trade with each other’s’ businesses through the simulation’s

five islands: (i) Location One – Finance Island; (ii) Location Two – Wholesale Island; (iii)

Location Three – Retail Island; (iv) Location Four – Hotel Island; and (v) Location Five –

Legal Island. The activity within the islands is managed through a Virtual Administration

control panel, where the teacher is able to construct the learning experiences and apply

specific pedagogical practices to engage students in the learning of Economics and Business

education.

Chapter 3: Pedagogical context 43

Chapter 3: Pedagogical context

This chapter will present the pedagogical context in which the study is located. This context

is framed by policy, professional and curricular demands faced by teachers in adopting new

technologies. From the initiative of Apple Computers, from 1985, with their establishment of

the “Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT)” project with their primary aim being to find

answers to “[w]hat happens to teaching and learning activities when students and teachers

have access to technology whenever they want or need it?” (Fisher, Dwyer & Yocam, 1996,

p. 2), to the increasing use of three-dimensional (3-D) multi-user virtual environments

(MUVEs) (Duncan et al., 2012), digital technologies have changed the face of learning and

teaching on an international scale. A key component of such reform appears to be as a result

of the level success of teachers being able to promote a transformative integration of ICT

within their learning environment (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012; Petko, 2012).

The history of digital technology in schools, sometimes labelled as educational

technology, has changed with the nature of the technology itself and with increasing access

over time. The notes to the ICT Capability offer that:

The nature and scope of ICT capability is not fixed but is responsive to ongoing

technological developments. This is evident in the emergence of advanced internet

technology over the past few years and the resulting changes in the ways that

students construct knowledge and interact with others.

(ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 3)

The previous chapter has presented the context of this study concerned with the

immersive educational simulation which forms part of the research setting of this study. This

chapter is similarly concerned with context, but, in this instance, will address the external

pressures on teachers to adopt digital technologies in the teaching of the Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business (see Figure 1.1). The chapter will conclude with a

brief summary (Section 3.4).

The pressures to be detailed in this chapter, described as “demands” in the

conceptual framework (Figure 1.1) and introduced in Section 1.6.1, are:

the policy demands to use digital technology to transform teaching and learning (see

Section 3.1).

the professional demands on teachers to integrate digital technology into their

teaching (see Section 3.2).

44 Chapter 3: Pedagogical context

the curricular demands to integrate digital technologies into teaching and learning

(see Section 3.3).

3.1 Policy demands

Educational reforms in Australia have placed digital technologies high on the agenda. As

noted in Section 1.6, the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the

Twenty-first Century (MCEETYA, 1999) laid down clear and explicit guidelines that

students should be confident users of information and communication technologies. It further

stated that Schools are expected to “integrate information and communication technologies

into their operations, to improve student learning, to offer flexible learning opportunities and

to improve the efficiency of their business practices” (p. 3).

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

(MCEETYA, 2008) recognised advancements in ICT and noted that young people need to be

highly skilled and adaptive to emerging technology-driven environments. Goal Two of the

Declaration states that successful learners must “have the essential skills in literacy and

numeracy and are creative and productive users of technology, especially ICT, as a

foundation for success in all learning areas” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 8). Therefore, teachers

are challenged to deliver a meaningful curriculum that includes practical knowledge and skill

development in areas such as ICT. This will be crucial to the continuing development of

Australia’s skilled economy (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 13).

The key concepts that can therefore be drawn from the Melbourne Declaration in

regard to ICT relate to practical knowledge and skill development. Virtual worlds afford

these outcomes by simulating real life (see Gregory et al., 2013). The PierSim Business

Island Simulation attempts to create a learning experience that encourages the students to

engage in strategic business decision-making within a unique learning environment.

The simulation, as with other virtual worlds designed for education, also afford

immersion in an experience that simulates “real” experiences (Jacka, 2018). Using the

principles of experiential learning, students are able to action their strategies and reflect on

the outcomes within the simulated environment (see Chapter 2).

These high-level national policies support the adoption of digital technologies in

teaching and learning in principle. No specific technologies or skills are included and none

are precluded, leaving the way open for schools to work with educational simulations and

virtual worlds. The emphasis in the policies is on the adoption of the use of digital

technologies being meaningful. The concept of “meaningful learning” is unpacked in the


characteristics of meaningful learning described by Jonassen (1999), namely: Active,

Constructive, Cooperative, Authentic and Intentional (Section 1.6.2).

3.2 Professional demands

All practising teachers in Australia are required to hold professional registration. This

registration is governed by and subject to the meeting of the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers (APST) (AITSL, 2014). These standards comprise seven

interconnected, interdependent and overlapping standards grouped into three domains: (1)

Professional Knowledge, (2) Professional Practice; and, (3) Professional Engagement scaled

across four career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead.

For contemporary educational institutions, the transition from teachers using Web

2.0 technology tools to represent the same information to students, to selecting Web 2.0 and

Web 3.0 technologies which may encourage students to augment their own learning,

arguably requires a paradigm shift within educators’ pedagogical beliefs towards the

available technology devices. This will require a radical reform for most teachers in that they

are now challenged to rethink how they identify themselves as “teachers” of a technology-

driven educational landscape.

There are unequivocal professional demands on teachers in regard to “digital

competency” or “ICT competency standards.” These are described through national and

international frameworks which are alternately theoretical, that is, drawn from systematic

research or systemic policy guidelines or mandatory requirements (Lloyd, 2016). The

following section will consider the formal (regulatory) based on career stages and/or

levels/stages of practice. The informal expectations mapped as development models are

described in Section 4.4 (and summarised in Figure 4.5).

3.2.1 Regulatory expectations

While there is no formal nationally-accepted regulatory ICT framework for teachers, the

value of ICT integration within education is supported by the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. These are used in this thesis to inform the findings of this study (see,

for example, Section 8.4.1). The adoption of the standards means that teachers are now

accountable to regulatory authorities, such as the Queensland College of Teachers, for the

effective integration of ICT within their curriculum areas, along with other identified aspects

of teaching. Standards 2.6, 3.4 and 4.5 (discussed in the following subsections) make explicit

reference to ICT. These are expanded in the following.


Standard 2.6: Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Table 3.1 presents the descriptors for Standard 2.6 of the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers, Information and Communication Technology, across the designated

stages of a teacher’s career. The descriptors show a clear focus on pedagogy through their

reference to “teaching strategies” and the attention given to enhancing learning opportunities

for students.

Table 3.1

Descriptors of Standard 2.6 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers by career

stage

Career Stage Focus Area 2.6: Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Graduate Implement teaching strategies for using ICT to expand curriculum

learning opportunities for students.

Proficient Use effective teaching strategies to integrate ICT into learning and

teaching programs to make selected content relevant and meaningful.

Highly

Accomplished

Model high-level teaching knowledge and skills and work with

colleagues to use current ICT to improve their teaching practice and

make content relevant and meaningful.

Lead Lead and support colleagues within the school to select and use ICT

with effective teaching strategies to expand learning opportunities and

content knowledge for all students.

It is clear that Standard 2.6 is focussed on the “integration” of digital technologies

into “content” areas, that is, rather than its being taught as an isolated or discrete area of

study or skill development. This positions it in the role of teaching “with” or “through” ICT

to achieve particular curriculum goals. This, in turn, sits well with the demands of the

Australian Curriculum: ICT Capability which mandates the inclusion of digital technologies

in all learning areas. It presumes the technological constructs of TPACK and focuses on the

pedagogical and content knowledge constructs (see Sections 1.4.2 and 4.3.2). This also

means that, as for Watson (2001), pedagogy comes before technology and should drive any

decisions about teaching and learning.

Standard 3.4: Select and use resources

Table 3.2 presents the descriptors for Standard 3.4 of the Australian Professional Standards

for Teachers, Select and use resources, across the designated stages of a teacher’s career.


Table 3.2


stage

Career Stage Focus Area 3.4: Select and use resources

Graduate Demonstrate knowledge of a range of resources, including ICT, that

engage students in their learning.

Proficient Select and/or create and use a range of resources, including ICT, to

engage students in their learning.

Highly

Accomplished

Assist colleagues to create, select and use a wide range of resources,

including ICT, to engage students in their learning.

Lead Model exemplary skills and lead colleagues in selecting, creating and

evaluating resources, including ICT, for application by teachers

within or beyond the school

Standard 3.4 is of particular interest in this study because it refers to the purposeful

selection of resources to engage students in their learning. While the resource, the PierSim

Business Island Simulation has been pre-selected, teachers who participated in this study had

considerable autonomy in their selection of functions within the simulation and in how they

structured learning experiences for students (see the recount of practice, Section 8.1.1). The

modelling of skills and support for colleagues described in the Lead career stage (see Table

3.3) was also of interest in the analysis of teacher practice in this study.

Standard 4.5: Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically

Table 3.3 presents the descriptors for Standard 4.5 of the Australian Professional Standards

for Teachers, Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically, across the designated stages of a

teacher’s career. There are numerous instances where these management and operational

aspects of ICT can be made manifest in the PierSim Business Island Simulation, particularly

through the social media channels of the simulation (see Section 2.2; Stage Four – Marketing

campaign).


Table 3.3


stage

Career Stage Focus Area 4.5: Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically

Graduate Demonstrate an understanding of the relevant issues and the strategies

available to support the safe, responsible and ethical use of ICT in

learning and teaching.

Proficient Incorporate strategies to promote the safe, responsible and ethical use

of ICT in learning and teaching.

Highly

Accomplished

Model, and support colleagues to develop, strategies to promote the

safe, responsible and ethical use of ICT in learning and teaching.

Lead Review or implement new policies and strategies to ensure the safe,

responsible and ethical use of ICT in learning and teaching.

These professional demands, as with the national policies (Section 3.1), are high-

level and generalised. The intent is similarly clear in regards to the expectation that teachers

will make use of digital technologies in their classrooms to make learning experiences

meaningful. What is missing however, are the details of how the requirements of the

standards could be achieved. For example, that proficient teachers are to use effective

teaching strategies to integrate ICT into learning and teaching programs to make selected

content relevant and meaningful and that highly accomplished teachers are to model high-

level teaching knowledge and skills is mandated without explanation or advice. The

theoretical model and signature pedagogy developed by this thesis (see Chapters 8 and 9)

offer direction for teachers in how educational simulations might be used to demonstrate

achievement of the ICT-specific professional standards for teachers. Selected career stages,

namely, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead, relating to Standard 2.6 were used as a

referent to indicate change in teachers’ practice and beliefs (see Section 8.4.1).

3.3 Curricular demands

Teachers need to have knowledge of current curriculum. Shulman (1986) referred to

curricular knowledge as a third form of content knowledge described as “the materia medica

of pedagogy, the pharmacopeia from which the teacher draws those tools of teaching that

present or exemplify particular content and remediate of evaluate the adequacy of student

accomplishments” (p. 10).


The curricular demands on teachers in Australia to adopt digital technologies are

twofold. The first is the demands of the General Capability dedicated to the use of digital

technologies, the ICT Capability (Section 3.3.1) while the second is the demands of the

subject area, Economics and Business (Section 3.3.2).

3.3.1 Australian Curriculum: ICT Capability

The introduction of the national Australian Curriculum in 2012 reinforced the importance of

effective ICT integration through its advocacy for the ICT capability as one of the key

dimensions that affects all curriculum areas (see Section 1.6). The ICT dimension

specifically states that:

… students develop ICT capability as they learn to use ICT effectively and

appropriately to access, create and communicate information and ideas, solve

problems and work collaboratively in all learning areas at school, and in their lives

beyond school. The capability involves students in learning to make the most of the

digital technologies available to them, adapting to new ways of doing things as

technologies evolve and limiting the risks to themselves and others in a digital

environment.

(ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 1)

The ICT General Capability is categorised into five interrelated “organising

elements”, namely, (i) applying social and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT;

(ii) investigating with ICT; (iii) creating with ICT; (iv) communicating with ICT; and (v)

managing and operating ICT (ACARA, n.d.-g) (Figure 1.3).

Figure 3.1. Organising elements of the ICT General capability (ACARA, n.d.-g).


While these “organising elements” are designed to build upon students’ knowledge,

understanding and engagement with ICT, they form an important guide for teachers in

providing opportunities for students to enhance their learning with the use of ICT.

The intention of the organising elements is presented in detail in the ICT Continuum

(Appendix A), including descriptors for Levels 5 and 6 (expectations for Year 8 and Year 10

students, respectively, which is the target for the Economics and Business curriculum). The

“organising elements” (in alphabetical order) are:

Applying social and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT: Students are

required to:

… apply appropriate practices to recognise the intellectual property for digital

information of themselves and others. They use appropriate practices for the

physical and logical storage and security of digital information and apply appropriate

protocols when using ICT to safely create, communicate or share information.

Students gain an understanding of the benefits and consequences of the use of ICT

by individuals, groups and communities and the impact of the use of ICT on the

fabric of society.

(ACARA, n.d.-b, para. 1)

The sub-elements for this element are: (i) recognise intellectual property; (ii)

apply digital information security practices; (iii) apply personal security protocols; and

(iv) identify the impacts of ICT in society (see Appendix A, Table A1).

Communicating with ICT: students are required to “communicate and share ideas and

information to collaboratively construct knowledge and digital solutions” (ACARA,

n.d.-c, para. 1). The sub-elements for this element are: (i) collaborate, share and

exchange; and, (ii) understand computer mediated communications (see Appendix A,

Table A2).

Creating with ICT: Students are required to “generate ideas, plans and processes that

clarify a task or steps in order to respond to questions, realise creative intentions and

create solutions to challenges and tasks” (ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). The sub-elements for

this element are: (i) generate ideas, plans and processes; and, (ii) generate solutions to

challenges and learning area tasks (see Appendix A, Table A3).

Investigating with ICT: Students are required to “use ICT to define and plan information

searches of a range of primary and secondary sources. They locate, access, generate,

organise and/or analyse data and information and apply criteria to verify the integrity

and value of the digital data, information and sources using ICT” (ACARA, n.d.-i, para.

1). The sub-elements for this element are: (i) define and plan information searches; (ii)


select and evaluate data and information; and, (iii) locate, generate and access data and

information (see Appendix A, Table A4).

Managing and operating ICT: students are required to “apply technical knowledge and

skills to efficiently and securely manage and maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j,

para. 1). The sub-elements for this element are: (i) select and use hardware and software;

(ii) understand ICT systems; and, (ii) save and retrieve digital data with support (see

Appendix A, Table A5).

This study will select only three of the five “organising elements” to enable teachers

to measure their pedagogical practices within the immersive educational simulation (see

Chapter 9, Conclusion). The three to be used are: creating with ICT; communicating with

ICT; and managing and operating ICT. The justification for omitting the “applying social

and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT” organising element is that it principally

focuses on “developing an understanding of intellectual property for digital information, and

applying appropriate practices” (ACARA, n.d.-b). For this particular study, the design of the

intellectual property environment, the PierSim Business Island Simulation environment, has

already been established in that teachers and students are working on a secure “controlled”

private platform. The virtual businesses within this secure environment (for example,

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited) have given permission for students to operate these

companies and apply strategic business decision-making practices when exposed to various

economic challenges. The justification for omitting the “investigating with ICT” organising

element is that the PierSim Business Island Simulation already provides the environment

which enables students to “select and evaluate data and information” (ACARA, n.d.-i).

While students are made aware of how these elements have been considered, they are outside

of both the teachers’ and students’ area of responsibility.

The construct of three of the “organising elements” can be applied to a teacher’s

interpretation of their own pedagogy when faced with the immersive educational simulation

of the PierSim Business Island Simulation in the following ways:

Creating with ICT: teachers are required to scaffold students’ opportunities to

generate ideas, plans and processes, to realise creative intentions and to create

solutions to challenges and tasks.

Communicating with ICT: teachers create opportunities for students to communicate

and share ideas and information to collaboratively construct solutions to challenges

and tasks.

Managing and operating ICT: teachers are required to develop students’ technical

knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and maintain digital data.


3.3.2 Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business

The Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business places importance on the need for

students to develop ICT capabilities specific to the Economics and Business concepts and

skills in order to be responsive and adaptable to participate in business activities as

technologies evolve. This, in turn, allows students to “use ICT as an investigating tool to

locate, research, access and display information, analyse and interpret data, and create,

communicate and present economic and business information to a variety of audiences”

(ACARA, n.d.-e, para. 2).

The General Capabilities (Section 3.3.1, Figure 3.1) are embedded into each learning

area, meaning that curricular demands can be contextualised into discipline areas. The

contextualised demands of the ICT General Capability relating to the Australian Curriculum:

Economics and Business is stated as follows:

In the Australian Curriculum, students develop Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) capability as they learn to use ICT effectively and appropriately to

access, create and communicate information and ideas, solve problems and work

collaboratively in all learning areas at school and in their lives beyond school. ICT

capability involves students learning to make the most of the digital technologies

available to them, adapting to new ways of doing things as technologies evolve and

limiting the risks to themselves and others in a digital environment.

(ACARA, n.d.-g, para.1)

Appropriate selection of ICT tools is necessary to enable teachers to teach specific

Economics and Business concepts which will allow students to recognise the “way that

changes in technology have transformed, and continued to transform, the business

environment” (ACARA, n.d.-e, para. 2). The PierSim Business Island simulation, for

example, mimics computerised trading on the stock exchange.

A critical component of level of decision-making within an ICT environment

specific to Economics and Business is the ability for students to “collaborate” and

“communicate” economic and business information online. Jacka (2018) concluded that the

affordances of virtual worlds provide opportunities for their students to: (i) develop

collaboration skills; (ii) be active participants in the teaching–learning process; (iii) have an

increased capacity to express themselves by being an avatar; and (iv) develop lifelong

learning skills (p. 92). Developing these skills promotes appropriate social and business

ethical protocols and practice to guide students’ consumer and financial decisions. This

practice is effective in teaching students to limit the risks to themselves and others in a

digital environment” (ACARA, n.d.-e, para. 1). Risks are limited through the PierSim


Business Island because all hypothetical trading activities are limited to a private virtual

space situated internally on the school’s server (see Section 2.2).

Integral to the study of the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business is the

ability for students to be able to employ specific Economics and Business skills; for

example, research, analyse and synthesise. The syllabus states that students should exhaust a

variety of sources in their business research including reference to “electronic media, reports,

and graphs and tables that display data using digital platforms and other emerging

technologies” (ACARA, n.d.-e, para. 3). When demonstrating the skill of “application”,

students are encouraged to engage in problem-solving across a range of economic and

business scenarios and contexts. The use of an immersive educational simulation, such as the

PierSim Business Island Simulation, enables students to apply the skill of “application” to

engage in problem-solving of how to effectively manage their business’s finances in order to

purchase products from the wholesaler and be able to then promote and sell their products

through a specific distribution channel. Students access electronic media and generate

reports from the PierSim Business Island Simulation to then be able to develop business

strategies to become profitable within the ever-changing economic environment. The use of

this emerging technology which enables students to demonstrate these skills in a specific

virtual environment is in alignment with the expectation of the syllabus (ACARA, n.d.-e,

para. 3). This approach challenges existing traditional pedagogical approaches where

teachers select business case studies for students to investigate and source reports, graphs

and other data sources in order to provide commentary on how that business should proceed

with its pursuit of increasing profits or business growth.

3.4 Chapter summary

This chapter has provided details of the demands, introduced in the conceptual framework

(Figure 1.1), on teachers’ pedagogy relating to the use of digital technologies in the teaching

of Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business. These are: the policy demands to use

digital technology to transform teaching and learning; the professional demands on teachers

to integrate digital technology into their teaching; and, the curricular demands to integrate

digital technologies into teaching and learning. Each has been described and contextualised

in the adoption of the PierSim Business Island. The following chapter (Chapter 4) will

present the literature review used to inform this study. It takes its structure from the

conceptual framework presented as Figure 1.1 (Section 1.3).

54 Chapter 4: Literature review

Chapter 4: Literature review

As noted in Chapter 1, this study is primarily focussed on teachers and how they interpret

(and re-interpret) their practice when confronted by disruptive technologies. In Grounded

Theory, a literature review is typically prepared after data has been collected and analysed

(Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014). As explained, this condition was not strictly adhered to

because of the demands of doctoral candidature and the need to ground the data instruments

in research (Section 1.10). What is presented in this chapter is a pragmatic combination of

investigation into existing research both before, during and after the conduct of the study. It

still fulfils the role of a literature review to inform the study and to guide the analysis.

This literature review is organised by the elements of the Conceptual Framework

(see Section 1.3, Figure 1.1). The three main elements, which are first described discretely in

this chapter, are: Pedagogy (Section 4.1), Technology (Section 4.2), and Teacher (Section

4.3). The later sections look to the overlaps between the elements, particularly as they are

represented in models of teacher adoption of technology (Section 4.4). This chapter

concludes with an updating of the Conceptual Framework to include selected models and

approaches discussed in this review (Section 4.5).

4.1 Pedagogy

Effective pedagogical practices that promote students being able to develop higher-order

thinking and creative problem-solving skills have received increasing attention in the current

education landscape. Teachers draw upon a range of pedagogical theories to inform their

practise of educating students within their subject-specific curriculum area/s. As noted, in

this study (see Section 1.6), “pedagogy” relates simply to individual teaching practice. The

term “pedagogy” has been used over time to explain the phenomenon of what teachers do to

educate their students and acknowledge the theories that informs their practice.

Effective teacher pedagogical practices within specific subject discipline areas date

back to the philosophical seminal work of Dewey where he suggested that “it is not the

question of how to teach the child geography, but first of all the question what geography is

for the child” (Dewey, 1897/1972, p. 169). Dewey proposed the idea that “genuine subject

matter” within the curriculum for each subject allows students to make sense of that subject-

specific curriculum based on their own experiences (Noddings, 1998, p. 37). Dewey

(1897/1972) argued that a teacher’s knowledge and experience of a subject-specific

curriculum concepts and skills would reflect the way that he/she transforms discipline-based

knowledge that allows students to actively engage with that curriculum learning. He argued

Chapter 4: Literature review 55

that “there is a rough and ready way, in current pedagogical writing, of discriminating

between the consideration of the curriculum or subject-matter of instruction and the method”

(Dewey, 1897/1972, p. 164). Dewey (1902) advocated that the teacher is pivotal in allowing

students to see value in school subjects. The significance of Dewey’s (1897/1972) view is

that the learner’s experience of engaging with the subject-specific concepts and skills is

dependent upon how a teacher tailors his/her disciplinary knowledge and integrates it in an

educational setting.

Shulman (1986, 1987) explored the theoretical positions developed by Dewey

(1987/1972) to focus on the nexus between teachers’ knowledge and their own interpretation

of the subject-specific curriculum. Shulman (1987) proposed the question, “What are the

sources of the knowledge base for teaching?” (p. 4) in an effort to improve teacher

pedagogical practice. He theorised that a teacher’s knowledge base is comprised of one’s

content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge (Shulman,

1986, 1987) with an emphasis on the need for a teacher to understand and transform

disciplinary subject matter. The subject’s Content Knowledge (CK) refers to propositional

knowledge and an in-depth understanding of the structure of the subject-specific curriculum

(Shulman, 1986, 1987). Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) refers to “the ways of

representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” including

“analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations” (Shulman 1987, p. 8). Whereas, curricular

knowledge explores the full range of “materials and programs that serve ‘tools of trade’ for

teachers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 7). Sexias (2001) argued that Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work

was critical in understanding the importance of how teachers teach specific subject matter:

Shulman’s research program is particularly important for any focus on the teaching

of subject matter, since it provides a theoretical framework for understanding the

connections between “content” and “pedagogy.” Indeed, it was developed to restore

a place for the sustained consideration of “content” within the purview of

pedagogical research, a place that has been largely eclipsed by generic process-

product research in the 1980s. This was the first, and arguably the most important to

date, of research programs arching across subject areas and disciplines, which also

took the distinctiveness of subjects and disciplines as serious objects of study.

(Sexias, 2001, p. 546)

Deng (2007) suggested that Shulman’s theorisation of a teacher’s knowledge base is

“predicated on the necessity of classroom teachers’ understanding and transformation of the

subject matter of an academic discipline” (p. 503). Emphasis was placed on “understanding”

subject matter and the “transformation” of subject matter. Therefore, Deng (2007) argued


that teachers are “curriculum developers” who translate and interpret “the curriculum-as-

offered in to curriculum-in-use” (p. 514). This curriculum development was apparent in this

study in how teachers explore Economics and Business concepts through an immersive

education simulation such as the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

4.1.1 Shulman’s theorisation of pedagogy

PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) is the knowledge about what teaching approaches fit

the content and how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching (Shin et al.,

2009). The original concept of PCK was developed by Shulman (1986, 1987) and, as with

the TPACK model based upon it (Figure 1.2), it can also be represented by intersecting

circles (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) framework (Shulman, 1986).

Shulman (1986) argued that being an effective teacher involved more than having

the knowledge of the subject matter and delivering such content with the aid of general

pedagogical strategies. The PCK framework thus allowed the distinction between an

“expert” teacher of a subject-specific curriculum area, as opposed to a subject-specific expert

(Angeli & Valanides, 2009). It also explored teachers’ knowledge of representations of the

content of the curriculum area and an associated understanding of students’ conceptions and

difficulties in making connections with such knowledge of the content.

Pedagogical content knowledge is considered a second type of content knowledge,

one which “includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or

difficult; the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds

bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons”

(Shulman, 1986, p. 9).


4.1.2 Shulman’s signature pedagogies

Shulman (2005) theorised specific “types of teaching that organise the fundamental ways in

which future practitioners are educated for their new professions” (p. 52). These “signature

pedagogies” implicitly define the specialised knowledge within a specific field of study and

describe how such knowledge is learnt within that particular environment (Shulman, 2005, p.

52). Shulman (2005) argued that signature pedagogies “are important precisely because they

are pervasive” (p. 52). The specific way in which the knowledge is taught is unique to that

environment and defines the functions of expertise within that particular field of study.

Shulman (2005) explained that signature pedagogies have three specific dimensions

that are not unique to the individual teacher but are replicated in nearly all those who are

teaching within that specific learning construct:

– surface structure which consists of “concrete, operational acts of teaching and

learning, of showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of

approaching and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing” (p. 55);

– deep structure which depicts a set of assumptions pertaining to how teachers impart

specific knowledge and the skills in how to do this; and

– implicit structure which consists of a set of beliefs about the teacher “attitudes,

values and dispositions” (p. 55).

At the core of signature pedagogies is the belief that the teacher has the choice in how to best

impart knowledge based on experiences of “best practice” from a range of approaches. This

choice highlights the importance of achieving certain outcomes for the explicit teaching of

specific knowledge within that particular domain or environment (Shulman, 2005, p.55).

These three dimensions that form a signature pedagogy help to explain the “relative

durability and robustness” to teaching within this specialised field of study (Shulman, 2005,

p. 56). Therefore, signature pedagogies exist to simplify the dauntingly complex challenges

of bridging theory and practice by persistently trying to transform knowledge attainment to

knowledge in use (Shulman, 2005). Shulman (2005) argued that the traditional classroom

teaching encouraged pedagogical inertia and “only the most radical of new conditions – such

as sharp changes in the organisation or economics of professional practice or in the

technologies of teaching” (p. 56) would encourage the ideation of signature pedagogies.

However, these pedagogies also rely on students to be active participants in the learning

process and make relevant contributions to the learning experience.

The signature pedagogy allows students to be both active and interactive in the

learning environment (Shulman, 2005, p. 57). The teacher, however, is still pivotal in

managing and leading the level of activity and interactivity within the learning environment.


Subsequently, the emergence of new technologies creates opportunities to re-examine the

fundamental signatures of teaching specific knowledge areas within these different learning

environments (Shulman, 2005, p. 57).

4.2 Technology

Technology continually changes the landscape in which learning occurs. Contemporary

classrooms are equipped with latest technology-enabled learning tools that promote

collaborative learning experiences (Adu & Poo, 2014). These technologies have been

incorporated into the curriculum design process for quite some time and emphasis is placed

on Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) (Adu & Poo, 2014). A core focus of TEL is the

alignment of teaching practice with the introduction of new technologies (Huang, Yang, &

Zheng, 2013). The evolution of TEL has progressed from e-learning (e.g., computer network

learning) to mobile learning, to smart learning which focuses on social technologies to assist

in the mobile learning environment (Adu & Poo, 2014). Smart Learning Environments

(SLE) integrate advanced technologies into the learning experience and enable teaching

practices to evolve with the enhanced learning environments (Huang et al., 2013). Such

enhanced environments place the learner at the forefront of the learning experience and rely

on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to increase the levels of engagement and knowledge

acquisition (Gros, 2016). Zhu, Yu and Riezebos (2016) suggested that:

… a smart learning environment aims to support learners to obtain new knowledge,

even while they are engaged in leisure activities. It plays the role of a coach, or

guide, who seeks opportunities to advise learners on their daily life by taking their

needs and preferences into account. To sum up, the goal of a smart learning

environment is to provide self-learning, self-motivated and personalized services. (p.

12)

The PierSim Business Island Simulation could be classified as a SLE due to the

program utilising AI to allow students to engage with a virtual trading platform that requires

the learner to fully engage in the learning experience and practise their knowledge of

Economics and Business concepts and skills using real-world industry scenarios to acquire

new knowledge. However, the introduction of SLE requires investigation as to the

affordances of such technologies in providing the opportunities to enhance the learning

experience and outcomes for students and teachers.

4.2.1 Affordances of technologies

Lloyd (2018) described the affordances of educational technology as being “the qualities we

notice and purposefully exploit to enhance what our students can do in terms of the


amplification of human capacities. Affordances are what, consciously, or otherwise, lead us

to select one technology over another to fulfil a particular role in teaching and learning” (p.

37). Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that early adopters of emerging technologies should

focus on “establishing pedagogical connections between the affordances of technology and

the teaching of a particular content domain” (p. 155, emphases added).

The earliest identification of the affordances of Virtual Worlds was offered by

Warburton (2009) who suggested that these environments have the potential to provide:

Extended or rich interactions

Visualization and contextualization

Authentic content and culture

Identity play

Immersion

Simulation

Community presence

Content production.

Dalgarno and Lee (2010) investigated the particular affordances of 3-D Virtual

Learning Environments (summarised in Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Elaborated model of learning in 3-D VLEs incorporating unique characteristics and learning affordances (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010, p. 24).


Dalgarno and Lee (2010) identified two distinguishing features of 3-D VLEs:

representational fidelity and learner interaction. These features, in turn, affect learners’

experiences and affect the construction of identity, sense of presence and co-presence. The

learning benefits they identified are: spatial knowledge representation; experiential learning;

engagement; contextual learning; and collaborative learning. Overall, Dalgarno and Lee

(2010) concluded that 3-D VLEs offered five learning affordances: (1) learning tasks that

lead to the development of enhanced spatial knowledge representation of the explored

domain; (2) experiential learning tasks that would be impractical or impossible to undertake

in the real-world; (3) learning tasks that lead to increased intrinsic motivation and

engagement; (4) learning tasks that lead to improved transfer of knowledge and skills to real

situations through contextualisation of learning; and, (5) tasks that lead to richer and/or more

effective collaborative learning than is possible with 2D alternatives (p. 17).

4.2.2 Disruptive technologies

There appears to be almost daily change to the way we live, work, play and learn wrought by

new technologies (Johnson et al., 2013; McNaughton & Light, 2013; Sternberg & Preiss,

2013; Toffler, 2013). Some, referred to as sustaining technologies, enter our lives quietly and

incrementally bring change to known technologies (Bower & Christensen, 1995;

Christensen, 1997; Zeleny, 2009). Others, in contrast, are regarded and labelled as “radical”

or “disruptive” and frequently displace established technologies and practices or make them

obsolete (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; Kilkkia, Mäntyläa, Karhua,

Hämmäinena, & Ailistob, 2018). For example, the first telephones, Alexander Graham Bell’s

“electrical speech machines” were disruptive as were the changes in the design and capacity

of disk drives (Christensen, 1997). More recently, the introduction of electric cars (Zeleny,

2009) and 3-D printing (Clark, Çallı, & Çallı, 2014; Wadhwa, 2014) has caused similar

disruption to what people understand and know. Li, Porter and Suominen (2017) identified

the characteristics of disruptive technologies as being: radical novelty, relatively fast growth,

coherence, prominent impact, uncertainty and ambiguity.

A specific area of interest to this study relating to technology is disruption,

introduced in Chapter 1 and included in the conceptual framework for this study (see Figure

1.1). This section presents a more detailed discussion of technological disruption,

particularly in its impact on teaching and learning. Consequent to this, is a discussion of a

particular disruptive educational technology, namely, immersive educational simulations.

Therefore, because of the specific focus of this study on “disruptive technology,” namely the

PierSim Business Island Simulation, it is of interest to include a brief discussion of new and

emerging technologies and how they have been accepted and adopted in teaching and

learning.


The internationally-recognised New Media Consortium’s (NMC) Horizon Report

outlined emerging technologies that will seriously impact the global educational

environment in the near future (Johnson, Adams & Cummins, 2012). With the report

commenting on the significant increase of “Bring Your Own Devices” (BYODs) in

mainstream schooling, a key technological aid to support these devices will be the use of

Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and the emergence of Augmented Reality (AR)

(Johnson et al., 2012). BYODs, PLEs and ARs are shifting educational paradigms to

encourage increased collaborative and co-operative learning opportunities for students. The

NMC Horizon Report stated that “in the U.S. alone, 61% of Americans aged 12 and up own

a mobile device, and 44% specifically own a smartphone” (Johnson et al., 2012, p. 11).

As education moves to mainstream mobile learning environments to aid classroom

teaching and learning, emphasis is placed on the teacher’s ability to effectively integrate

such environments into their curriculum planning and research. The NMC Horizon Report

also acknowledged the increasing use of 3-D virtual learning environments as a viable

learning opportunity as “the layering of information over 3-D space produces a new

experience of the world, sometimes referred to as ‘blended reality,’ bringing with it new

expectations regarding access to information and new opportunities for learning” (Johnson et

al., 2012, p. 29). Further to this, augmented reality (AR) has the potential to allow for

exploration of information in the real-world, with meaningful collaborative learning

experiences.

Virtual three-dimensional (3-D) worlds, which promote an engagement in simulated

learning activities, have emerged as an educational tool within the classroom (Hew &

Cheung, 2010; Jacka, 2018). Dalgarno and Lee (2010) explained that these worlds “provide

the possibility of rich learner engagement, together with the ability to explore, construct and

manipulate virtual objects, structured and metaphorical representation of ideas” (p. 11).

With the literature revealing an increase in the use of Second Life (SL) and Active

Worlds as a social networking phenomenon, educators have explored the implications of

encouraging teachers and students to engage in this social activity of learning (Barkand &

Kush, 2009; de Freitas, Rebolledo-Mendez, Liarokapis, Magoulas, & Poulovassilis, 2010;

Girvan & Savage, 2010; Hew & Cheung, 2010). Virtual Worlds (VWs), Virtual Learning

Environments (VLEs), and Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) are terms commonly

used to define the existence of 3-D online environment where users engage in collaborative

activities (Barkand & Kush, 2009; Savin-Baden et al., 2010).

Virtual worlds have shown to be effective for higher education (Barkand & Kush,

2009; Dickey, 2005a; Jennings & Collins, 2008; Lukman & Krajnc, 2012); however, the


implementation of such environments for secondary schools has raised several questions

over its ability to be used as an effective digital tool which promotes a transformative

integration of digital technology within the classroom learning environment. Jacka (2018)

referenced virtual worlds to “include environments in which the user is embodied as an

avatar and interacts within the space” (p. 14). Girvan and Savage (2012) commented that

similar ethical issues were evident in online learning environments are raising concerns for

virtual learning environments. Their study revealed that “issues such as obtaining informed

consent, privacy protection and identity now need to be considered in terms of the features of

the specific technology” (Girvan & Savage, 2012, p. 242). Wang (2011) raised concerns

about the avatars displaying potentially inappropriate behaviours, the dubious relationship

between the avatar and the learner controlling the avatar, and the ability for the learner to

transfer experiential learning from the virtual learning environment to the real-world.

However, the emergence of any new learning environment presented a number of

implications and it is important to note that researchers are trying to move beyond the

application of traditional approaches towards the new technologies and “towards a notion of

learning as more centred upon experience and exploration” (de Freitas et al., 2010, p. 71).

Robbins-Bell (2008) suggested that learning in a virtual world affords increased the

potential for conversation by allowing the learner to control their level of engagement

through the communication of the avatar, thus allowing oneself to experience the learning

process in a safe social environment. The increased use of Virtual Worlds to aid the delivery

of the curriculum within secondary schools, is dependent upon whether the environment can

exist in a controlled space (virtual platform); how the learner-controlled avatar can be

designed to support an educational environment; and how teachers, therefore, need to

consider the ethical implications when encouraging students to “communicate with other

users through a range of synchronous and asynchronous communication channels (for

example, text chat, instant messages and in some cases voice)” (Girvan & Savage, 2012, p.

241). However, Soraker (2009) stressed that “immersion” (or “interactivity” as he defined it)

needed to occur, whereby the participant is still the key in being able to modify the

environment and make each interchange unique, so as to ensure the causes, which stimulated

the learning, produce the effects that were originally intended. Immersion is enhanced by

extending “visual information in three spatial dimensions” and supplementing this

information “with other stimuli and temporal changes” (Wann & Mon-Williams, cited in

Dalgarno & Lee, 2010, p. 11).

The PierSim Business Island Simulation is, therefore, considered a “disruptive

technology” as it has displaced established technologies typically used to teach specific

Economics and Business concepts, principles and processes (for example, online business


case studies, YouTube clips, a simulated stock exchange game, computer games that have

predetermined answers that students’ responses are compared with, to name but a few). The

reason for this disruption is that the PierSim Business Island Simulation employs Artificial

Intelligence (AI) to respond real-time to how students interact with the in-world

environmental factors and how these students also interact with the other virtual businesses.

There is no pre-set computer-determined outcome that the students work towards achieving.

Simultaneously, students engage in higher-order thinking skills to develop effective business

strategies in the out-world classroom learning environment which will then be employed in-

world to affect change to the virtual trading environment. This duality real-time approach of

operating within both the physical classroom environment, out-world, and the virtual online

trading environment, in-world challenges traditional technologies (for example, YouTube

clips and online business case studies) which are independently referred to in order to

introduce or consolidate the students’ understanding of a particular Economics and Business

concept. There is a distinct shift in how this disruptive technology is used to support the

learning of this subject-specific curriculum learning area as the PierSim Business Island

Simulation is not used as a static reference point to teach an Economics and Business

concept but rather used as a simultaneous and contiguous means of allowing students to

experience how to apply their learnt knowledge and skills of Economics and Business in an

authentic context.

4.2.3 Immersive educational simulations

Immersive educational simulations have entered the educational landscape in both higher

education and secondary schools. This implementation has presented some challenges for

educators to control the virtual space (Barkand & Kush, 2009; Farley, 2014). Students look

to educators for guidance on what they need to know and then individually or collaboratively

work in pursuing this. Simulations promote opportunities for students to develop new

knowledge and participate in the social processes of learning and afford a “transparent

interface with which the user directly controls the objects in the context of the virtual world”

(Hedberg & Alexander, 1994, p. 215). The following discussion addresses the use of

immersive simulations, particularly Second Life, in higher education before considering

current use in secondary school settings.

Second Life (introduced in Section 1.5) has been used to provide a virtual space for

the delivery of lectures and the participation in tutorial seminars (Dickey, 2005a; Duncan et

al., 2012; Farley, 2014; Hew & Cheung, 2010; Kirriemuir, 2008). Although no longer in use,

Education UK was developed as an “island” within Second Life to provide participants with

the opportunity to engage socially in activities such as: the recall of information, as

evidenced in language teaching, and the practice of problem-solving, as evidenced in


scientific enquiry teaching (Duncan et al., 2012). In addition, Second Life has been used to

host musical events and live performance (Hill & Jacka, 2013) and support language

learning (Nocchi, 2017).

In this context, the use of immersive educational simulations for student learning

ranges from “didactic at the most lecturer-intensive end (student passive engagement) to

knowledge-building constructivist at the most student-active end (student active

engagement)” (Duncan et al., 2012, p. 954). Barkand and Kush (2009) commented that many

universities created their own virtual spaces within Second Life to accommodate university

classes. This is to provide an environment which is an exact match to the “real” world and,

as a result, more appropriate pedagogies need to be adopted in order to effectively teach in

this environment (Farley, 2014). This is exemplified by business organisations such as Nike

and IBM also investing in Second Life as a key marketing tool and have purchased private

islands for training and to engage in recruitment activities with potential employees (Duncan

et al., 2012). The learning experiences occurring in such environments include the ability for

experimentation within scenarios without real-life repercussions (de Freitas et al., 2010), the

replication of lecture theatres to simulate lectures, and the exploration of problem-based

learning (Farley, 2014; Savin-Baden et al., 2010).

Girvan and Savage (2010) challenged the notion of simply using Second Life as an

environment to replicate lectures as technologies such as webinars can already fulfil this

function. The 3-D representation of the avatar, as well as the environment in which the

avatar can operate, affords a sense of self and this form of representation could result in one

being immersed within the social constructivist learning environment (Dickey, 2003). In

order to leverage the sense of immersion and opportunities for collaboration, together with

the use of a variety of communication tools evident within Second Life, a shift from the

replication of lectures towards establishing new learning activities with social constructivist

pedagogies becomes possible.

An interesting outcome of experience within a virtual environment is the “sense of

presence” and co-presence experienced by participants (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010). This was

first identified by Ellis (1996) as a perception of “being there” and “being there together.”

Bronack et al. (2008) contextualised this sense of presence into a “presence pedagogy”

summarised in Table 4.1. The principles and practice of presence pedagogy will be revisited

in Chapter 8 particularly in the response to Research Question 3.


Table 4.1

Principles and practice of “presence pedagogy” (Bronack et al., 2008, p. 67)

Principle Practice

Ask questions and

correct misconceptions Interactions with faculty and students

Both peers and "experts" serve as catalysts to promote

explicit learning

Stimulate background

knowledge and expertise Activities that require sharing of personal and

professional experiences

Recognition of background knowledge and expertise

Acknowledgement of and engagement in a Community of

Practice

Cross-course, cross-cohort, cross-program, and cross

department interactions

Capitalise on the

presence of others Activities that promote cross -cohort, -program, and –

department interaction

Naming convention to identify student cohort, program,

and nationality

Shared faculty responsibility of supporting students

across programs

Facilitate interactions

and encourage

community

Team-teaching

Naming convention to identify faculty and staff

Interdisciplinary lesson/unit planning

Activities to capitalize on notion of Distributed Cognition

Interdisciplinary Community of Practice

Text and voice tools for interaction

Support distributed

cognition Multiple manifestations of Presence

Creation of open space in which students and faculty of

various backgrounds and levels of expertise can interact.

Expertise shared by students and faculty

Share tools and

resources Students and faculty identification of relevant tools and

resources

Availability of tools and resources in shared space open to

all students


Principle Practice

Encourage exploration

and discovery Engagement in authentic activity

Creation of open, resource rich environment

Activities that promote exploration of shared tools and

knowledge base

Delineate context and

goals Authentic, action-oriented projects and assignments that

have personal meaning and relevance for the students

Visual cues to facilitate organization of and accessibility

to tools and resources

Use of avatars and metaphors

Foster reflective practice Periodic assignments requiring ongoing, guided reflection

The "So What?" question

Frequent public presentations

Utilize technology to

achieve and disseminate

results

Activities that require utilization of in-world tools and

resources

Persistent presence of a living curriculum

Multiple presentations across programs, cohorts, courses,

and sections

4.3 Teacher

The meaningful integration of technology within a 21st century curriculum does not just take

technology-related factors into consideration but places a teacher’s personal pedagogical

beliefs as a key element in determining how technology should enhance the classroom

learning experience (Deng, Chai, Tsai & Lee, 2014; Ertmer, 2005; Kimmons, Miller,

Amador, Desjardins & Hall, 2015). There has been considerable debate over how to

adequately prepare teachers to integrate ICT within their curriculum and early adopters of

such emerging technologies have been led to concentrating more on the acquisition of the

technical skills required to use the ICT rather than focusing on “establishing pedagogical

connections between the affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular

content domain” (Angeli & Valanides, 2009, p. 155).

It has been noted that online practitioners revert to simply updating or refreshing

traditional professional practice rather than systematically constructing their experience and

knowledge toward a new pedagogical approach (Schofield, Melville, Bennet and Walsh,

2001). Palloff and Pratt (2000) argued that traditional forms of pedagogical practice being

transferred to an online medium were no longer relevant as new practices must be employed

in order to successfully acknowledge and respond to the diverse learning styles of online


and, in this case, participants in immersive 3-D simulations. Such transition must align best

knowledge with best practices; that is to establish an “electronic pedagogy.” Teachers must

be willing to “engage in and facilitate collaborative online processes by promoting initiative

on the part of the learners, creativity, critical thinking, and dialogue” (Palloff & Pratt, 2000,

p. 6). Thus, Palloff and Pratt (2000) labelled some as “new paradigm teachers” so as to

acknowledge the complexity in adopting such new pedagogical practices. This brings a more

purposeful definition of leading teachers than that suggested by the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers (see Section 3.2.1) where “lead” teachers are simply those who

model practice for others without much clarity as to what that practice might be in the use of

ICT in enhancing teaching and learning.

Within a real-world context, Lundin and Magnusson (2003) argued that understanding

how to support learning in a mobile knowledge-constructed work environment required

investigation in the design of collaborative learning activities. This process identified a

conceptual shift in viewing learning and innovation with technology as interrelated and

compatible; thus, the learning process could be examined without understanding the belief

system surrounding the practice (Lundin & Magnusson, 2003). To achieve this, it has been

contended that educational institutions should focus on the effects of such beliefs systems so

as to avoid “predictable mistakes jeopardising the effective implementation of any change”

(Buckberry, 2005, p. 28).

Holmes, Polhemus and Jennings (2005) stated that situated professional development

fostered a positive change in teachers’ approach to ICT integration. Teachers moved from a

limited knowledge and use of ICT to a heightened skill and awareness of ICT that

concentrated on student learning outcomes (Holmes et al., 2005). These results were

consistent with McCarney’s (2004) study in that a teacher’s prior attitude and motivation

towards staff development is a significant contributing factor in using ICT effectively in the

classroom. This affects the competence and confidence for the teacher to adopt appropriate

pedagogy in using ICT. A quantitative study, consisting of 40 schools in Scotland, was

conducted to investigate the teacher’s experience in the effectiveness of different models of

staff development in ICT (McCarney, 2004). The results revealed that the teachers’

perceptions of effective staff development in ICT were based on what content was given in

the staff development. For example, most teachers identified that 67% of staff development

based on technical support for ICT was ineffective, as teachers initially required professional

development in the implementation of ICT (McCarney, 2004). These same barriers, which

were identified in the studies, may transfer to the professional development staff received

towards how to integrate immersive educational simulations within their classroom learning


environment and prohibit a smooth cultural transition towards the pedagogical beliefs of

such integration.

Earlier literature on staff professional development in online learning revealed that

certain aspects of such training lead to poor teacher performance of ICT integration

(McCarney, 2004; Palloff & Pratt, 2000). The over-emphasis on professional development

courses which concentrate on the acquisition of technical skills has inadequately prepared

teachers to establish pedagogical connections between the affordances of the technologies

deployed within their schooling environment and the teaching of a particular subject-specific

curriculum area (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).

Nearly a decade has passed, and the literature is still grappling with how to best

prepare teachers for effective ICT integration. Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that there

has been a distinct shift from whether teachers should integrate technologies into their

curriculum to how teachers should transform their teaching with the aid of ICT to promote

new learning experiences. Ward and Parr (2010) suggested that there are only isolated

examples of innovative pedagogical practice in relation to ICT-led classroom activities.

Perhaps the tipping point which sparks an ICT infused pedagogical change on a systemic

level is yet to be seen (Ward & Parr, 2010). These systemic viewpoints are consistent with

the progression suggested by Peeraer and Van Petegem (2012) in their description of the

increasing innovativeness of use of ICT for teaching and learning (see Section 4.4, Figure

4.5). It is of interest, however, that an emerging framework for evaluating the use of ICT in

learning, the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition)

(Puentedura, 2006), places “substitution” of one medium for another at the lowest level of its

hierarchy (see, for example, Hamilton, Rosenberg & Akcaoglu, 2016; Romrell, Kidder, &

Wood, 2014).

4.3.1 Teacher Beliefs (digital technology)

The role digital technologies play within the classroom learning environment is largely

dependent upon the teachers’ conception of the nature of learning and teaching (Ertmer,

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & Tondeur, 2015). Technology integration is effectively achieved when

the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs about the specific technology are taken into consideration

(Ertmer, 2005). In particular, a teacher’s belief determines the choice of the instructional

strategies and tools used with the technology when incorporating the technology into the

classroom practice (Lin et al., 2012). Pedagogical beliefs are defined as the understandings,

propositions and premises about learning and teaching (Denessen, 2000) and “all teachers

hold beliefs about their work, their students, their subject matter, and their roles and

responsibilities” (Pajares, 1992, p. 314). Pajares suggested “few would argue that the beliefs


teachers hold influence their perceptions and judgments, which in turn, affect their behaviour

in the classroom” (p. 307). Ertmer (2005) argued the importance of building teachers’

confidence through successful experiences with gradual change as opposed to radical change

with a particular emphasis on supporting teachers through gradual changes with technology.

Importantly, Ertmer (2005) stated that “it is imperative that educators increase their

understanding of and ability to address teacher beliefs, as part of their efforts to increase

teachers’ technology skills and uses” (p. 37).

Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs have typically focused on either a teacher-centred

approach and/or a student-centred approach (Deng et al., 2014). The teacher-centred

approach explores how the discipline and subject matter influences the teacher’s authority in

supervising the learning acquisition in a highly structured learning environment; whereas,

the student-centred approach adopts a constructivism or social constructivism approach to

emphasise the individual student learning needs and interests (Deng et al., 2014). Ertmer and

Glazewski (2015) argued that a student-centred approach enables the teacher to provide

opportunities for students to engage in active participation of authentic real-world problem-

solving. Those teachers that promoted a constructivist pedagogical belief approach were seen

to be active users of a range of technologies to engage students in the learning environment

(Ertmer & Glazewski, 2015). In particular, those teachers with such constructivist beliefs

were able to use technology as a tool to help students develop higher-order thinking and

problem-solving skills (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009). According to Ananiadou and Claro

(2009), teachers with this particular belief system were able to encourage students to “apply

knowledge and skills in key subject areas and to analyse, reason, and communicate

effectively as they raise, solve and interpret problems in a variety of situations” (p. 7).

The literature has also revealed the need for further exploration of effective teacher

belief systems and models to help teachers cope with technological change. This very

process of change can either support or “disrupt” the learning transition period; and the

balance between the current curriculum framework initiatives and its impact on ICT

integration (Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2013; Tooms, Acomb & McGlothlin, 2004). Therefore, by

investigating the change process, new fields of literature may emerge in not only

understanding the needs of each individual teacher’s acceptance and beliefs towards

technology but may reveal new pedagogies to support this radical shift in the learning

process (Chai et al., 2013; Ertmer et al., 2012; Hiatt, 2006; Woodward, 2007).

Therefore, through examining the literature in relation to how teachers integrate

existing ICT in their classrooms, teachers need to change the way in which they reflect on

their own current pedagogy and employ a situated cognitive approach developed by Lave

and Wenger (1991) and based on Vygotsky's (1978) work, whereby the teacher becomes the


“expert” learner with the new technologies so as to contextualise the learning environment

for the students as the “novice” learners (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). To

become “expert” learners, teachers need to understand their own acceptance towards the

technological change.

Adams and Morgan (2007) argued that “first generational e-learning” has been

effective for developing technical skills. “Second generational e-learning” (which denotes

thinking about online learning), however, has not proven to be effective for establishing

effective ICT pedagogical practices. Various Web 2.0 tools, social media applications and

emerging immersive educational simulations are being incorporated into the lesson planning

and activity design of most classroom environments. Secondary school students seamlessly

transfer from one interface to another while exposing themselves to endless amounts of

information at their fingertips (literally). The integration of such tools and applications

complements social constructivist approaches to learning in that ICT allows for both

synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for learners to optimise their communication

and interaction with their teachers, other students and the wider community (Brown, 2005;

Ertmer et al., 2012). In order to gain an initial understanding of the types of pedagogical

practices employed by early adopters of immersive educational simulations, it is important to

explore existing pedagogical approaches towards integrating various ICT tools, within the

general classroom learning environment.

To date, few studies have explored practising teachers’ pedagogical experiences as

they deliver their subject-specific curriculum area through an immersive educational

simulation. Pierson and Borthwick (2010) commented that teachers who reflected on

understanding their pedagogy are able to best align curriculum standards and students’ needs

with the technology-based learning environment. Elsewhere, Girvan and Savage (2012)

suggested that immersive educational simulations align with social constructivist learning

approaches as such environments promote tools that afford a sense of immersion within a

collaborative and flexible setting. Therefore, teachers play an active role in encouraging

students to explore new possibilities for constructing the students’ own knowledge and skills

(Wang, 2011). However, the literature reveals that there is little to guide a teacher’s

pedagogical practice when integrating effective ICT, as most research is concerned with how

students perceive learning within such immersive environments (Savin-Baden et al., 2010).

Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that:

In view of recognizing the lack of a sound theoretical orientation to guide teacher

preparation in technology integration, researchers ... systematic research efforts for the

purpose of developing theory and models upon which to ground research in the area of

teacher cognition about technology integration. (p. 155)


Therefore, it is important to highlight that the literature suggests for the support of

learning frameworks which aligns the teaching of technology with both the pedagogical and

content domains in mind. The following will discuss and develop a framework for analysis

to be used in this study.

4.3.2 Teacher knowledge (digital technology)

As noted in Chapter 1, teacher knowledge is described (and analysed) in this study in terms

of the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005, 2008, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) (Section 1.4.2, Figure 1.2). It has been

described as a dynamic learning framework depicting the knowledge(s) that teachers need to

address in order to design and integrate a specific curriculum area while guiding their

students’ thinking and learning with the aid of various technology devices for that

curriculum area (Chai et al., 2013; Doering et al., 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Niess,

2011).

The TPACK framework, initially known as TPCK, was the result of a five-year

research study which explored the impact of teacher professional development and

curriculum development, using design-based experimental research methodology (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Its origins lie in Shulman’s (1986) Pedagogical

Content Knowledge (PCK) (see Section 4.1.1). It emerged as the most appropriate

framework for analysis in this study because it acknowledges the complex interrelationships

between technology, pedagogy and content, three areas of interest to this study.

Koehler and Mishra (2008) highlighted the important role that the three components

(technological knowledge, content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge) contribute to

realising the potential of digital technology within an educational learning environment.

Koehler and Mishra (2009) noted that:

TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an

understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical

techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of

what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress

some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge

and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to

build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones.

(p. 66)

The three key components of the TPACK framework are depicted as intersecting

circles (see Figure 1.2). Where these circles intersect creates more specific knowledge

components, such as technological content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical content


knowledge (PCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). TPACK

(Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge is at the centre of the framework, a

combination of all components. Table 4.2 lists the seven “constructs” within the TPACK

Framework.

Table 4.2

TPACK framework constructs (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2010, p. 564)

Construct Definitions

Content Knowledge CK Knowledge of subject matter

Technology knowledge TK Knowledge of various technologies

Pedagogical knowledge PK Knowledge of the processes or methods of

teaching

Technological content

knowledge

TCK Knowledge of subject matter representation with

technology

Technological pedagogical

knowledge

TPK Knowledge of using technology to implement

different teaching methods

Pedagogical content

knowledge

PCK Knowledge of teaching methods for different

types of subject matter

Technological pedagogical

and content knowledge

TPACK Knowledge of using technology to implement

teaching methods for different types of subject

matter

The following describes each component of the TPACK model in further detail.

Technological Knowledge (TK)

While technology is ever-advancing, the TK component of the TPACK model, sometimes

expressed as Technology Knowledge, focuses on the knowledge required to not only

understand the technical aspect of the technology tools and resources, but to also be able to

understand how to work with the technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Koehler and Mishra

(2009) explained that:

… acquiring TK … enables a person to accomplish a variety of different tasks using

information technology and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task.

This conceptualization of TK does not posit an “end state,” but rather sees it

developmentally, as evolving over a lifetime of generative, open-ended interaction

with technology. (p. 64)


Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

The Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) component of the TPACK model depicts the knowledge

of teaching and learning that spans curriculum learning areas. Howell (2012) explained that

PK includes “generic knowledge about how students learn, teaching approaches, methods of

assessment and knowledge of different theories of learning” (p. 30). Examples of PK

include: classroom management strategies, presentation strategies, active or collaborative

learning strategies (Doering et al., 2009). (See Section 4.1.1 for discussion of Pedagogical

Content Knowledge).

Content Knowledge (CK)

The Content Knowledge (CK) component of the TPACK model concentrates on the depth

and breadth of knowledge required for the delivery of a subject-specific curriculum learning

area (Doering et al., 2009). Shulman (1986) explained that “to think properly about content

knowledge goes beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain. It requires

understanding the structures of the subject matter” (p. 9). Examples of CK include:

knowledge of concepts, principles, practices, structures, theories and frameworks employed

to deliver such knowledge fundamentals of the specific curriculum areas (Koehler & Mishra,

2009). (See Section 4.1.1 for discussion of Pedagogical Content Knowledge).

Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) refers to knowledge of how technology and

content influence and constrain one another. The use of different technologies can impact

students’ learning differently (Shin et al., 2009). Howell (2012) explained that TCK is used to

inform how “technology may be used to provide new ways of teaching content. For example,

digital animation makes it possible for students to conceptualise how electrons are shared

between atoms when chemical compounds are formed” (p. 31).

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) refers to the knowledge about how teaching

and learning change when digital technologies are introduced (Shin et al., 2009). Cox (2008)

defined TPK as “a knowledge of the technologies that may be used in a generic pedagogical

context, including the affordances and constraints of those technologies, and how those

technologies influence or are influenced by the teacher’s pedagogical strategies and student

learning” (p. 76). TPK may therefore be the skill, suggested by Bower (2008), to match the

affordances requirements of a learning task with the technological affordances of ICT tools.

An example of TPK is the use of online collaboration tools to “facilitate social learning

between geographically separated learners” (Howell, 2012, p. 32).


4.4 Teacher adoption of technologies

The developmental models of teachers’ adoption and integration of digital technologies in

teaching tend to follow a similar trajectory. These create expectations of how teachers might

mature or develop their competence with digital technologies and expand/extend their use in

their teaching. This section introduces five models organised chronologically: (i) ACOT

Stages of Instructional Evolution (Dwyer et al., 1990); (ii) Teacher Professional ICT

Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad, Clarkson, & Newhouse, 2005); (iii)

SAMR (Puentedura, 2006); (iv) LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation/Innovation)

model (Moersch, 1995, 2010); and (v) Innovativeness of use of ICT (Peeraer & Van

Petegem, 2012, p. 81). A sixth model, Phases of Realisation (Jacka, 2015), is also considered

in this section. It is drawn from a study of pre-service teachers and relates specifically to

perceptions of the pedagogical applications of virtual learning environments.

An understanding of the trajectory of these models informs the response to Research

Question 4 which refers to the change in teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy (see

Section 8.4). The following offers a brief description of the five selected models before

comparatively mapping the stages/levels of each (Figure 4.5).

The ACOT Stages of Instructional Evolution was published in ACOT Report #8, one of

over 20 reports in a longitudinal ACOT (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow) project funded

by Apple Computers from 1986 to 1995. These “stages” offered a developmental

framework: Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention (Dwyer et al.,

1990). Harmes et al. (2016) explained that:

– Entry, is the very first stage as teachers unpacked and began to experiment with

their new computers.

– Adoption, is where teachers’ concerns shift from how to connect the computers

to how to incorporate them into instruction, and computers were used by

students for drill and practice activities.

– Adaptation, is where teachers were integrating tools such as word processors and

graphics programs, and productivity was a major focus.

– Appropriation, is where teachers were achieving mastery of the technology, and

their personal attitudes toward the technology shifted.

– Invention, is characterised by teachers using the technology to experiment with

teaching styles (e.g., team-teaching) and instructional strategies (e.g., project-

based learning).


The Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad

et al., 2005), developed in Western Australia, similarly describes stages of teacher

development. Its five stages are: Inaction, Investigation, Application, Integration and

Transformation (see Figure 4.3). Significantly, this framework places a “critical use

border” between Application and Integration; a threshold which, once crossed, indicates

that teachers are unlikely to return to older non-digital practices. This framework is used

in this study to inform the response to Research Question 4 (see Section 8.4.2).

Stage Description of Key Difference(s)

INACTION There is a general lack of action and/or interest.

INVESTIGATION The teacher has developed an interest in using ICT with

students and is beginning to act on this interest.

APPLICATION The teacher is regularly using ICT with students and knows

how to do so competently and confidently.

CRITICAL USE BORDER

INTEGRATION The use of ICT becomes critical to the support of the

learning environment and the opportunity for students to

achieve learning outcomes through the learning experiences

provided.

TRANSFORMATION The teacher is able to take on leadership roles (formal or

informal) in the use of ICT and be knowledgeable/reflective

on its integration by themselves and others.

Figure 4.3. Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002, p.

8).

The SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006) takes its name from its four stages: Substitution,

Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition. Hamilton et al. (2016) described SAMR

as a four-level taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using and evaluating technology

in K-12 settings). As with ACOT stages and the ICT Professional Attributes model,

SAMR is developmental and indicates a change in dependence on technology and a

parallel change in pedagogy (see Figure 4.4). Harmes et al. (2016) explained the SAMR

levels as follows:

– Substitution is where teachers use technology to replace a conventional tool but

no change is made to instruction;


– Augmentation is where the technology again directly replaces a conventional

tool although some level of improvement is present;

– Modification is where the use of technology affords a significant change in the

learning task.

– Redefinition encompasses activities that would not have been possible without

technology.

Figure 4.4. SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006).

Figure 4.4 shows that the first two levels, that is, Substitution and Augmentation, belong to

an Enhancement stage while the third and fourth levels, namely, Modification and

Redefinition belong to a Transformation stage.

The LoTi (Levels of Technology Implementation/Innovation) model (Moersch, 1995,

2010) was developed from the CBAM (Concerns-Based Adoption Model) as a specific

measure of teachers’ implementation of digital technology in the classroom. The LoTi

levels are (i) Non-use, (ii) Awareness, (iii) Exploration, (iv) Infusion, (v) Integration—

Mechanical, (vi) Integration—Routine, (vii) Expansion, and (viii) Refinement. These

may be summarised as follows:

– Non-use (Level 0), where teacher practices do not involve the use of digital tools

and resources. The use of instructional materials is predominately text-based

(e.g., student handouts, worksheets).

– Awareness (Level 1), where the instructional focus is on information

dissemination to students (e.g., lectures, teacher-created multimedia

presentations) and supports the lecture/discussion approach to teaching. Digital

tools are used for: classroom and/or curriculum management tasks (e.g., taking


attendance, accessing email, retrieving lesson plans from a curriculum

management system or the Internet); enhancing teacher presentations (e.g.,

multimedia presentations); and/or used by students (unrelated to classroom

instructional priorities) as a reward for prior work completed in class.

– Exploration (Level 2), where the instructional focus is on content understanding

and supports mastery learning and direct instruction. Digital tools are used by

students for extension activities, enrichment exercises, or information gathering

assignments that generally reinforce lower cognitive skill development relating

to the content under investigation.

– Infusion (Level 3), where the instructional focus is on student higher order

thinking (i.e., application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and engaged learning.

Digital tools are used by students to carry out teacher-directed tasks that

emphasise higher levels of student cognitive processing relating to the content

under investigation.

– Integration (Mechanical) (Level 4a), where students are engaged in exploring

real-world issues and solving authentic problems.

– Integration (Routine) (Level 4b), where students are fully engaged in exploring

real-world issues and solving authentic problems using digital tools and

resources.

– Expansion (Level 5), where collaborations extend beyond the classroom are

employed for authentic student problem-solving and issues resolution.

– Refinement (Level 6), where collaborations extending beyond the classroom that

promote authentic student problem-solving and issues resolution are the norm.

The instructional curriculum is entirely learner-based. There is no division

between instruction and digital tools/resources in the learning environment. The

pervasive use of and access to advanced digital tools and resources provides a

seamless medium for information queries, creative problem-solving, student

reflection, and/or product development.

Innovativeness of use of ICT (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012). A further progressive

model is of interest to this study, namely, a measure of innovativeness of use of ICT

(Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012). It has not been considered with the previous models in

that it adopts a different approach by referring to process, that is, the pedagogical

approach. Through a quantitative study of Vietnamese teachers, the authors developed a

construct map which scaled teachers’ ICT use from replacing and enhancing teaching


practice through to using ICT to innovate teaching practice. The constructs are offered as

sentences using verbs as keywords to indicate a change in practice. These keywords are:

transform, innovate, enhance and replace. These are explained as follows:

– Educators who use ICT transform teaching and learning practice, indicated by the

use of classroom management systems for coaching and evaluation, web search

assignments for problem-based learning; and, electronic communication with

students and students communicating with others.

– Educators who use ICT to innovate teaching towards more student-centred learning,

integrated into existing curriculum, indicated by integration into subject teaching

(e.g., word processing for shared writing exercises, simulations and data processing

by students); and, student presentations and students creating multi-media products,

students constructing and synthesizing knowledge

– Educators who use ICT to enhance teaching practice, indicated by the use of

presentation software for enhancing, multi-media presentations; accessing offline

and online databases and information to prepare resources; and electronic practice

and drill exercises for revision.

– Educators who use ICT to replace traditional teaching practice, indicated by the use

of word processing for production of documents (preparation of lesson plans,

handouts, slides); and, the use of presentation software for lecturing.

(Peeraer & Petegem, 2012, p. 1249)

Phases of Realisation (Jacka, 2015). A study of Australian pre-service teachers engaging

with virtual learning environments evidenced increasing measures of realisation. They

are conceptually connected with the LoTi model (Moersch, 1995, 2010) with research

into concerns and anxiety, namely, CBAM (Concerns-Based Adoption Model). The

Phases of Realisation were defined as:

– Pre Realisation – Pre-service teachers “could not see any benefit of VWs [Virtual

Worlds] in education and/or they would never use them. In most cases the

participants expressed that were having difficulty conceptualising the use of VWs in

the classroom and/or that it was in conflict with (or at odds with) their perception of

‘real’ teaching and learning. The VW experience was often referred to as being fun,

which these students linked to being non-educational” (Jacka, 2015, p. 309).

– Realisation – Pre-service teachers “could see the benefit of VWs but were still

unlikely to use them as they identified a number of perceived barriers or concerns.

… they had personal feelings of discomfort or difficulty with VWs but that they felt


their students should be given the opportunity to use innovative technology such as

VWs” (Jacka, 2015, p. 311).

– Replication – Pre-service teachers are able “to describe how they would use virtual

worlds but weren’t going to make a big effort to initiate their use. They would use

virtual worlds if they were already in place in the school setting” (Jacka, 2015, p.

205).

– Reimagining – Pre-service teachers indicate that they “would not only use VWs but

also can describe using the VW as part of an innovative approach to the teaching-

learning process. Individuals in this phase described the use of VWs as integral to

the teaching-learning process” (Jacka, 2015, p. 215).

– Implementation – Pre-service teachers “demonstrate a higher level of confidence

with the use of VWs and their application to developing innovative teaching-

learning processes. Once implementation has proved successful the pre-service

teacher educator or student is likely to move into a mentoring role for other’s

wishing to implement VWs in their teaching-learning context” (Jacka, 2015, p. 218).

Figure 4.5 offers a simple comparison between the models presented in this section

(extended from Lloyd (2016)). Each model shows a progression from an initial level

(namely, entry, investigation and substitution). The final, or most critical stage/level in each

model (namely, invention, transformation, redevelopment and refinement), has similar

characteristics and each implies that significant change has happened in a teachers’ practice.

Similar “vertical” comparisons can be made with each stage/level.

Two of the presented models include a level where no digital technology is used in

the classroom, these are described as “Inaction” and “Non-use.” These align with Jacka’s

(2015) “Pre-realisation” and “Realisation” phases in that no or limited use is made of the

available technology because the use is contrary to the pre-service teachers’ beliefs or

hindered by concerns, for example, relating to misuse.

The Entry level of the ACOT stage, with its reference to experimentation and initial

use, is comparable to Investigation (Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework),

Substitution (SAMR), Awareness (LoTi) and Replication (Phases of Realisation). These sit

well with Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2012) description of educators who use technologies

to replace traditional teaching practice.

The “critical use border” from the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework

(Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) can be arbitrarily positioned in each

progression. In each case, it represents the threshold of change, that is, a point where the

technology becomes “invisible” and critical to the teacher’s practice. This is preceded by


stages which are conceptually linked to the ACOT levels of Adoption and Adaptation. These

stages are illustrated by: Application (Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework);

Augmentation (SAMR); and, Exploration, Infusion, Integration – Mechanical, Integration -

Routine (LoTi). These also well with Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2012) description of

educators who use ICT to enhance teaching practice.

Beyond the border are conceptually linked with the ACOT levels of Appropriation

and Invention. The Appropriation level of the ACOT stage, with its reference to mastery and

positive attitude toward the technology, is comparable to Integration (Teacher Professional

ICT Attributes Framework), Modification (SAMR), Expansion (LoTi) and Reimagining

(Phases of Realisation). These align with Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2012) description of

educators who use technologies to innovate teaching towards more student-centred learning.

The Invention level of the ACOT stage is concerned with experimentation and risk-taking.

These are illustrated through the identification of comparable stages: Transformation

(Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework), Redevelopment (SAMR), and

Refinement (LoTi). These align with Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2012) description of

educators who use technologies to transform teaching.

The six developmental models shown in Figure 4.5 follow similar trajectories of

moving from an early unknowing state through to expert and transformative practice. A

criticism of these models is that they presume an even and predictable progression whereas,

in reality, individuals may not progress to the higher levels or may “loop” backwards and

forwards depending on the technologies being adopted (Lloyd, 2016).

Cha

pter

4: L

itera

ture

revi

ew

81

Fram

ewor

k/Mod

el St

ages

/Lev

els

ACOT

(Dwy

er et

al., 1

990)

Entry

Ad

optio

n Ad

aptat

ion

Critical use border

Appr

opria

tion

Inven

tion

Teac

her P

rofes

siona

l ICT

Attrib

utes F

rame

work

(New

hous

e et a

l., 20

02)

Inacti

on

Inves

tigati

on

Appli

catio

n

Integ

ratio

n Tr

ansfo

rmati

on

SAMR

(Pue

ntedu

ra, 2

006)

Subs

titutio

n

Augm

entat

ion

Modif

icatio

n Re

deve

lopme

nt

LoTi

(Moe

rsch,

2010

) No

n-us

e (0)

Aw

aren

ess (

1)

Explo

ratio

n (2)

Inf

usion

(3)

Integ

ratio

n—Me

chan

ical (4

a)

Integ

ratio

n—Ro

utine

(4

b)

Expa

nsion

(5)

Refin

emen

t (6)

Innov

ative

ness

of us

e of I

CT

(Pee

raer

& V

an P

etege

m,

2012

)

Ed

ucato

rs wh

o use

IC

T to

repla

ce

tradit

ional

teach

ing

prac

tice.

Ed

ucato

rs wh

o use

IC

T to

enha

nce

teach

ing pr

actic

e.

Educ

ators

who u

se IC

T to

innov

ate t

each

ing

towar

ds m

ore s

tuden

t-ce

ntred

lear

ning,

integ

rated

into

exist

ing

curri

culum

.

Educ

ators

who u

se IC

T to

trans

form

teac

hing

and l

earn

ing pr

actic

e

Phas

es of

Rea

lisati

on (J

acka

, 20

15)

Pre-

reali

satio

n Re

alisa

tion

Repli

catio

n

Reim

agini

ng

Imple

menta

tion

Figu

re 4

.5.

Com

paris

on o

f the

stag

es o

f mod

els o

f tea

cher

ado

ptio

n of

tech

nolo

gy (e

xten

ded

from

Llo

yd, 2

016,

p. 3

01).


The implications of Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2012) study, however, were that

general ICT tools were selected to measure the use of ICT for teaching and learning. The

scope of their study did not appear to take into consideration what happens when the ICT

itself transforms the traditional classroom setting – in this case, immersive educational

simulations (cf: Bronack et al., 2008). Rather, the study explored the types of pedagogies

used to teach with basic ICT applications and thus did not gain any insights as to how the

teachers interpreted their pedagogical practice in relation to differing technology tools

adopted. Questions can also be raised as to whether the technology tools selected to

transform and innovate in this context would produce the same levels of transformation and

innovation for students and teachers in other educational settings.

4.4.1 Technology Integration Matrix (TIM)

One further model of teacher technology adoption will inform this study. It is the

Technology Integration Model (TIM) (see Appendix B). It was created to evaluate

technology integration in school, and as a tool to guide teacher professional learning (Welsh

et al., 2011). It brings together modified versions of two of the models previously presented

in this chapter. Firstly, the TIM makes use of Jonassen’s (1999) characteristics of meaningful

learning, here referred to as: Active, Constructive, Authentic, Collaborative, and Goal-

Directed (see Section 1.6.2). It secondly makes use of levels modified from the ACOT

Stages of Instructional Evolution here referred to as: Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion,

and Transformation (Dwyer et al., 1990).

For the sake of continuity, the characteristics of meaningful learning will, in addition

to the TIM descriptors, also be defined in terms adopted by Jonassen (1999), that is: active,

constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning. Table 4.3 details the “top”

levels of the stages, namely, Infusion and Transformation.

Table 4.3

Infusion and Transformation levels of TIM (Harmes et al., 2016)

Characteristic Stages of teacher technology integration

Infusion Transformation

Active The teacher guides and advises

students in their choice of

technology tools. The teacher is

flexible and open to student ideas.

The teacher uses his or her

expertise to guide, inform, and

The teacher serves as a guide,

mentor, and model in the use of

technology. The teacher

encourages and supports the active

engagement of students with

technology resources. The teacher


Characteristic Stages of teacher technology integration

Infusion Transformation

contextualize student choices of

technology and applications.

helps students locate appropriate

online resources to support their

projects.

Constructive The teacher allows more decisions

to be made by the students as they

construct meaning. Increasingly,

the teacher serves as a guide. The

teacher consistently allows

students to select technology tools

from among many available

choices

The teacher facilitates learning

opportunities in which students

regularly engage in activities that

would have been impossible to

achieve without technology.

Authentic The teacher encourages students to

use technology tools to make

connections to their personal lives,

and to choose the technology that

best matches their needs.

The teacher encourages and

supports students’ innovative use

of technology in higher-order

learning activities that encourage

making connections to their own

lives and the world beyond the

classroom.

Collaborative

(Cooperative)

Control of the collaboration tools

shifts from the teacher to the

students. The teacher encourages

students to use technology tools

collaboratively across the day and

guides students in making

appropriate independent choices.

The teacher seeks out and

facilitates opportunities for

collaboration that would not be

possible without technology. The

teacher may seek partnerships

outside of the classroom to allow

students to access experts and

peers in other locations.

Goal-Directed

(Intentional)

The teacher creates a learning

environment that incorporates

technology tools for planning and

monitoring throughout the day and

across subject areas.

The teacher creates a rich learning

environment in which technology

use is integral, seamless, and

indispensable.


4.4.2 Challenge to teacher adoption of technology

Teachers’ adoption of technology is influenced by their beliefs and so a critical first step was

to review the claims made in the literature as to their impact (Section 4.3.1). It was similarly

important to understand teacher knowledge in terms of digital technologies (Section 4.3.2)

and how this might also impact on how they interpret or re-interpret their practice.

For example, Becker and Riel’s (2001) research stated that skill-based courses as a

form of professional development for teachers to integrate ICT in their classroom are only

part of the process for preparing teachers to adequately teach with ICT. Both Butler and

Sellbom (2002), and Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) noted that teachers found it

difficult to plan and prepare new technology integrated lessons due to their workloads and

schedules being the same as before the technology was introduced. Sadly, teachers only

employed technology in ways which replicated their traditional instructional approach,

choosing to sustain rather than innovate their current pedagogy (Cuban et al., 2001;

Schofield et al., 2001; Zhao, Pugh & Sheldon, 2002). Thus, a radical change was required in

the way that education copes with change so as to enable teachers to explore technology

incorporated lessons that focus on creating knowledge-building environments rather than

knowledge-reproduction sessions (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003).

Kenny (2002) raised the issue that there has been insufficient research into cases

where there has been attempts to explore how ICT interacts with the curriculum and,

furthermore, influence content-specific pedagogies. Maddux and Johnson (2005) supported

this by suggesting that the effectiveness of ICT integration is impacted by the operational use

of the ICT applications; whether the ICT applications are used to promote more efficient

teaching and learning in traditional ways, or whether the ICT applications encourage new

and better ways of teaching and learning. Winn (2005) also argued that there comes a time

when ICT is no longer viewed in terms of what the technology can replace but, rather, what

that technology can offer to enhance the learning experience. Gareis and Husing’s (2009)

research, however, suggested that a transformative integration of ICT is dependent upon its

empowerment by users, which should lead to more effective approaches to the achievement

of desired learning outcomes.

While emerging technology applications change the dynamics of teaching and

learning, consideration needs to be given as to how integrating these technologies interacts

with both the content and content-specific pedagogies for that particular curriculum learning

area (Ertmer et al., 2012). Cox (2008) earlier suggested this by stating that research attempts

to investigate the uptake of ICT being implemented in schools, primarily focusing on the

types of technologies being selected by teachers and students. Peeraer and Van Petegem

(2012) extended this viewpoint by highlighting that little research exists to measure the


“effective integration of ICT in teaching practice or on added value of ICT for teaching and

learning in general” (p. 1247).

4.5 Chapter summary

The ever-changing use of technology in the classroom to support student learning of specific

curriculum concepts and skills has received variable feedback on how best to use the chosen

technology to enhance student learning outcomes. The conceptual and theoretical models

presented in this chapter (e.g., the TPACK model, SAMR model, TIM model, signature

pedagogies, and the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework) enable teachers to

reflect on their integration of technology to support or aid their teaching of specific concepts

(Section 4.4). It appears that there has been a shift in teachers’ approach to technology

integration within the curriculum in that merely using technology to re-present information

or consolidate learning is only a superficial use of that technology. Teachers are continually

exploring various technologies that also enable students to practise higher-order thinking;

however, a gap appears in the literature as to how teachers implement pedagogical practices

to enable higher-order thinking with such technologies. Teachers need support to reflect on

their own teaching practice and reconceptualise how they teach with emerging technologies

that force the teacher to work with the technology at the same time as providing learning

opportunities with the physical classroom environment.

This chapter has introduced the research literature which relates to the important

aspects of this study. Figure 4.6 illustrates the Conceptual Framework (previously presented

as Figure 1.1) with the research presented in this chapter. It attempts to show the connections

between the sections of the review and between the underlying concepts.


Figure 4.6. Conceptual framework illustrated through literature review.

Therefore, this study explores how teachers, when faced with using immersive

educational simulations, as an emerging technology, respond to the demands of teaching

within the technology platform and simultaneously teaching within the physical classroom

environment. The study will endeavour to identify a pedagogy used by those teachers to

highlight the importance of being able to respond to this “duality” of learning; that is

learning within the immersive educational simulation while also learning simultaneously in

the physical classroom environment. Thus, this research will significantly contribute to

knowledge pertaining to pedagogical practices for teaching within and through immersive

educational simulations. The following chapter presents the research methodology which

guided the study.

88 Chapter 5: Research methodology

Chapter 5: Research methodology

The immersive educational simulation which forms the basis of the research setting in this

study (Section 1.10, Figure 1.4) and the recency of its use in teaching and learning means

that there are no agreed teaching practices to use and no history of use. The study described

in this thesis aimed to question how teachers re-interpret their practice to accommodate new

technologies and to identify the signature pedagogy (introduced in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.6 and

4.1.2) and the theoretical model relating to teaching and learning within and through an

immersive simulation.

In order to achieve these aims, the qualitative study reported in this thesis adopted a

Grounded Theory approach (see Section 1.10). Grounded Theory is widely used in social

science research, particularly in fields such as psychology, education and health (Strauss &

Corbin, 1994). It has been described as “an inductive, theory discovery methodology that

allows the researcher to develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic while

simultaneously grounding the account in empirical observations or data” (Martin & Turner,

1986, p.141). In this, Grounded Theory differs from deductive methods of analysis that rely

on testing a priori theory and hypothesis (Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014).

Because of its systematic inductive construction of theory and “grounding” in the

data (Charmaz, 2006, 2014), Grounded Theory offered the most promising method for this

study mainly because it was endeavouring to develop new theories in a new learning

environment. In this, it was, for example, preferable to a case study approach which focussed

on individual participants or settings. The intention was to build a pedagogical model for use

in an uncharted space, namely teaching within and through an immersive educational

simulation, rather than map existing practice or to identify the factors enabling or inhibiting

success. The approach was as described by Lingard, Albert and Levinson (2008) who

explained the Grounded Theory is appropriate when “the study of social interactions or

experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory” (p. 459).

Creswell (2007) argued that the aim of Grounded Theory is to develop a substantive

theory that explains an inherent process within a particular social context through the

experiences of the people operating within that context. In this study, the teachers coming to

terms with teaching within and through an immersive educational simulation were asked

about their specific experience in that context. Their responses, through the survey and

interviews described in this chapter, provided the data in which the theories proposed in this

study were “grounded.”

Chapter 5: Research methodology 89

Corbin and Strauss (1990) explained that “the procedures of grounded theory are

designed to develop a well-integrated set of concepts that provide a thorough theoretical

explanation of social phenomena under study” (p. 5). Further, Strauss and Corbin (1990,

1998) noted that there is particular value in studies that seek to construct rather than confirm

theory, that is, it seeks to generate new theory to explain a phenomenon. Fernández (2004)

explained that:

In Grounded Theory, everything is integrated; it is an extensive and systematic

general methodology (independent of research paradigm) where actions and

concepts can be interrelated with other actions and concepts – in grounded theory

nothing happens in a vacuum. (p. 43)

A distinguishing feature of Grounded Theory are its key processes (see Section 1.10).

Two of these processes have been adopted in this study, namely, constant comparative

analysis and theoretical sampling (referred to more generally as purposive sampling). The

first, constant comparison data analysis, is where codes, categories and themes are iteratively

developed so that theory is developed progressively. The data analysis in this study used

both “initial and focussed coding” (Charmaz, 2006). Initial coding was used to identify and

name specific segments of data. While focussed coding was used to determine the most

significant initial codes to organise and synthesise the data into meaningful analytical ideas

(Charmaz, 2006). Codes were discussed with supervisors to manage and limit any potential

researcher bias.

The second distinguishing feature of Grounded Theory to be adopted by this study is

its use of theoretical (purposive) sampling, that is, the identification and selection of rich

data sources to explain social phenomenon (Butler, Copnell & Hall, 2018; Charmaz, 2006;

Hallberg, 2006). This study stayed true to these key processes and progressed logically

through data collection and analysis to generate credible robust theories.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the research design and methods adopted by

this study. It has begun with a description and justification of the method chosen that is of a

qualitative study informed by Grounded Theory. It will continue, in Section 5.1, with a

restatement of the research aim and questions (introduced in Section 1.2). Section 5.2 will

present the research design employed for the study including the research setting (Section

5.2.1) and the determination of the participants in the study (Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4).

Section 5.3 will describe the two data collection instruments used and methods of analysis to

be used (introduced in Sections 1.10 and 1.11), namely, the online survey (Section 5.3.1) and

one-to-one interviews (Section 5.3.2). Following this, Section 5.4 will discuss the

trustworthiness of the study. The ethical considerations of the study are presented in Section


5.5. This chapter will conclude with Section 5.6 which will provide a summary of the

research methodology adopted in this study.

5.1 Research aim and questions

As introduced in Chapter 1, the research aim addressed by this qualitative study was: How

do teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations?

This aim was designed to investigate teaching within and through immersive educational

simulations and to identify the new signature pedagogy and theoretical model suited to the

teaching of Economics and Business through immersive simulations.

This aim is supported by four research questions (introduced in Section 1.2) and

emerged from the Conceptual Framework (see Figure 1.1). The questions are:

1. What do teachers believe to be the role of ICT (Information and Communication



2. What are the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers in the adoption of



3. What are the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the technology

and the teaching of a particular content domain noted by teachers in the adoption of



4. To what extent and in what way do teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy


simulation?

In accordance with a Grounded Theory approach, the research questions did not pre-

empt the study by imposing theory but rather adopted a broad focus and aligned with the

history of research into educational technologies.

5.2 Research design

According to Johnson and Christensen (2008), the role of educational research is to develop

practices that enhance the education setting, providing descriptions, explanations and

predictions of such phenomenon. The following sections will describe the research setting

for the study (see Section 5.2.1) and the details of participants (see Section 5.2.2).


5.2.1 Research setting

The research setting in this study (introduced in Section 1.10, Figure 1.4) is idiosyncratic to

each of the Economics and Business teachers who acted as participants. Each commented on

their experiences in teaching Years 7-10 classes (students from 11 to 16 years old) within

and through the PierSim Business Island Simulation. These classes were of 25-30 students in

different Queensland metropolitan schools, all of whom have elected to study Economics

and Business. The Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business syllabus, whose aims

were introduced in Section 3.3.2, itself forms part of the research setting. The syllabus is

built around four content areas: (i) Financial Management, (ii) Marketing Management, (iii)

Human Resource Management (HRM), and (iv) Operations Management.

The teachers were employed in secondary schools (Year 7-12) in Queensland which

had adopted the PierSim Business Island Simulation as the learning environment for the

teaching of Economics and Business (N=~27). They had become involved through a process

of networking in which the IES (University of Queensland) approached some schools and

asked them to identify and approach others. Both public and private schools have been

involved with the majority being private schools (n=21, 77.78%). All schools were in a

metropolitan area. They could be seen to be sufficiently resourced and open to curriculum

innovation to become a part of the PierSim Business Island Simulation initiative.

The participating teachers had varying degrees of specialist knowledge and varying

years of experience in teaching within a secondary schooling environment within

Queensland (see Table 5.1). It can be similarly presumed that the students similarly had

varying degrees of knowledge and skill in understanding Economics and Business concepts

and processes, as well as exposure to the PierSim Business Island Simulation. The research

setting, however, solely focussed on the teacher’s pedagogical approach rather than the

classroom or student achievement or dispositions.

5.2.2 Participants

Creswell (2003) suggested that effective qualitative research relies on participants being

purposefully selected so as to allow the researcher to appropriately investigate the research

questions. Similarly, Morse (2007) described how “excellent participants” to inform

Grounded Theory research should have:

… been through, or observed, the experience under investigation. Participants must

therefore be experts in the experience or the phenomena under investigation; they must

be willing to participate and have the time to share the necessary information; and they

must be reflective, willing, and able to speak articulately about the experience. (p. 3)


As noted in Section 1.10, the study enlisted the participation of Economics and

Business teachers from the 27 schools which, at the time of the study, were committed to

implementing PierSim Business Island Simulation as part of the Australian Curriculum for

Economics and Business education and where each teacher was expected to deliver PierSim

Business Island Simulation as part of the course of study. This provided a potential

population of approximately 35 participants.

Each of the Economics and Business teachers approached to participate, through

their schools, had received initial training on the use of PierSim Business Island Simulation,

namely, a full-day session of how to operate PierSim Business Island Simulation conducted

by the Head of the Academics Program at IES (the founder of PierSim Business Island

Simulation). Following the training session, each teacher had access to a curriculum guide

which provided detailed lesson planning and curriculum resources to support the

implementation. Additionally, each teacher had access to ongoing support from IES in

relation any technical advice as to the operation of PierSim Business Island Simulation.

The entire population, as a purposive sample (referred to as a theoretical sample in

Grounded Theory), was invited to participate in the online survey (see Section 5.3.1) with

information provided on the aims and objectives of the study. All were advised that their

participation in the study was voluntary and that they could opt out of the study at any time.

The participants were assured that their identities and responses throughout the entirety of

the study would remain confidential and that the study was not a performance management

process but rather an opportunity for personal professional development that could inform

their practice with the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

5.2.3 Survey participants

Details of the participants who responded to the online survey (n=15) are presented in Table

5.1. Given the potential population of participants (N=35), the response to the survey

indicated a response rate of over 42%. All surveys commenced were completed. No

identifying data was sought including the name of the school where the participants were

employed. This means that the number of schools were represented by the survey responses

cannot be discerned. The focus was on determining teaching experience and on experience

with the PierSim Business Island Simulation.


Table 5.1

Teaching experience of survey respondents (sorted by experience with the program) (n=15)

Respondent # Years teaching

Economics and

Business (or related

Years using the PierSim Business Island

Simulation (from given ranges)

11 7 more than one year but less than two years


3 5 less than one year





81 25 more than two years

91 15 more than two years







Note to Table 5.1:

1. self-nominated for interview.

Table 5.1 highlights the varying degrees of participant engagement with the use of

the PierSim Business Island Simulation in the delivery of aspects of the Australian

Curriculum for Economics and Business. Because of the relative newness of the

implementation (since 2011), no teacher, irrespective of years of classroom teaching, will

have more than five years’ experience with the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Respondents ranged in teaching experience from 1-35 years (see Table 5.1).


5.2.4 Interview participants

Six participants, to be referred to as Carolyn, David, Diana, Pearl, Thomas, and Rose, self-

identified for the one-to-one semi-structured interviews (see Tables 7.1 and Table 7.2). No

additional selection criteria were applied and all those who self-identified were included as

interview subjects. The participants fortuitously represented a range of experience through

years of teaching Economics and Business, and years of teaching with the PierSim Business

Island Simulation. Pearl (Respondent 4), Thomas (Respondent 8) and Diana (Respondent 1)

had the greatest experience in teaching Economics and Business (>25 years). Carolyn

(Respondent 2) had the least experience in teaching Economics and Business (>5 years).

Thomas and Diana had the longest exposure to the PierSim Business Island Simulation with

5 years and 4 years respectively. The least experienced with the simulation was Carolyn (1

year), Pearl (2 years), Rose (Respondent 15, 2 years) and David (Respondent 9, 3 years). The

six interview participants were from four different schools. Pearl and Diana were employed

at the same school. Thomas and Rose were employed in separate schools. The remaining

interview participants, Carolyn and David, were employed at the same school as the

researcher (see Section 5.4).

5.3 Data collection and analysis

The study commenced in Semester 1, 2016 with an establishment phase where formal ethical

clearance was sought from QUT and where the purpose of the study was introduced to the

target population, that is, the Economics and Business teachers who taught with the PierSim

Business Island Simulation (N=~35).

There were two data collections. The first was an online survey, which was open for

three weeks in June 2016 (see Section 5.3.1). The second was a series of interviews

conducted between August and December 2016 (see Section 5.3.2). As noted in Section

1.9.1, the researcher took the role of empathetic peer rather than objective critical observer.

The first step in the analysis of each data instrument was coding described by

Charmaz (2006) as “the process of defining what the data are about. … [it] means naming

segments of data with a label that simultaneously categorises, summarises and accounts for

each piece of data” (p. 43). In Grounded Theory, coding shapes the analytical frame from

which the analysis is built.

5.3.1 Online Survey

Surveys are a technique commonly employed for gathering qualitative research data (Denzin

& Lincoln, 2008). They are used to gather data at a specific point in time with the intention

of “describing the nature of existing conditions or identifying standards against which


existing conditions can be compared or determining the relationships that exist between

specific events” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 205). The online survey, accessed

through a portal link, was the first stage of the data collection in this study. It was open to

Economics and Business teachers who were involved in teaching within and through the

PierSim Business Island (see Section 1.10).

In this study, the survey attempted to capture the participants’ current approach and

perceptions of their pedagogical practice when using available technologies from a broad

range of teachers. It was designed to:

establish a profile of the sample (for example, teaching experience, experience with

the PierSim simulation, overall perceptions of ICT in teaching and learning);

to compare the teachers’ perceptions with findings from the literature, for example,

perceptions of workload (Butler & Sellbom, 2002); and,

to identify the perceptions of benefits of using technologies in enhancing student

learning compared with findings from the literature (see, for example, Attewell,

2004; Livingstone, 2012).

The survey comprised equally of a series of open-ended and closed items aimed to

specifically encourage the participants to reflect on their anticipated pedagogical approach

towards delivering PierSim Business Island Simulation (see Appendix C). The open-ended

items (n=4) required a response of no more than 500 characters while closed items (n=4)

required a multiple choice or Likert Scale response although frequently asking for

elaboration.

The open items, namely Items 3, 4, 5, and 7, were treated as elicited texts which

Charmaz (2006) described as being any instance where a research participant is involved in

“writing the data” (p. 36). Elicited texts are typically artefacts such as diaries or work logs

but also, as in this study, refer to open survey items. These were analysed using initial coding

(Charmaz, 2006) with some being benchmarked against existing policy or frameworks. For

example, Item 3 asked specifically about the role of information and communications

technology (ICT) in Economics and Business. Participant responses could be compared with

the role as stated in the Australian Curriculum (see Section 3.3.2) which highlights the use of

technologies as an investigative and creative tool. The methods of analysis used in

interpreting the data from the online survey in this study are summarised in Appendix C. The

findings are presented respectively in Sections 6.1 to 6.8.

The first two survey items, which contributed to the profile of the sample, were:


How long have you been teaching Economics and Business (or related subject

areas)?

How long have you been using the PierSim Business Island Simulation (based on

categories of less than one year, more than one year but less than two years, and

more than two years but less than five years)?

These items (Items 1 and 2) aimed to obtain generic information about the participant so as

to determine teaching experience and his/her familiarity with the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. Item 1 was open but specified a numerical response. Item 2 was a closed item

and asked participants to select a response from a given list. The maximum years that any

respondent could have is 5 years given that the data collection was in 2016 and the initial

pilot of the simulation was in 2011. The results are reported in Section 6.1 (Table 6.1) and

Section 6.2 (Table 6.2).

The third survey item, which contributed to an understanding of the beliefs and

perceptions of the sample (Research Question 1), was an open question which asked:

What do you think (generally) is the role of ICT in the teaching of Economics and

Business?

This item (Item 3) was informed by the contention that asking the participants’ view of the

role of ICT would provide insight into how they could transform their teaching through/with

ICT to promote new learning experiences (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Winn, 2005). It

represented a direct asking of Research Question 1 relating to teachers’ understanding of the

role of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) in the teaching of Economics

and Business. The question was drawn from research into the role of belief and self-efficacy

in the adoption of ICT in teaching practice (Ertmer et al., 2012; Peeraer & Van Petegem,

2012) and was posed to describe the technologies currently and previously used in the survey

respondents’ current teaching practice. The data from the responses to this item is reported in

Section 6.3 and has informed the response to Research Question 1 (see, for example, Section

8.1).

The fourth survey item, an open question which also contributed to an understanding

of the beliefs and perceptions of the sample, asked:

What do you see as the main purpose of the PierSim Business Island Simulation?

By asking about perceived purpose of the simulation, Item 4 was designed to determine if

and how participants had considered how the PierSim Business Island Simulation interacts

with (and supports) the Economics and Business curriculum and, furthermore, whether the

platform could influence content-specific pedagogies (Kenny, 2002). This item was based on


research into the affordances of technology (for learning) (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Ertmer

et al., 2012; Farley, 2014). The responses are reported in Section 6.4 (Sections 6.4.1-6.4.7)

and have informed all research questions.

The fifth survey item was an open question was concerned with the concept of

disruption, particularly that of technologies disrupting conventional pedagogical practices. It

asked:

3-D immersive simulations such as the PierSim Business Island Simulation have

been described as disruptive. Do you agree with this statement? Please offer a

reason for your answer.

Item 5 posed an open statement asking participants about digital disruption in education. It

essentially sought to explore whether participants believed that the PierSim Business

Simulation, as a contemporary technology, could disrupt the traditional practices of teaching

and learning (Conole, 2013; Conole et al., 2008; Godwin-Jones, 2005; Psotka, 2013) in the

Economics and Business curriculum. The responses to this item are reported in Section 6.5

and inform Research Questions 2, 3 and 4 (see Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4).

The sixth survey item posed seven statements (6a-6g) which required a response on a

5-point Likert scale with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. The statements were intended

to provide a simple measure of the participants’ perceived TPACK (technological,

pedagogical and content knowledge) and beliefs about teaching with technology (Butler &

Sellbom, 2002; Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Maddux & Johnson, 2005). The data

collected from this item is reported in Section 6.6 and has informed the discussion in Chapter

8. The statements were:

a) I am comfortable with the technical aspects of the PierSim Business Island

Simulation.

b) I am comfortable in navigating through 3-D virtual spaces.

c) I am able to explain Economics and Business concepts and map these to the PierSim


d) I enjoy teaching Economics and Business through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation.

e) I am aware of ICT as a General Capability and its organising elements within the

Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business.

f) I think that teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation represents a more

efficient way of teaching Economics and Business.


g) I am concerned with the workload implications of teaching with the PierSim

Business Island Simulation

Each statement (or group of statements) served a particular purpose. Items 6a and 6b

explored participants’ confidence with the PierSim Business Island Simulation program and

3D technologies. They aligned with the TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical and Content

Knowledge) framework (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra &

Koehler, 2006), particularly “Technological Knowledge” (TK). Items 6c and 6d were also

measures of TPACK in that they explored participants’ confidence in applying Economics

and Business concepts and processes to the PierSim Business Island Simulation,

demonstrating their understanding of the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; adapted

from Koehler & Mishra, 2008). They specifically sought to note if respondents understood

and/or valued the affordances of the simulation in the teaching of a particular content

domain, namely, Economics and Business (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Ertmer et al., 2012;

Farley, 2014). The response to this item informs Research Question 4.

Item 6e explored participants’ knowledge of and familiarity with the requirements

for ICT integration within the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, n.d.-c, n.d.-d). This aligns

with the TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) (Koehler & Mishra,

2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), particularly “Pedagogical” (PK) and “Content” Knowledge

(CK). The responses to these items informed Research Question 2 and Research Question 3.

Curricular knowledge is third type of content knowledge (Shulman, 2005).

Item 6f recorded participants’ acceptance of using technology to teach in more

efficient ways (Maddux & Johnson, 2005). The data collected from this item informs

Research Question 3. It aimed to identify participants’ agreement with the belief that using

technology allows teaching to be more efficient (Maddux & Johnson, 2005). “Efficient” in

this study given to mean effective in time taken to explain and understand particular

concepts, and to provide concise explanations and convincing examples of a concept. The

responses to these items informed Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. Finally,

Item 6g explored participants’ concerns for how technology impacts on their teaching

practice (Butler & Sellbom, 2002; Cuban et al., 2001). The responses to this item informed

Research Question 2.

The seventh survey item was an open question which asked for a response to a

statement which embedded four benefits of digital technology in teaching and learning:

ICT has been shown to (i) improve literacy and numeracy, (ii) recognise their own

strengths and weaknesses during the learning process; (iii) participate in both

independent and collaborative learning activities; and (iv) enable the learner to


remain focussed for longer periods of time. Which, if any, of these do you think is

best represented through the PierSim Business Island Simulation? Please offer a

brief explanation.

This item (Item 7) was drawn from a study by Attewell (2004) in which teachers were asked

to reflect on their beliefs towards the effectiveness of ICT in enhancing the learning

outcomes for the learner. The data collected from this item is reported in Section 6.7 and

informs the response to Research Questions 1 and 2.

The eighth and final survey item asked participants to select the statement from a

given list which resonated most closely with the belief of the potential impact of the PierSim

Business Island simulation for the teaching of Economics and Business. The list (of four

items) was:

I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation should not replace traditional

teaching practice.

I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation is worth investigating to explore

alternative teaching practice.

I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation effectively integrates ICT into the

existing curriculum.

I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation transforms teaching and learning

practice.

The statements on the list mimic the levels/stages of the technology adoption models

offered in Section 4.4. For example, this item introduced the idea of digital technologies,

particularly the PierSim Business Island simulation, transforming teaching and learning,

typically the top level of any adoption model. Similarly, it asks if the simulation integrates

ICT into the curriculum, noted as a requirement by the Australian Curriculum (see Section

3.3.1). It also mimics the lower levels, e.g. Inaction or Non-Use, by asking if the simulation

“should not replace traditional teaching” and those levels which indicate growing interest

and awareness by asking if the simulation is “worth investigating to explore alternative

teaching practice.” Data collected from this item, reported in Section 6.7 (Table 6.5), informs

Research Questions 1, 3, and 4.

The survey was also used to recruit participants for the next stage of data collection

(Creswell, 2003). Participants were asked at the end of the survey if they were willing to take

further part in the study and, if so, to provide their name and contact details.


5.3.2 One-to-one interviews

A salient characteristic of qualitative research is how it allows individuals to reveal their

experiences as well as allowing for the development of research questions which examine

the meanings that individuals assign to particular experiences (Silverman, 2005). Charmaz

(2006) explained that “the in-depth nature of an intensive interview fosters eliciting each

participant’s interpretation of his/her experience” (p. 25).

The interviews were informed by Cohen et al.’s (2007) proposed semi-structured

interview technique which provides an outline for the direction of interview yet still enables

some questions to be open-ended. The objective of this study was to explore a “rich” and

“detailed” understanding of the participants’ own beliefs towards interpreting their

pedagogical practice when using immersive educational simulations. Therefore, in order to

establish a rapport with the participants and to allow for the accommodation of the

participants’ own interpretation of their pedagogy, it was necessary for the researcher to

employ the flexibility of the semi-structured interview (Flick, 2009).

While pre-determined guide questions were used in the semi-structured interviews,

the design of the questions were sufficiently open-ended so as to allow the researcher to

make possible modifications (Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2009). In Grounded Theory, the

design of open-ended, non-judgemental questions are used to encourage participants to share

unanticipated statements and stories (Charmaz 2006, 2014). Such an interviewing technique

enables the interview to digress to other areas that the participant wants to emphasise. The

participant is also able to make additional comments which allows the researcher to explore

new avenues and insights.

Schultze and Avital (2011) suggested that interviews generate in-depth, contextual

understandings of the participants’ experiences and, importantly for this study, their

interpretations of such experiences. Intensive semi-structured interviews enable exploration

beyond the superficial layers of the participants’ physical responses and allow the researcher

to gain insights into the phenomenon being explored (Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014; Schultze

& Avital, 2011). Therefore, “both grounded theory methods and intensive interviewing are

open-ended yet directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet unrestricted” (p. 28).

Each interview began with an introduction as to why the participant had been invited

to take part. They were assured of their anonymity and the de-identification of any details

relating to them or their workplace. The researcher then described the interview process and

informed the participant that they could stop the interview at any point in time or ask for the

recording to be stopped. Each interview was based on three broad guide questions. These

were:


1. Has your teaching of Economics and Business concepts, content and processes changed

as a result of teaching with PierSim? If so, how? Could you please give me examples of

this?

2. Can you explain to me the difference between teaching in-world (within PierSim) and

out-world (within the physical classroom)?

3. Has your confidence level and mastery of the PierSim Business Island Simulation

changed over time? Has this affected your teaching?

The participants were invited to comment on any other information that he/she may

like to include in this interview (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). The goal of the interviews was to

explore the research questions from the perspective of the participants (King, 2004) and to

gain an understanding as to how the individual has interpreted or re-interpreted their

pedagogy as a result of the disruptive technology and how/why this informs their own

practice. Emphasis was placed on the notion that the study would not aim to quantify the

individual participants’ pedagogical experiences with PierSim Business Island Simulations

(as outlined in Section 1.2), but rather place importance on how participants re-interpreted

their pedagogy when such disruptive technologies are embedded into the curriculum.

The interview data was analysed through focussed coding which scrutinised the data

to define meaning within it (Charmaz, 2006, 2010, 2014). Language played an important role

in how meaningful coding was developed to reveal emerging trends of teachers’ pedagogical

beliefs and practices. The researcher’s theoretical sensitivity was called upon to understand

discipline specific jargon and interpret teachers’ experiences.

In addition, the interview data was subjected to a content analysis. While more

typically associated with quantitative analysis, content analysis can also be used for the

“subjective interpretation of the content of data through the systematic classification of

coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p.8). Elo and Kyngäs

(2008) also noted that content analysis can be used in inductive approaches, such as

Grounded Theory, where codes, categories or themes are directly drawn from the data. Cho

and Lee (2014) further explained that “although both grounded theory and qualitative

content analysis follow coding processes, content analysis does not focus on finding

relationships among categories or theory building; instead, it focuses on extracting categories

from the data” (p. 5) In this instance, the data were the interview transcripts.

5.4 Trustworthiness

Qualitative research adopts a range of quality criteria to ensure “trustworthiness” such as

credibility, transferability dependability, confirmability and authenticity (Lincoln & Guba,


2000). Morrow and Smith (2000) described these standards collectively as “goodness.” The

following discusses a selection of criteria, namely, credibility, transferability, dependability

and confirmability and how they can be applied to assure the trustworthiness of the current

study.

Credibility. Credibility in qualitative research corresponds to internal validity in

quantitative research. It is a measure of the internal consistency of the research.

Lincoln and Guba (2000) suggested that credible findings are assured through the

use of measures such as: prolonged engagement with participants; persistent

observation in the field; debriefing with peers or critical friends; negative case

analysis; researcher reflexivity; and participant checks, validation, or co-analysis. In

this study, credibility is achieved through the researcher’s close association with the

field (see Sections 1.1 and 1.10.1), the analysis of negative cases which emerged

from the analysis of the survey data (see Chapter 6); and researcher reflexivity (see

Section 9.5).

Further to this, credibility is achieved through the use of “thick descriptions”

(Geertz, 1973), that is, a rich description of data which serves as a bridge between

source data and emerging analyses. In this study, thick description has been adopted

in the recount of teachers’ practice in explaining what teachers believe to be the role

of digital technologies in teaching Business and Economics (see Section 8.1.1). It

has also been adopted in participant profiles presented as a summary of survey data

(see Section 6.9.1).

Transferability in qualitative research corresponds to external validity or

generalisability in quantitative research. Morrow (2005) described transferability as

“the extent to which the reader is able to generalize the findings of a study to her or

his own context” (p. 252). This study acknowledges the limitations to the

transferability of its findings due to its small scale and specific research setting (see

Limitations, Section 9.3). It is hoped, however, that the signature pedagogy

developed through this study (see Chapter 9), will be transferable to teaching and

learning environments other than immersive educational simulations. The content of

the teaching and learning affordances, which emerged through the Discussion in

Chapter 8, may or may not be transferable to other settings. The concepts are,

however, transferable. All teaching and learning environments are framed by the

affordances of technology use and their interrelationship (see Figure 8.4).

Dependability in qualitative research corresponds to the quantitative concept of

reliability. It is concerned with how the study has been conducted and if it can be

replicated. Patton (2002) described it as being “a systematic process systematically


followed” (p. 546). The research design of this study has been documented with care

(in this chapter) to enable others to repeat the study. The findings, however, emerge

from the collated data and would be unique to each set of participants. Similarly, the

identification of themes is a result of the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity.

Therefore, while the study could be replicated, it is unlikely that the same outcomes

will be achieved.

Confirmability in qualitative research corresponds to objectivity in quantitative

research. It is premised on the idea that research is never objective (Morrow, 2005)

and care must be taken to ensure that the findings are “an outcome of the

participants’ responses and not the researchers’ biases” (Treharne & Riggs, 2015, p.

58). Through an approach which is similar to that adopted to achieve dependability,

care was taken in this study to reduce bias and manage subjectivity. Triangulation,

that is “capturing and respective multiple perspectives” (Patton, 2002, p. 546), was

used to ensure confirmability. In this study, triangulation is made possible through

the use of two data sources: survey and interviews.

5.5 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted with the approval of the QUT Ethics Committee (1500000814).

The study was designed to create a distance between the researcher and the University of

Queensland’s International Education Services (IES) Limited who developed and who

market the simulation. The focus was, therefore, on pedagogical practice rather than an

evaluation of the simulation.

Distance was also brought to the selection of participants so as not to compromise

their relationship with the researcher or peers. Surveys were anonymous, and no details of

employing schools were sought or collected. This removed any risk of identification. The

interview participants self-selected for the interview and their identities became known to the

researcher. These participants were de-identified in the thesis through the use of pseudonyms

and the withholding of any details which could identify the name and location of the schools

where they were employed.

No students were interviewed or observed in this study. No student artefacts were

collected or reviewed. Any reference to students is incidental and is phrased in terms of

teacher perceptions or reports of student behaviour, particularly in terms of levels of

engagement.

Level One (low risk) research involves human research with no significant risk or

ethical issues (before the implementation of any risk management strategies associated with

the research design). The surveys and one-to-one interviews adopted in this study addressed


non-sensitive matters. This study was designated as Level One research with no significant

risks or ethical issues.

5.6 Chapter summary

This chapter outlined the research methodology and discussed the research design of the

study. Adopting a qualitative paradigm, the study enlisted a Grounded Theory methodology

which employed the data collection tools of surveys and one-to-one interview to gather

empirical data. The data analysis incorporated both content analysis and thematic analysis to

examine the participant’s interpretation of their own pedagogy when delivering the

Economics and Business curriculum with PierSim Business Island Simulation as an aid. The

discussion and conclusion from the results of the empirical data can be accessed in later

chapters.

Chapter 6: Findings - Survey 105

Chapter 6: Findings - Survey

This chapter reports on the findings of the research organised by the first data collection

instrument used for this study, namely, the online survey (see Section 5.3.1, Appendix C).

The findings of the second data collection, namely, the one-to-one interviews are presented

in Chapter 7.

The online survey was made available for three weeks during June 2016. It

comprised of open and closed items selected to gather data “describing the nature of existing

conditions or identifying standards against which existing conditions can be compared or

determining the relationships that exist between specific events” (Cohen, Manion &

Morrison, 2007, p. 205). The following subsections (Sections 6.1 - 6.8) addresses each of the

eight survey items in turn. This chapter ends with a detailed summary of the findings which

responds to the stated purposes for the survey, including the development of teacher profiles

(Section 6.9).

6.1 Online Survey: Item 1

Item 1 of the online survey asked: How long (in years) have you been teaching Economics

and Business (or related subject areas)? The participants (n=15) reported a range of

experience from 1 – 35 years in the teaching area of Economics and Business (see Section

5.2.2). Their experience is summarised (in 5-year bands) in Table 6.1. Full details may be

found in Table 5.1.

106 Chapter 6: Findings - Survey

Table 6.1

Summary of participants’ experience in teaching Economics and Business (n=15)

Year/s teaching Economics

and Business

Participants

n (%)

Respondent(s)

R#

1-5 5 (33.33%) R21, R3, R7, R11, R14

6-10 4 (26.67%) R11, R10, R13, R151

11-15 2 (13.33%) R6, R91

16-20 - -

21-25 2 (13.33%) R81, R12

26-30 - -

31-35 2 (13.33%) R41, R5

Note to Table 6.1:


Because of the recency of the development and piloting of the PierSim Business

Simulation (see Section 1.1), those with 1-5 years’ teaching experience (Respondents 2, 3, 7,

11, 14) could be presumed to have only taught Economics and Business through the

simulation. Respondents 4, 5, 8 and 12, with more than 20 years’ experience, are likely to

have had extensive experience in teaching through more traditional means such as teacher-

led instruction guided by textbooks and, in some instances, governed by external

examinations. It could be contended that the more experienced teachers would have begun

teaching in classrooms without technology or which made only limited use of productive

software, such as spreadsheets or accounting packages. Those self-nominating for interviews

represented a range of experience of teaching Economics and Business with at least one

interview subject in each of the five representative five-year bands.


Item 2 of the online survey asked: “How long have you been using the PierSim Business

Island Simulation?” As noted previously, respondents were asked to select one of three

possible responses: Less than or equal to 1 year (<=1 year); More than 1 but less than 2 years

(>1year <2years); and, More than 2 years (>2years). This length of experience is

summarised in Table 6.2.


Table 6.2

Summary of participants’ experience in using PierSim Business Island Simulation to teach

Economics and Business

Year/s experience # Participants Respondents

n (%) R#

<=1 year 5 (33.33%) R3, R6, R7, R10, R11

>1year <2years 8 (53.33%) R11, R21, R41, R5, R12, R13, R14, R151

>2years 2 (13.33%) R81, R91

Note to Table 6.2:


Five respondents (33.33%) reported having less than one years’ experience in

teaching Economics and Business within and through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. The majority of the respondents (n=8, 53.33%), however, had up to two years’

experience. Cumulatively, 13 of the 15 survey respondents (86.67%) had less than 2 years’

experience with the simulation. Only two survey respondents (13.33%), Respondents 8 and

9, reported having more than two years’ experience.

The most experienced respondents self-identified to take part in a one-to-one

interview (Respondents 8 and 9). All others, namely Respondents 1, 2, 4, and 15) had

between 1 and 2 years’ experience with the PierSim Business Island simulation. None of

those with less than 1 year’s experience volunteered to be interviewed.

There was no common pattern of experience, that is, individuals with either limited

or extended experience in both teaching and years of experience with the simulation. The

exception was Respondent 11 who had been teaching for three years (Table 5.1) and who

had only 1 years’ experience with the simulation. The respondents who had been teaching

for the longest periods, namely Respondent 4 (33 years) and Respondent 5 (35 years), both

had more than 1 but less than 2 years’ experience with the simulation. The most experienced

in both teaching and with the simulation (more than 2 years) were Respondent 8 (25 years)

and Respondent 9 (15 years).


Item 3 of the online survey was an open question which asked: “What do you think

(generally) is the role of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the teaching

of Economics and Business?” Respondents provided a paragraph in which they described

their own belief of the role of ICT in this particular subject-specific curriculum area. The 15


responses to Item 3 were converted to 35 discrete statements. These were treated as elicited

texts (Charmaz, 2006) and were coded to identify underlying beliefs about teaching within

and through digital technologies. This survey item informed the responses to both Research

Questions 1 and 3 (see Sections 8.1 and 8.3).

The responses revealed a belief that ICT fulfilled roles in the teaching of Economics

and Business which included: (i) Authenticity (evident through references to currency and

real-world activities (n=14, 42.42%); (ii) Redefinition (n=12, 36.36%); (iii) Engagement

(n=6, 18.18%); and, (iv) Support (n=1, 3.03%) (see Table 6.3). Two statements were not

coded as they offered generic definitions of ICT in teaching and learning rather than

specifying a role, for example, “ICT is any form of technological communication devices”

[Respondent 7]. Within the valid data (n=33) and within each coded category were some

statements which indicated a negative case or an obseletism (n=7, 21.21%). A negative case

is defined in Grounded Theory as instances where participants “have not responded in the

anticipated way, or who have opposite reactions to the majority to a particular phenomenon”

(Morse, 2007, p. 11). The most common negative case noted in response to Item 3 was

obsoletism, that is, comments that were out of date and/or did not fit with current policy,

professional or curriculum demands (See Chapter 3). Negative cases are not discarded but

are, rather, integrated into the emerging theory. The negative cases identified in response to

this item are described within the identified themes, namely, authenticity, redefinition,

engagement and support.

Table 6.3

Thematic coding of statements in response to Item 3 (n=33)

Authenticity Redefinition Engagement Support

Valid Responses

(n=26, 80%)

12 9 5 0

Negative Cases

(n=7, 20%)

2 3 1 1

Total 14 12 6 1

% (42.42%) (36.36%) (18.18%) (3.03%)

6.3.1 Authenticity

The majority of Item 3 statements were categorised as “authenticity” (n=14, 42.42%). They

related to or specifically referred to currency with business operations and real-world

contexts, for example:


(a) currency – for example, “make connections to current industry practice” [Respondent

15], and “to maintain current information about the ever-changing world of business”

[Respondent 2].

(b) real-world, for example:

Provide opportunities for students to engage with real-world context [Respondent 1]

In the specific case of PierSim, I believe that is an essential way to link business

theory with the real-world [Respondent 3]

To provide resources and worked examples of how the business knowledge students

study relates to the real-world contexts of successfully operating and managing the

business environment external to the classroom [Respondent 14].

This means that the respondents believed that using the simulation afforded real-

world learning experiences for students. Two of the statements relating to authenticity (n=14,

14.29%), however, were atypical and were coded as negative cases. One respondent, in line

with other negative comments made through the survey, observed that the students “found it

difficult to bring the context back to real-world” [Respondent 5] (see Section 6.9.1). This is

contrary to the majority of other respondents who indicated that ICT in general and the

PierSim simulation in particular allowed a strong and clear connection to authentic learning

experiences. The other atypical response, perhaps in describing the nature and purpose of

simulations, ambiguously offered that “students are able to use programs within the course

without damaging essential information in a business” [Respondent 6].

6.3.2 Redefinition

Twelve responses to Item 3 (36.36%) related to redefinition, as defined in the SAMR model

(Puentedura, 2006) (see Section 4.4, Figure 4.4). The term “redefinition” relates to activities

that would not be possible without digital technology and acknowledges the affordances

(qualities and characteristics) that digital technology brings to teaching and learning and

which afford unique opportunities. Relevant statements, which generally alluded to

educational simulations, include:

Provide opportunities … [which] cannot be easily mimicked by discussions or

completing worksheets. [Respondent 1]

Provide real-world opportunities … that cannot be easily understood by routine

activities such as class discussion or completing worksheets. [Respondent 3]

ICT should be embedded into the Economics and Business curriculum to allow students

to investigate and evaluate the theories of Business and Economics in an environment

that allows them to explore, without risk. [Respondent 1]

There were three negative cases (n=3, 25%) relating to redefinition. Respondent 3

offered that “it [ICT] is an ideal application for the classroom environment as it allows


students to interact/learn with minimum disruption to the timetable.” This implies an

efficiency for digital technologies which relates to pragmatic considerations, namely,

disruption to the timetable. This excludes any cognitive or social advantages in using digital

technology in supporting teaching and learning.

Respondent 9’s response presented a negative case, that is, as an obsolete view of the

affordances of technology in education:

It [ICT] is also used to help teach certain technology skills for assessment e.g., Year 8

taught word processing skills such as header/footer, auto table of contents,

citations/bibliography etc. for report writing. [Respondent 9]

Respondent 9’s response can be seen to offer a low-level functional role for digital

technologies in teaching and learning. The notion of obsoletism comes from Harmes et al.’s

(2016) observation that “the innovative technological tools of one generation become the

conventional tools, and eventually the obsoletisms of succeeding generations” (p. 138). The

statement loosely fits with the organisational element of the ICT Capability relating to

Managing and operating ICT (Figure 1.3) and refers specifically to word processing. In this,

it aligns more with the Substitution level of the SAMR framework (Puentedura, 2006) and

the lower level of Peeraer and Van Petegem’s (2016) model, namely, where educators use

ICT to replace traditional teaching. In the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) (see

Appendix B), this use is “Active” at the “Adoption” level meaning that the technology is

used in conventional, procedural ways.

Respondent 10 offered that “I believe that Technology should be a tool used as a

platform to impart information about content.” This response, with a capitalised

Technology, refers to “a platform to impart information” which places the learner (and the

learning) in a passive relationship with the technology rather than the direction from the aims

of the ICT Capability (contextualised in Economics and Business) to access and use digital

technologies as an investigative and creative tool. It is more in line with the Augmentation

stage of the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006) where the technology again directly replaces a

conventional tool although some level of improvement is present. If mapped to the TIM, it

would be “Constructive” at the “Entry” level in which information is passively received as

indicated by the use of the word “impart.”

The negative cases offered in response to Item 3 collectively ignored the more

expansive aspects of the curriculum definition of the role of the ICT General Capability. For

example, and as noted in Section 3.3.1, it refers to students “adapting to new ways of doing

things as technologies evolve” (ACARA, n.d.-c, para. 1) and “transform[ing] the ways that

… [they] think and learn and give them greater control over how, where and when they

learn” (ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 1).


6.3.3 Engagement

Six responses to Item 3 (18.18%) explicitly referred to student engagement. One made a

simple statement such as “it creates a platform for engaging the students” [Respondent 7]

while another applied engagement to the learning experiences made possible through the use

of digital technologies [Respondent 15]. Others implied that digital technologies were

inherently engaging for their students and related to contemporary use of and interest in

technology, for example:

Students love to engage with digital devices and are inspired to learn well in a

competitive environment. ICT's have the capability to provide that stimulating

environment. [Respondent 14]

These students prefer using technology. [Respondent 2]

Using technology engages students of today. [Respondent 1]

The single response identified as a negative case referred to boredom, that is, the

opposite of engagement. Respondent 5 offered that “there is some merit in the program, but

generally the students got a little bored with it” (see Section 6.9.1). This statement also limits

the idea of “engagement” to being entertained or interested (antonym of boredom) rather

than cognitive engagement with the content or processes of the discipline area. It also

ignores the notion of social engagement implicit in the collaborative aspects of the

simulation.

6.3.4 Support

The one response coded as a “support” warrants attention as a negative case. Respondent 9

offered that: It [ICT] is a supporting or ancillary role that can be effectively employed by the

teacher in the classroom. The qualifying words “supporting” and “ancillary” imply an

additional role for ICT rather than its being “critical to the support of the learning

environment” (Integration stage). It is best mapped against the LoTi (Levels of Technology

Integration) model (see Section 4.4) at the Awareness (Level 1) where technology is

interpreted as a set of tools to achieve given outcomes.

6.3.5 Summary of responses to Item 3

Item 3 asked survey respondents what they believed the role of ICT (Information and

Communication Technology) in the teaching of Economics and Business. The responses

were expected to align to curriculum descriptions (see Section 3.3.2). What was offered

instead was generic and related to broader adoption of digital technologies in teaching and

learning.


The themes which emerged through the analysis of Item 3 were: Authenticity;

Redefinition; Engagement; and Support. Negative cases (n=7, 20%) were reported in each of

the themes. Figure 6.1 begins a mapping of the themes which emerged from those survey

items which cumulatively represent the affordances of digital technology in teaching and

learning, namely, Items 3, 4 and 7.

Figure 6.1. Themes from Item 3.

This mapping continues into Figure 6.2 (Item 4) and Figure 6.3 (Item 7). The completed map

is shown in Figure 6.5.


Item 4 of the online survey: “What do you see as the main purpose of the PierSim Business

Island Simulation?” was designed to inform Research Question 4 (Sections 1.2, 5.1). The

survey respondents indicated that the main purposes were: immersive, engaging, interactive,

collaborative, authentic, experiential, consolidating, and curricular.

6.4.1 Immersive

Immersive, here meaning enabling students to participate fully in the virtual world’s business

trading environment, was indicated by the comment: “A comprehensive and exciting

program that immerses students into a real-life context of the business world” [Respondent

1]. This was also supported by the comment:

I consider PierSim to fit the purpose of a practical way to reinforce and consolidate

the concepts of entrepreneurship, marketing, some understanding of finance and

production, in a simulated environment where risk is minimal. [Respondent 4]


Seven participants (Respondents 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 14) made explicit reference to

immersive/ immersion in their responses which indicates teachers’ awareness of the potential

implications of incorporating immersive educational simulations in order to teach Economics

and Business concepts and principles.

6.4.2 Engaging

Engaging, here meaning allowing the students to become fully involved in the learning of

the curriculum, was indicated by the comment:

… to provide students the opportunity to run a business in an easily accessible

format. They can take on several key business roles and develop in- and out-worlds

resources that drive their interest. [Respondent 14]

Five (Respondents 1, 3, 8, 14 and 15) made reference to engaging in their responses

which indicates teachers’ belief in providing a participative learning environment which

encourages students to be actively involved in the key business decision-making and

strategic planning of their businesses. This reflects the finding from Item 3 where

engagement was noted as a role of ICT in the teaching of Economics and Business in six

responses (17.14%).

6.4.3 Interactive

Interactive, here meaning students experience how their business decisions are directly

influencing the virtual trading environment, was indicated by the comment:

It [PierSim Business Island Simulation] provides an interactive platform that allows

the student to engage in a participative forum in which they are encouraged by the

nature of the competition, to implement and assess the merits of key business

decisions and strategies. [Respondent 8]

This was also supported by the comment: “to allow the students to practise business related

interactions in a virtual/real-life context which will prepare them for the real-world”

[Respondent 11].

Eight participants (Respondents 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14) made reference to

interactive in their responses which indicates teachers’ pursuit of exploring ICTs to support

students experiencing learning experiences which practically demonstrate the implications of

students’ business decision-making.

6.4.4 Collaborative

Collaborative, here meaning the capacity for students to work together to solve common

problems. Two participants (Respondents 3 and 8) made specific reference to collaboration

in their responses which indicates teachers’ belief of facilitating team interaction and


encouraging the development of interpersonal skills necessary for interacting in Economics

and Business environments.

6.4.5 Authentic

Authentic, here meaning a representation of what happens in the real-world of business, was

indicated by the comment: “It gives students the opportunity to experience a number of roles

in business such as CEO, CFO, COO and CMO” [Respondent 2]. The participants’ belief in

learning activities as being authentic was also evident in their responses to Item 3 (see

Section 6.3.1). Twelve participants made specific reference to authenticity in their responses which

indicates teachers’ belief of pursuing learning experiences that provide a real-world element

to teaching Economics and Business concepts and practices.

6.4.6 Experiential

Experiential, here meaning allowing the students the opportunity to experience running their

own business, was indicated by the comment:

To provide as real an environment as possible that is simulated and controlled by

the teacher to provide students the opportunity to run a business in an easily

accessible format. [Respondent 14] This was also supported by the comment: “The program when integrated with clear

aims and goals will provide students with very good information and grounding for

conducting a business” [Respondent 6].

To enhance its experiential affordances, the PierSim Business Island Simulation

gives the teacher control over the business environment by modifying the economic

conditions such as market crashes, increasing interest rates, instigating a recession,

introducing a world epidemic with a following effect on the economy.

Five participants (Respondents 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14) made reference to experiential in

their responses which indicates teachers’ belief of providing learning environment which

enables students to genuinely experience establishing and operating a business.

6.4.7 Consolidating

Consolidating, here meaning a traditional teaching process of repetition to achieve

understanding, was indicated by the comment:

It can be used in class over and over to emphasise key points or areas (e.g.

marketing, finance, management) and should be utilised in addition to content

resources to help explain the processes. [Respondent 10]


Four participants (Respondents 4, 9, 10 and 11) made specific reference to

consolidation in their responses which indicates teachers’ belief of providing learning

experiences where students can practise business-related interactions to consolidate the

students’ understanding of the Economics and Business concepts.

6.4.8 Curricular

Curricular, here referring specifically to the Australian Curriculum: Economics and

Business. This was evidenced by the statement that:

PierSim Business Island Simulation provides an opportunity to create a significant

learning experience, to develop skills relating to the economy, and relating to business

and management principles as the user operates a business in the “virtual world.”

[Respondent 7].

6.4.9 Summary of Item 4

Item 4 of asked survey respondents what they believed to be the main purpose of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation. The main purposes which emerged from the data are:

immersive, engaging, interactive, collaborative, authentic, experiential, consolidating, and

curricular. These are represented in Figure 6.2 adding to themes previously identified in the

analysis of Item 3.

Figure 6.2. Themes from Items 3 and 4.


Item 5 of the online survey: “3-D immersive simulations such as the PierSim Business Island

Simulation have been described as disruptive. Do you agree with this statement? Please


offer a reason for your answer.” sought to explore whether and how the PierSim Business

Simulation might/can disrupt the traditional practices of teaching and learning (Conole,

2013; Conole et al., 2008; Godwin-Jones, 2005; Psotka, 2013) within the Economics and

Business curriculum area. Disruptive technologies, as understood in this study (see Section

4.2.2), frequently displace established practices or make them obsolete (Bower &

Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; Kilkkia et al., 2018). As noted previously, they are

characterised by: radical novelty, relatively fast growth, coherence, prominent impact,

uncertainty and ambiguity (Li, Porter & Suominen, 2017). The findings from this item

informed the response to Research Question 2 (see Section 8.2).

Respondents 1, 4, 13, 14 and 15 (n=5, 33.33%) agreed that the PierSim Business

Island Simulation can be described as “disruptive.” Respondent 13 offered the following as a

reason for agreement:

Agreed —in that disruptive technologies are those that change the way that learning

occurs. Evidence suggests that students who experience a 3-D immersive simulation

as a learning tool are more highly engaged with learning than traditional pedagogy.

Hence, it is likely that PierSim Business Island Simulation is the tip of the iceberg

for a new set of 21st century teaching approaches. It is disruptive as it represents a

break from traditional modes of delivery of information and skills [Respondent 13].

Another, Respondent 14, offered that:

PierSim can disrupt traditional methods of teaching business, where the teacher is

the source of all information and can lead students through strategic management.

This environment turns learning around, where students can teach their teachers

how to respond to business challenges. … it is an exciting and enjoyable process

where the students reflect heavily on what they did and what they could do better.

Within these two passages are useful descriptors of how the simulation “disrupts”

teaching and learning. In the first, Respondent 13 suggests that it “represents a break from

traditional modes of delivery of information and skills” while, in the second, Respondent 14

offers that it disrupts the role of the teacher as “the source of all information and can lead

students through strategic management.” These responses inform the findings in regard to

Research Question 2. They also indicate significant changes in the citing respondents’ beliefs

about the use of technology in teaching and learning and positions them on the Teacher

Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002, p. 8) above the “Critical Use

Border,” that is, at the Integration or Transformation levels (see Section 4.4, Figures 4.4,

4.5).

The remaining 10 participants (66.66%), that is, the majority misunderstood the

concept of “disruptive.” Their responses indicated that they believed “disruptive” to be


negative related to a disruption of classroom routine or off-task behaviour with two specific

references to noise (Respondents 1, 2).

Disruption in these responses was typically interpreted as being the product of

technical difficulties. For example, Respondent 5 disagreed by defensively offering that: “I

have not found this the case. The only time it is disruptive, is when we have technical

difficulties and cannot continue with the lesson plan” [Respondent 5]. Respondent 9 also

alluded to the notion of disruption caused by technical difficulties by stating that:

I wouldn’t say “disruptive” but it has caused delay and frustration in the classroom

when the technology does not work or the functions are not fully activated. It can be

a good tool! But it is a tool that needs to be used appropriately in the correct

context.

Respondent 8 also seemed to miss the pedagogical goals of the simulation by

referring to it as a “game”:

I don’t necessarily agree that it is “disruptive.” In my experience, the students very

quickly master the technical aspects required to participate in the game and should

therefore be able to use their ICT skills to explore the essential business components

inherent in the scenarios. If used correctly it should complement the teaching and

learning environment and not disrupt from the core agenda.

Here Respondent 8 has inadvertently revealed a focus on technical or operating skills

referring to students be able “to use their ICT skills.” The comment also referred to the

simulation as a “complement” to teaching and learning. This is comparable to Respondent

5’s description of the role of ICT as “supporting” and “ancillary” (Item 3, Section 6.3.4). The

negative cases in the responses to Item 5 collectively indicate a position on the Teacher

Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002, p. 8) below the “Critical

Use Border.”

Further, were references in the Item 5 responses to “correct” and “appropriate” use.

These were offered as cautionary remarks and may indicate a lack of conviction or belief in

the pedagogical goal of the simulation. The game-like 3-D environment of the simulation

appears to raise concerns about the value of the learning or the focus on curriculum content.

The responses to this item indicate another kind of disruption, that is, to the respondents as

teachers used to a non-technological learning environment or one in which they taught with

(rather than within) and about (rather than through) the technology.


Item 6 of the online survey asked participants to provide their opinion on seven statements

(6a-6g) using the 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” (SD) and 5 being


“strongly agree” (SA) (see Appendix D (Tables D1 and D2) for a reporting of participant

responses). The statements are:

(a) I am comfortable with the technical aspects of the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

(b) I am comfortable in navigating through 3-D virtual spaces.

(c) I am able to explain Economics and Business concepts and map these to the PierSim


(d) I enjoy teaching Economics and Business through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation.

(e) I am aware of ICT as a General Capability and its organising elements within the

Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business.

(f) I think that teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation represents a more

efficient way of teaching Economics and Business.

(g) I am concerned with the workload implications of teaching with the PierSim Business

Island Simulation.

This item sought feedback on a wide range of aspects relating to practice. In this, it

was intended to inform the responses to all research questions. Tables detailing all responses

to Item 6 can be found in Appendix D. The following addresses the responses by statements

(6a-6g) or groups of statements.

The first two statements (6a and 6b) were concerned with the technical aspects of

operating the simulation. They relate specifically to the Technological Knowledge (TK) of

the TPACK Framework (Chai et al.; Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

The responses to Statements (a) and (b) are presented in Table 6.4.


Table 6.4

Participant responses to Items 6a and 6b

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

SD D N A SA

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

(a) I am comfortable

with the technical

aspects of the

PierSim Business

Island

Simulation.

-

2

(13.33%)

1

(6.67%)

10

(66.67%)

2

(13.33%)

(b) I am comfortable

in navigating

through 3-D

virtual spaces.

-

1

(6.67%)

-

12

(80.00%)

2

(13.33%)

Two respondents (Respondents 3 and 15) indicated a high level of comfort (Strongly

Agree) in the “technical aspects of the PierSim Business Island Simulation” (6a). Another

two respondents (Respondents 4 and 6) similarly indicated a high level of comfort in

“navigating through 3-D virtual spaces” (6b). There were no instances of a respondent

recording strong agreement with both Statement 6a and 6b.

The majority of responses indicated “comfort” (Agree) with Statement 6a (n=10,

66.67%) and Statement 6b (n=12, 80%). However, despite involvement in the pilot with its

additional training and support, two respondents (Respondents 5 and 7) indicated a lack of

“comfort” with the technical aspects of the simulation. Respondent 5 also disagreed with

being “comfortable” in navigating through 3-D virtual spaces while, perhaps surprisingly,

Respondent 7 agreed with this statement. These responses inform Research Question 2 in

that a lack of technical knowledge might represent a challenge or disruption to teachers

adopting immersive educational simulations and Research Question 4 in a discussion of the

teacher adoption of digital technology. Of particular interest, is Respondent 5 who uniquely

“disagreed” with both statements relating to “comfort” in Technological Knowledge.


The third statement (6c) was concerned with Technological Content Knowledge

(TCK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). The majority agreed (n=12, 80%)

or strongly agreed (n=2, 13.33%) with the statement. Only one respondent disagreed with the

statement (Respondent 5). The overall response to this statement was similar to that offered

for the previous statements indicating a connection between these knowledges and

suggesting that technical knowledge, or confidence in one’s knowledge, is a necessary

condition for the application of technology to pedagogy.

The fourth statement (6d) asked about the respondent’s enjoyment in teaching

through the PierSim Business Island Simulation. “Enjoyment” is here seen as a simple

measure of the respondent’s acceptance of the introduction of the disruptive technology into

their teaching practice and, more broadly, of the use of digital technologies in the teaching of

their shared discipline area. The outcomes here showed a wider spread of responses than for

Items 6a, 6b and 6c. More respondents (n=5, 33.33%) indicated strong agreement for this

item than for the previous items but fewer (n=6, 40%) indicated agreement. Of further

interest is that more respondents indicated a neutral position (n=2, 13.33%) or disagreed

(n=2, 13.33%) than for the previous items. Those who disagreed were Respondents 5 and 7,

both of whom had indicated a lack of comfort/confidence with the simulation (Statement 6a).

The fifth statement (6e) was concerned with respondent’s knowledge of ICT as a

General Capability within the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business. This

aligns with the TPACK Framework particularly “Pedagogical” (PK) and “Content”

Knowledge (CK). All respondents indicated their awareness with seven indicating agreement

(46.67%) and eight indicating strong agreement (53.33%). This was a measure of the

curricular demands included in the Conceptual Framework for this study (see Section 1.3,

Figure 1.1).

The sixth statement (6f) asked if the respondents believed that the simulation

represented “a more efficient way of teaching Economics and Business.” Efficiency here

means effective in time taken to explain and understand particular concepts, and to provide

concise explanations and convincing examples of a concept (Maddux & Johnson, 2005). Ten

respondents (66.66%) indicated agreement with the statement with only one (Respondent 6)

indicating a strong agreement. Three were neutral (Respondents 7, 10 and 13) while two

(Respondents 5 and 10) indicated disagreement. Respondent 10 had also been “neutral” in

response to the enjoyment of teaching through the simulation (Statement 6d).

The seventh and final statement (6g) explored the participants’ more practical

concerns for how technology impacts on their teaching practice, namely workload issues

(Butler & Sellbom, 2002). The majority (n=7, 46.67%) offered a neutral response and no one


either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. An equal number (n=4,

26.67%) indicated that they agreed or disagreed with the statement. There was greater

disagreement or indecision about this statement than any of the others.

Overall, the responses to the statements in Item 6 indicate some reservation in the

adoption of the technology into the teaching of Economics and Business. While there was

agreement in the majority of items, “strong agreement” was rare and most items were met

with some neutral responses and some disagreement. Based on the responses to this item,

three respondents were chosen as the subjects of more detailed profiles (Section 6.9.1).

These act as a summary to the survey findings and will inform the responses to the research

questions, particularly Research Question 4 (see Section 8.4).


Item 7 was drawn from Attewell’s (2004) study in which teachers were asked to reflect on

their beliefs towards the effectiveness of ICT in enhancing the learning outcomes. The

participants in this study were asked to comment on these findings in the context of the

PierSim Business Island Simulation. They were also asked to provide a brief explanation or

an example to further clarify their choice. All but one respondent offered an explanation. The

item had a similar intent to Items 3 and 4 which respectively asked about the potential roles

and purposes of teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island simulation. This

survey item was intended to inform the response to Research Questions 1 and 3 (see Sections

8.1 and 8.3).

The statements were: (i) improve students’ literacy and numeracy; (ii) allow students

to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses during the learning process; (iii) participate

in both independent and collaborative learning activities; and (iv) enable students to remain

focussed for longer periods of time (Attewell, 2004). Respondents could select any, some, all

or none of the prescribed statements. The majority of respondents chose one statement (n=5,

33.33%) with four choosing two (26.67%), two choosing three (13.33%) and a further four

choosing all four statements (26.67%). Table 6.5 presents a tally of the responses. The

following text draws on the accompanying explanations offered by participants.


Table 6.5

Summary of participants’ beliefs as to which of the following is an outcome of the PierSim


Item Outcome Participants

n (%)

(i) improve students’ literacy and numeracy 4 (26.67%)

(ii) allow students to recognise their own strengths and

weaknesses

9 (60.00%)

(iii) participate in both independent and collaborative learning

activities

14 (93.33%)

(iv) enable students to remain focussed for longer periods of

time

8 (53.33%)

Almost all participants (n=14, 93.33%) selected “participate in both independent and

collaborative learning activities” as a benefit of the PierSim Business Island Simulation. This

was not surprising as many participants have referred to collaboration as one of the

program’s strengths (see responses from Survey Item 4). Respondent 14 explained the

selection as follows:

The strongest advantage of PierSim is its ability to allow both independent and

collaborative learning to occur. However, best results are obtained with there is

facilitation through external activities both before and after the interactive event.

Students are naturally more engaged with ICTs. Small groups allow the ability of

brainstorming of ideas, concepts, etc., and provides a safety net for students who

recognise the weaknesses in their own learning. Problems can occur when the roles

are not designated effectively or evenly, but this problem can occur in any group-

based learning activity [Respondent 4].

Nine respondents (60%) also believed that the PierSim Business Island Simulation

“allowed students to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses.” This was reinforced by

the comment: “the system provides students with the ability to work to their strengths as

members of a group and business. It encourages them to interact with the entire class and

provide opportunities to develop business and marketing plans” [Respondent 6]. Respondent

13 reflected that “students can see the consequences of their decision making and reflect on

how they could have improved their decision-making processes.”


Eight participants (53.33%) supported the idea that the PierSim simulation “enables

students to remain focussed for longer periods of time.” This is evidenced by the comment

that: “students want to engage with each other in this environment, so it is hard to get them

to move on to new activities - they want more time in this environment” [Respondent 13].

Respondent 9 also stated that “as it is in groups and not the normal classroom teaching

environment, the students do seem to remain generally more focussed and will engage in the

activity for longer periods than if it was another individual paper-based task.” Of interest is

Respondent 14’s additional statement that: “students learn skills from each other and advise

each other on the best approach for the next round which provides independent and

collaborative learning opportunities. They are focussed and engaged for the duration of a

round which is much longer than reading a document and completing a worksheet on it.”

This statement combines beliefs in the value of collaboration and engagement.

Only four participants (26.67%) indicated that they believed the PierSim Business

Island Simulation “improved students’ literacy and numeracy.” This was illustrated by the

statement that: “by the very nature of the program and the self-direction that is required for it

to work, students must engage their literacy and numeracy skills. When they are engaged

with these skills, they improve” [Respondent 14].

As noted, 14 of the 15 survey respondents offered additional statements in response

to Item 7 also reveal the perceived affordances of teaching within and through PierSim

Business Island simulation. These were expanded to 25 discrete statements, some of which

have been cited thus far in this section. When coded, seven themes emerged. These, in

descending order, were: collaborative (n=9, 36%); engaging (n=6, 24%); experiential (n=4,

16%); constructive (n=2, 8%); reflective (n=2, 8%); intentional (n=1, 4%); and, interactive

(n=1, 4%). The following offers a description of these responses.

6.7.1 Collaborative

The majority of the statements offered in support of Item 7 were categorised as

“collaborative” (n=9, 36%). This reflected the parallel majority of participants’ selecting

“participate in both independent and collaborative learning activities” as the statement most

in keeping with their belief of the outcomes and benefits of using PierSim Business Island

(see Table 6.5). In addition to the previously cited statement from Respondent 4, other

“collaborative” statements of note are:

The design of PierSim allows students to collaboratively work in their assigned

groups in order to achieve the desired outcomes. [Respondent 15]

Working through a simulated environment and the necessity to work collaboratively

in a competitive arena. [Respondent 8]


PierSim is a platform that students can approach independently and collaboratively

as they navigate their “in world” and “out world” lives. [Respondent 7]

The potential for collaboration is an affordance of teaching within and through

digital technology. The “collaborative” statements offered in response to Item 7 are complex

in their encompassing some of the characteristics of meaningful learning (Jonassen, 1990;

Jonassen et al., 2003) (Section 1.6.2). For example, the first statement cited in this section,

from Respondent 15, adds an “intentional” characteristic in its reference to “assigned

groups” and “desired outcomes.” The second statement, from Respondent 8, adds the

characteristic of “authenticity” through its reference to Economics and Business as a

“competitive” endeavour. The third statement, from Respondent 7, makes reference to “in”

and “out” worlds of the PierSim Business Island simulation (see Chapter 2) which makes a

connection to the “immersive” nature of the simulation.

6.7.2 Engaging

The second most commonly noted characteristic was “engaging” (n=6, 24%). This was also

noted in the responses to Items 3 and 4. Respondent 4 suggested that “students are naturally

more engaged with ICTs.” This is the similar to the statements offered in response to Item 3

which implied that students enjoyed using technologies in their learning.

Two other aspects of engagement were noted in the responses to Item 7. The first

relates to the length or sustaining of engagement beyond initial novelty. In this, Respondent

14 offered that:

They [the students] are focused and engaged for the duration of a round which is

much longer than reading a document and completing a worksheet on it

[Respondent 14].

This is aligned to the finding that over half of the respondents (n=8, 53.53%) agreed to the

statement “enable students to remain focussed for longer periods of time” (Table 6.5).

The second relates to the potential for engagement beyond the classroom. The

‘anytime anywhere’ access is an affordance of online learning which was rarely mentioned

by respondents in the survey. Respondent 13 has aligned this affordance to engagement by

offering that:

Being an online environment allows students to engage with the material beyond the

classroom contact time and meet online with their class students [Respondent 13].


6.7.3 Experiential

Experiential learning was noted in the analysis of responses to Item 4 (see Section 6.4). Four

“experiential” statements (16%) were noted in the responses to Item 7. For example,

Respondent 2 offered that:

PierSim is a dynamic learning environment that employs the latest technologies to

activate students’ higher order thinking skills thus improving their ability to apply

learnt theory to real-world practice.

6.7.4 Constructive

Constructive learning is here understood to be “where students connect new experiences and

observations with prior knowledge and understanding” (Harmes et al., 2016). For example,

Respondent 12 offered that:

These are skills that should be transferrable across different areas of, not only the

business world, but in everyday life.

This is deemed to be constructive because of its inherent building of knowledge and

understanding between differing contexts.

6.7.5 Reflective

The responses to Item 7, unlike other survey items, noted references to reflection (n=2, 8%).

It introduces another affordance of using the simulation in teaching and learning.

Respondents offered the following:

[the simulation] often provides students new insights into their own capabilities and

shortcomings. The strongest student academically does not necessarily perform as

strongly in these situations etc. [Respondent 8]

During the dynamic process that is involved when participating in a round of the

program, strengths and weaknesses in the students are soon exposed. It provides a

fantastic opportunity to learn, reflect and plan to do better in the future [Respondent

14].

6.7.6 Other characteristics

The responses to Item 7 also indicated intentional (n=1, 4%) and interactive (n=1, 4%)

characteristics. Both were noted in responses to Items 3 and 4. Examples are:

I believe it will support numeracy more than literacy. [Respondent 10, intentional]

Students are required to think for themselves and interact with other students to manage

the activities. [Respondent 11, interactive]


6.7.7 Summary of Item 7

Item 7 asked survey respondents to reflect on their beliefs towards the effectiveness of ICT

in enhancing the learning outcomes. There were two data sets from this item. The first was a

simple measure of responses to published outcomes for the use of digital technologies in

teaching and learning (based on Attewell, 2004). The second was the analysis of elicited text,

offered as open comments by the participants. This analysis identified seven characteristics

of learning.

Figure 6.3. Themes from Items 3, 4 and 7.

There are clear overlaps with the characteristics which emerged from Item 7 and

those which have emerged from the previous analysis of Items 3 and 4 (Sections 6.3 and 6.4

respectively). Their reappearance in response to Item 7 is corroboration of teachers’

commitment to them as core beliefs about teaching within and through digital technology,

particularly in the use of immersive educational simulations. This is revisited in Section

6.9.3 and in the response to Research Question 3 (see Section 8.3).


Item 8 of the online survey enabled respondents to select the statement from a list which best

resonated with their belief of the potential impact of the PierSim Business Island simulation

on the teaching and learning of Economics and Business. The statements were:

(i) I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation should not replace traditional

teaching practice;


(ii) I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation is worth investigating to explore

alternative teaching practice;

(iii) I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation effectively integrates ICT into

the existing curriculum; and

(iv) I believe that the PierSim Business Island Simulation transforms teaching and

learning practice.

Respondents could select only one of the prescribed statements. Item 8 provided

initial insight as to whether the participants believed that the simulation: replaced, changed,

integrated, enhanced or transformed teaching practice (Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012;

Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). The response to this item could also be mapped to the levels

of the “Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework” (Newhouse et al., 2002). The

participants were asked to comment on these findings in the context of the PierSim Business

Island Simulation (see Table 6.6).

Table 6.6

Summary of respondents’ selection of belief statements

Item Statement Participants

n (%)

Respondent(s)

R#

(i) the PierSim Business Island

Simulation should not replace

traditional teaching practice

1

(6.67%)

R7

(ii) the PierSim Business Island

Simulation is worth

investigating to explore

alternative teaching practice

2

(13.33%)

R5, R9

(iii)

the PierSim Business Island

Simulation effectively

integrates ICT into the existing

curriculum

5

(33.33%)

R4, R8, R10, R11, R12

(iv) the PierSim Business Island

Simulation transforms teaching

and learning practice

7

(46.67%)

R1, R2, R3, R6, R13, R14,

R15


Incorporating the PierSim Business Island Simulation into their teaching of

Economics and Business, has revealed that a majority of teachers (n=12) believed that they

have “stepped over” the “critical use border” and are using technologies to either integrate or

transform their teaching and learning practice (Newhouse et al., 2002, p. 8). These

participants have reflected that implementing this immersive educational simulation has

either: (1) become critical to the support of the learning environment and the opportunity for

students to achieve learning outcomes through the learning experiences provided; or (2) are

able to take on leadership roles (formal or informal) in the use of ICT and be

knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by themselves and others (Newhouse et al., 2002,

p. 8).

Just under half of the respondents (n=7, 46.67%) selected the statement relating to

transformation. This is corroborated by the responses to Item 5 regarding the “disruption” of

the PierSim Business Island simulation.

It is worth noting, however, that those teachers who selected either: (a) “the PierSim

Business Island Simulation should not replace traditional teaching practice”; or (b) “the

PierSim Business Island Simulation is worth investigating to explore alternative teaching

practice” were using the program for the first or second time and this could explain that these

teachers were not as confident with the program or had not been exposed to the program’s

full capabilities.

6.9 Summary of Survey Findings

As noted in Section 5.3.1, the survey had three purposes. These may be summarised as:

1. establishing a profile of the sample (see Section 6.9.1);

2. comparing reported perceptions with findings from the literature (see Section 6.9.2); and,

3. identifying the perceptions of benefits of using digital technologies in the classroom (see

Section 6.9.3).

6.9.1 Sample profiles

The details of the sample, namely, teaching experience and experience with the PierSim

Business Island simulation have been presented in detail in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. A richer

understanding of the sample, however, was gained by focussing on selected individuals.

Respondents 3, 5 and 10 offered quite distinct profiles of practice. They were identified

through their respective responses to Item 6 (see Table 6.7).


Table 6.7

Responses to Item 6 (Respondents 3, 5 and 7)

R# 6a 6b 6c 6d 6e 6f 6g

3 5 – SA 4 – A 5 – SA 5 – SA 4 – A 4 – A 2 – D

5 2 – D 2 – D 2 – D 2 – D 5 – SA 2 – D 4 – A

10 4 – A 4 – A 4 – A 3 – N 4 – A 3 – N 3 – N

Respondent 3

Respondent 3 had been teaching for five years and had less than one year’s experience with

the PierSim Business Island simulation (see Table 5.1, Section 5.2.3). Despite this relative

lack of experience, Respondent 3 registered the most positive of responses to Item 6 offering

strong agreement with three items in Item 6 (6a, 6c and 6d), agreement with a further three

items (6b, 6e and 6f) and disagreement with Statement 6g which indicates that teaching

within and through PierSim does not increase workload (Section 6.6).

Respondent 3’s response to Item 3 offered that: in the specific case of PierSim, I

believe that is an essential way to link business theory with the real-world. By describing

this role as “essential” and making an explicit link to authenticity, Respondent 3 has

demonstrated the “Integration” stage of Newhouse et al.’s (2002) Teacher Professional ICT

Attributes Framework. This stage, as noted in Section 4.4, is where the technology is critical

to the learning experiences.

Respondent 3’s written responses were complex and showed multiple aspects of

student learning. For example, Respondent 3’s response to Item 4 was:

To extend the knowledge learned in the classroom - allows for students to respond to

situations which they may not have had experience with (e.g., disaster recovery).

Can facilitate team interaction / increase interpersonal skills. Allows students of all

abilities an opportunity to engage with the curriculum. In the specific case of

PierSim, I believe that is an essential way to link business theory with the real-

world.

In a similar vein, Respondent 3’s response to Item 4 was:

To extend the knowledge learned in the classroom - allows for students to respond to

situations which they may not have had experience with (e.g., disaster recovery).

Can facilitate team interaction / increase interpersonal skills. Allows students of all

abilities an opportunity to engage with the curriculum.

The Item 4 statement offered three “purposes” of the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. These are: engaging (through explicit reference to students engaging with the


curriculum); collaborative (through the reference to team interaction); and experiential

(through reference to students responding to unfamiliar scenarios).

Respondent 3 did not agree that the PierSim simulation was disruptive (Item 5,

Section 6.5). This was supported by the comment, although it indicated a misinterpretation

of disruption, that: “No. When integrated well by the teachers I believe they are not

disruptive, they are engaging and practical.”

In response to Item 7, Respondent 3 selected two of the listed benefits. These were

consistent with beliefs expressed throughout the survey. Those selected were:

allow students to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses during the learning

process

participate in both independent and collaborative learning activities

Finally, in response to Item 8, Respondent 3 selected the most positive responses,

that is, the belief that the PierSim Business Island Simulation transforms teaching and

learning practice. Respondent 3’s beliefs and observations of students’ engagement,

interaction would position him/her at the higher levels of the teacher adoption models

presented in the literature (see Figure 4.5).

Respondent 5

Respondent 5 had the greatest teaching experience Economics and Business of all

participants, namely 35 years. Despite this, Respondent 5 had been working with PierSim

Business Island Simulation for less than two years, meaning that 33 years of his/her teaching

career had made use of traditional classroom methods.

Respondent 5 registered the most consistently negative of responses offering

disagreement with five of the seven items for Item 6 (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d. 6f) (see Table 6.7).

Despite this, a strong agreement registered in 6e indicated a high level of knowledge of the

Australian Curriculum. Respondent 5 agreed with Statement 6g indicating concern with the

workload implications of teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Respondent

5’s previously cited response to Item 3 was similarly negative:

There is some merit in the program, but generally the students got a little bored with

it and found it difficult to bring the context back to real-world.

This statement was referred to in Section 6.3.3 as a negative case because of its

negation of the engagement and authenticity noted by the majority of other participants. It

suggested a very different classroom atmosphere and learning environment to others.

Respondent 5’s response to Item 4 made reserved reference to an authentic purpose

for teaching within and through the simulation: A tool to give the students real life

experience in a pretend and safe environment. The contradiction between “real life” and

“pretend” indicates a lack of conviction (“buy-in”) to the adoption of the technology.


When seen together, Respondent 5’s comments cast the simulation as a superficial

activity removed from student learning. Despite this, the response offered in response to Item

7 referred to collaboration, namely, “students must work together to achieve outcomes and

further adopt roles where they can work in teams” while the response to Item 8 was that the

PierSim Business Island Simulation is worth investigating to explore alternative teaching

practice.

Respondent 5’s statements were, as noted by comparison with those offered by

Respondent 3, shorter in length, more conversational in tone, and less complex (in offering

single rather than multiple observations). It is beyond the scope of this study to investigate if

age or length of teaching experience might have influenced either’s beliefs and attitudes, but

they represent a difference between Respondents 3 and 5. It would be difficult to place

Respondent 5 on any of the adoption models presented in the literature review (Section 4.4,

Figure 4.5) because it is unlikely that adoption of the simulation (or other technologies)

would have been by choice or conscious decision to change teaching practice. Respondent

5’s involvement is most likely at the behest of the employing school where the decision has

been made and Respondent 5’s task becomes to resolve the use of the technology into

existing beliefs and practices.

Respondent 10

Respondent 10 had been teaching for 9 years and had less than one year’s experience with

PierSim Business Island simulation. Respondent 10 was the most cautious or non-committal

of all respondents. Neutral responses were offered to the three statements in Item 6 (6d, 6f

and 6g) which were concerned with affective responses, namely, enjoyment, efficiency and

workload concerns. The remainder of statements (6a, 6b, 6c, and 6e) were “agreed”

indicating technical competence and curriculum knowledge. Respondent 10’s response to

Item 3 covered a wide range of aspects:

I believe that Technology should be a tool used as a platform to impart information

about content but also as an interactive teaching method to replace real-world

experiences if real-world experiences are not possible, or as a practice for real-

world experiences. I believe students are increasingly looking for blended learning

where they access information to assist their learning at all times, and technology

provides a way to do this.

Respondent 10’s response to Item 4 was:

The PierSim Island is a way to utilise real life scenarios where it may not be

possible to do so. I feel it is best used as an additional tool to explore business in

real life whether through research or industry visits. It can be used in class over and


over to emphasise key points or areas (e.g. marketing, finance, management) and

should be utilised in addition to content resources to help explain the processes.

This response showed an understanding of authentic learning and the affordance of the

simulation to allow approach curriculum content through “real life” scenarios. It also

indirectly refers to the ‘anywhere anytime’ affordance of digital technologies also noted by

Respondent 5. The statement did, however, refer to the simulation as an “additional tool”

which aligns to the “support” characteristic identified as a response to Item 3 (see Section

6.3.4).

Respondent 10’s response to Item 5 is of interest. It reveals a defence of human

teachers in preference to machine or computer-assisted learning. It inadvertently states the

case against the disruption caused by digital technology in teaching and learning. The

response was:

No. They could be classed as disruptive if they are the only tool used and the

deliverer believes it will replace the classroom teacher. However, students learn at

different rates and value one-to one teacher feedback at difficulties or success. I

don't believe using only a simulation will result in well-rounded students who are

ready for the real-world of tertiary study or work.

Respondent 10 was one of the four who selected all four of the offered benefits in

Item 7. The only comment offered as rationale to “improve students’ literacy and numeracy”

was that “I believe it will support numeracy more than literacy.” This comment lacks surety

in its brevity and failure to provide an illustrative example.

Respondent 10’s response to Item 8 indicated a belief that “the PierSim Business

Island Simulation effectively integrates ICT into the existing curriculum.” It would appear

that Respondent 10 is aware of the interactive aspects of the simulation and its opportunities

for authentic learning but maintains reservations about its value when compared with the

traditional classroom. The length and complexity of written statements indicate this growing

awareness of the challenge to beliefs about teaching and learning posed by teaching within

and through the simulation.

If Respondent 10 were to be placed on the adoption models, he/she would be below

Newhouse et al.’s (2002) “critical use border.” He/she would be best placed as Integration

on the LoTi scale or be described by Peeraer and Van Petegem (2012) as an “educator who

uses ICT to enhance practice” (see Figure 4.5).

6.9.2 Comparing reported perceptions with findings from the literature

The second aim of the survey was to compare participants’ perceptions with findings from

the research. While this is explored in greater detail in the Discussion Chapter (Chapter 8),


two understandings from the literature are of interest in this chapter. Firstly, the

frameworks/models of teacher adoption of technology (introduced in Section 4.4) were used

to develop the three participant profiles (see Section 6.9.1). The models have enabled a

comparison of participants’ beliefs and attitudes towards the adoption of digital technologies

in teaching and learning.

A further area of interest is the identification in the literature of the characteristics of

meaningful learning using technology (Jonassen, 1990; Jonassen et al., 2004). This has

enabled a verifiable progressive mapping of the characteristics and benefits identified by the

participants of this study (summarised in Figure 6.3). Table 6.8 summarises the overlaps by

mapping the themes which emerged from the survey data to Jonassen’s (1990)

characteristics of meaningful learning (see Section 1.6.2, Figure 1.3).

Table 6.8

Mapping themes to Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics of meaningful learning

Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics Theme from survey

data

Item 3 Item 4 Item 7

Active (Manipulative/Observant) Engagement X X X

Interactive - X X

Immersive X - -

Redefinition X - -

Constructive (Articulative/

Reflective)

Constructive - - X

Reflective - - X

Co-Operative (Collaborative/

Conversational)

Collaborative - X X

Authentic (Complex/Contextual) Authentic X X -

Experiential - X X

Intentional (Goal-directed/

Regulatory

Consolidating X - -

Curricular X - -

Intentional - - X

Supporting X - -


The list of characteristics presented in Table 6.8 and detailed below could be said to provide

a contextualised list of the experiences made possible by teaching/learning within and

through the PierSim Business Island. These inform the understandings of affordances

described in this thesis in response to Research Question 3.

Active (Manipulative/Observant)

As noted in Section 4.2.1, active learning is where students work on meaningful learning

tasks. In the survey, active learning was described as being: Engaging (Items 3, 4, and 7);

Interactive (Items 4 and 7); Immersive (Item 3); and Redefinition (Items 3).

Constructive (Articulative/Reflective)

As previously noted, constructive learning is where students connect new experiences and

observations with prior knowledge and understandings (Section 4.2.1). The survey

respondents indicated constructive and reflective characteristics in response to Item 7.

Cooperative (Collaborative/Conversational)

As previously noted, cooperative learning is where students interact in knowledge-building

communities, conversing with each other to create common understanding relating to their

learning tasks (Section 4.2.1). The survey respondents described collaborative learning in

response to Items 4 and 7.

Authentic (Complex/Contextual)

As previously noted, authentic learning is situated in meaningful real-life contexts. The

survey respondents described authentic (Items 3 and 4) and experiential learning (Items 4

and 7).

Intentional (Goal-directed/regulatory)

As previously noted, intentional learning is where students articulate goals and planning

strategies for achieving them. The survey respondents described: intentional (Item 7);

consolidating (Item 3); curricular (Item 3); and, support (Item 3).

6.9.3 Perceptions of benefits of using digital technologies

The “benefits” can be taken to be represented by the themes which emerged from Items 3, 4,

and 7. As noted in Table 6.8, a number appeared, albeit in different contexts, in more than

one item. Figure 6.4 shows each of the contextualised characteristics identified through the

survey in this study and indicates the item where they emerged from the survey data. It also

shows, using a colour code, the grouping within Jonassen’s (1990) meaningful

characteristics. This indicates the most dominant characteristic is “active” with particular

emphasis on engagement and interaction. The second most dominant is “authentic” with

emphasis on authentic and experiential learning.


Figure 6.4. Characteristics and benefits of teaching within and through digital technologies.

The following chapter details the findings from the one-to-one interviews conducted for this

study. The findings from the survey will be used to inform the discussion and responses to

the research questions in Chapter 8 and the conclusion in Chapter 9.

136 Chapter 7: Findings - Interview

Chapter 7: Findings - Interview

The second data collection for this study, the semi-structured one-to-one interviews, were

conducted between August and December 2016. Six participants identified their willingness

to be interviewed in the survey and were subsequently invited via the email contacts that

they had provided. For the purposes of this study, they have been given pseudonyms:

Carolyn, David, Diana, Pearl, Rose and Thomas (see Table 7.1). Salient details of their

teaching experience and experience with the PierSim Business Island simulation (drawn

from the online survey) are summarised in Table 7.1 (see also Section 5.2.3).

Table 7.1

Details of interview participants (n=6) by pseudonym in alphabetical order

Interview

subject

(Pseudonym)

Respondent

# (survey)

Years teaching

Economics and

Business (or related

Years using the PierSim


(from given ranges)

Carolyn 2 2 more than one year but less

than two years

David 9 15 more than two years

Diana 1 7 more than one year but less

than two years

Pearl 4 33 more than one year but less

than two years

Rose 15 10 more than one year but less

than two years

Thomas 8 25 more than two years

This group, although self-selected, fulfil the study’s adherence to Grounded Theory,

particularly through the use of a purposive sample to inform theory construction rather than

population representation (see Section 1.9). They might be best referred to as a theoretical

sample which enables the collection of “rich data sources to explain social phenomenon”

(Charmaz, 2006; Hallberg, 2006) (see Chapter 5). That the interview subjects collectively

Chapter 7: Findings - Interview 137

meet these criteria is evident in their responses to Item 6d from the online survey (Section

6.6, Appendix D). The survey item asked participants if they “enjoyed” teaching Economics

and Business through the PierSim Business Island simulation. Table 7.2 summarises the

responses of the interview subjects to Item 6d.

Table 7.2

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6d)

Interview subject

(Pseudonym)

R # Question 6d: I enjoy teaching Economics and

Business through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation.

Diana 1 5 - Strongly Agree

Carolyn 2 4 – Agree

Pearl 4 4 – Agree

Thomas 8 4 – Agree

David 9 3 – Neutral

Rose 15 4 – Agree

This shows that there was almost universal agreement to the statement with one

(Diana) indicating “strong agreement.” This finding reflects the interview subjects’

confidence in and positive affective response to teaching within and through the simulation.

Other affective responses are reported in Section 7.2.

Each interview was of an hour’s duration (minimum) and was scheduled at a time

and place at the subjects’ convenience. As previously noted (see Section 5.3.2), the

interviews were semi-structured to allow exploration beyond simple and superficial reactions

and to seek richer and more reflective responses (Charmaz, 2006; Schultze & Avital, 2011).

The interviews were based on three guide questions:

1. Has your teaching of Economics and Business concepts, content and processes changed

as a result of teaching with PierSim? If so, how? Could you please give me examples of

this?

2. Can you explain to me the difference between teaching in-world (within PierSim) and

out-world (through the physical classroom)?

3. Has your confidence level and mastery of the PierSim Business Island Simulation

changed over time? Has this affected your teaching?


At the conclusion of the interview, each subject was asked if they wished to make any

further comments on their teaching practice or on the PierSim Business Island simulation

(King, 2004; Rubin & Rubin, 2011). The researcher made field notes following each

interview to add meaning to the transcribed text.

Analysis of the interview data followed the processes of initial and focussed coding

introduced in Section 5.3.2. In keeping with the Grounded Theory approach adopted by this

study, the reporting in this chapter is addressed in themes rather than stories or “cases” of

individual interview subjects. Three themes which emerged from this data will be presented.

Reference to the findings from the online survey will be made as/where relevant to assist in

the overarching intention of constructing theory from the collated data.

The first theme presented in this chapter concerns the PierSim simulation as a

learning environment with specific attention to the in- and out- worlds introduced in

detail in Chapter 2 (Section 7.1).

The second theme is concerned with how teacher practice has changed through the

use of the simulation (Section 7.2) with particular attention to challenges and

disruptions.

The third theme is a mapping of practice described by the interview subjects against

the highest levels of the TIM (Technology Integration Matrix), namely

transformative practice (Welsh et al., 2011) (Section 7.3).

Understandings of affordances which emerged from the interviews will be presented in the

discussion chapter, in response to Research Question 3 (see Section 8.3).

This chapter will end with a summary of the findings from the interviews. These

findings, along with those from the previous chapter relating to the online survey, will

inform the discussion to be presented in the following chapter (Chapter 8) and the conclusion

presented in (Chapter 9).

7.1 PierSim Business Island as a learning environment

The PierSim Business Island simulation, introduced in Chapter 2, needs to be considered as a

learning environment rather than a standalone software package or program. It allows

immersive learning experiences that are not possible without digital technology and,

critically, without the affordances of the 3-D virtual simulation. This section provides insight

into the trading rounds described in Section 2.3 and how the content of Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business (see Section 3.3.2) is taught through the simulation.


What is distinctive about the PierSim simulation are its dual worlds - an in-world

and an out-world (see Chapter 2). Thomas argued that these dual worlds create a “real

dynamic synergy between theory and practice.” The in-world of the simulation can be

integrated with the out-world experience of the classroom with both positioned, in turn, to

reflect what is happening in the real-world of Economics and Business. Figure 7.1

graphically shows the relationship within and external to the simulation.

Figure 7.1. In- and Out-Worlds of PierSim Business Island.

In relation to the PierSim Business Island as a learning environment, the following

discusses: the virtual in-world and the control of variables available to teachers to create

scenarios to impact on the students’ businesses (Section 7.1.1); the physical out-world and its

connections to the in-world (Section 7.1.2); and the “duality” between the two worlds

(Section 7.1.3).

7.1.1 The in-world of PierSim Business Island

The in-world is a virtual 3-D space which locates student learning “within” the computer

simulation and which students inhabit through avatars. As noted in Chapter 2, the in-world is

made up of five “islands”: (i) Location One – Finance Island; (ii) Location Two – Wholesale

Island; (iii) Location Three – Retail Island; (iv) Location Four – Hotel Island; and (v)

Location Five – Legal Island (see Figure 2.1). Each island has a specific role in the running

of the student businesses. The in-world is where “trading” mostly takes place and is where

students simulate the purchase of materials and products that pertain to their particular

business.


Rose described how she encouraged her students to become familiar with the in-

world trading environment from the outset. She reinforced the function and importance of

the Heads-Up Display (HUD), described in Section 2.1.1 (Figure 2.5), and how each

business needs to interact with avatars from competing businesses. Rose observed that, at

first, students struggled to understand why certain actions triggered others in the in-world.

For example, if the students’ business had a poor HUD, then that would greatly affect the

quality of the goods and services they were purchasing from Wholesale Island (Location

Two). Students would then see their customers’ HUD decrease significantly when

purchasing goods and/or services from them. Through this process, Rose’s students were

encouraged to see their transactions with each other being impacted by their relationships

and interactions with others.

The in-world is managed through a Virtual Administration control panel (see Section

2.2.1, Figure 2.1) which allows teachers to create differing scenarios by managing and

changing variables ranging from financial to environmental to industrial. The teachers

interviewed collectively described how they had created economic booms and recessions,

natural disasters, major weather events, industrial action and pandemics to alter the trading

environment in which students operate. The scenarios afforded students the opportunity to

observe the impact that the change had on their businesses and to develop plans to react and

respond to the changed conditions in real time. It simultaneously enabled teachers to observe

how students worked in teams and how they applied their learning. For example, Diana

referred to the scenarios she has introduced into the in-world including natural disasters such

as an earthquakes and tsunamis which completely upset the trading cycle and operations of

the businesses. She once introduced a major global health crisis, a Zika virus epidemic, to

affect workforce availability and product supply. Catastrophes such as these forced business

teams to combine their skills to effectively respond to the changing market conditions. The

scenarios enabled Diana to directly observe how the students respond to the disasters and

how they used theory to develop strategies to lessen the impact of the disaster on their

business.

7.1.2 The out-world of PierSim Business Island

The out-world is the classroom. It provides the physical (as opposed to virtual) space for

teachers to introduce and consolidate the theory which is put into practice in the in-world.

Thomas stressed that students need fundamental knowledge to “operationalise and to

function intelligently in the simulation” and he explained that he uses the out-world to

deliver theoretical content through more traditional methods of lecture-based and classroom

activities before students enter the in-world. He cautioned, though, that by only adopting a

more traditional approach to teaching how to establish and operate a business in an out-


world (classroom) environment, learning experiences tend to “degenerate” into simple

marketing promotion exercises. He believes that students taught in this way are unable to

fully demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of how the key areas of business

operations, that is, Financial Management, Marketing Management, Operations Management

and Human Resource Management, are affected by ever-changing market conditions.

The out-world also provides the space for debriefing and reflection. Thomas

believed that the out-world provides the critical “human” factor to support the virtual in-

world. He made use of the out-world to consult with students and to conduct “Board

meetings” to devise strategies for action in response to the changing environment and market

conditions occurring in-world. He reflected on an out-world global environmental summit he

had organised where students came together to tender a proposal to effect change to the in-

world market.

Diana noted that, for her, teaching the concepts of Marketing Management, Financial

Management, Operations Management and Human Resource Management (HRM) was more

effective in the out-world as students need to gain a thorough understanding of these

concepts before applying them to trading in the in-world. She also believed that students

needed to explore management roles such as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief

Marketing Officer (CMO), Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Financial Officer

(CFO) in the out-world to gain deeper insights into how each role is performed within

differing industries. As a consequence of this preparation in the out-world, she believed that

her students were more confident in adopting specific management roles when trading in the

in-world.

Diana also explained how she had designed an out-world activity where students had

to apply for a management position in one of the in-world businesses. The students

commenced this activity by undertaking market research to ascertain how to become

competitive in one of these management roles. Students were required to develop a

Curriculum Vitae and apply for a position within one of the companies. Diana then allowed

students to participate in a mock interview process and invited industry experts to form part

of the judging panel. Students benefited from this learning experience as they could gain a

real-world understanding of what potential employers were looking for in these particular

situations. Once the recruitment process had concluded, students were able to collaboratively

develop a business plan for their assigned business.

Each student, having adopted a specific management role, then performed the duties

of that position. Diana explained, for example, that the student assigned as the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO) was to focus on corporate governance strategies and objectives for


his/her company. This student would also explore business ethics and compliance and

develop a quality assurance strategy and sustainability protocols for the business in the long-

term. In addition, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), who was responsible for the financial

management section of the Business Plan, would also establish the electronic recordkeeping

system for the company. Diana believed that once students had adopted their roles out-world

and completed tasks typical of what was expected in their assigned roles, they were more

confident in performing their role in-world and if/when they were faced with the economic

disaster scenarios that forced them to make strategic decisions within their assigned roles.

The experiences of the out-world were thus pivotal to success in the in-world.

Further, both Rose and Thomas independently explained how interactions in the out-

world positively influenced the teaching and learning environment. Along with Diana, they

believed that, by having students prepare for management roles and set up elements of the

business in the out-world, they are better able to participate at a level of strategic decision-

making that impacts on the in-world experience.

7.1.3 Duality between the in- and out-worlds of PierSim Business Island.

Thomas expressed the intriguing idea that there is both a “difference and not a difference” in

teaching in the in- and out-worlds. He described the worlds as “a landscape that flows to and

from the physical out-world into the virtual in-world” of the simulation. The analogy to

movement between the worlds emphasises the notion of immersion and corroborates the

decision in this study to talk about learning within and through the simulation, compared

with learning “with.”

He also spoke of the worlds as a “duality” in which a human element, missing in

many of the simulations he knew were currently in the education marketplace, is supplied

by/through the out-world. He believed that the available simulations, in contrast to PierSim

Business Island, were akin to “games which only require students to work through computer-

generated problems that have pre-determined answers or outcomes” and which “lack

complexity and are not reflective of volatile market conditions.” It is useful to recall

Respondent 8’s response to Survey Item 5 which erroneously spoke of students using the

simulation as “participat[ing] in the game” (see Section 6.5). The distinction between a game

(with closed outcomes) and an educational simulation (with open outcomes) were of

importance to Thomas and was a distinguishing feature of the simulation.

Pearl explained how she saw the relationship between the in- and out-worlds. She

was surprised how easily the students adopted their management roles (introduced in Section

7.1.2) and took pride in trying to improve their business’s market position. She noticed that

being in the out-world meant that students could discuss the issues they were experiencing in

the in-world and could collaboratively develop appropriate solutions. She noticed how her


students would construct strategies to implement in the in-world and then measure those

against their competitors’ businesses. The chance “to go back in-world” gave students the

opportunity to continuously “benchmark their performance in order to strive for better

outcomes.”

Carolyn referred to the in- and out-worlds “duality” when she recounted how she, as

Diana had also done, implemented a disaster scenario through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. She noted that when the disaster occurred, students began to strategise and trade

“furiously” in both worlds. They traded in the out-world, the physical classroom

environment, to try to offset the financial crisis that was occurring in-world by walking

around the classroom and making deals with each other. What Carolyn found enjoyable was

observing how the students reacted to the disaster, how they reacted to the changes in the

financial marketplace and how they were strengthening business relationships with the other

businesses. She noted that the students demonstrated high-level responses to the disaster,

analysed the results of their decisions and evaluated the impact that the disaster had had on

their business operations. Carolyn believed that her students would not have achieved the

same high-level learning outcomes if she had taught this unit through a more traditional

approach.

Diana reflected her belief that operating within and through the in- and out-world

environments encouraged students to engage with evaluative problem-solving. For example,

students taking the role of Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) are discharged with the

responsibility of solving the problem of how to entice more avatars (customers) to their

business and be encouraged to purchase only the premium products maximising their profit

margins (see Section 2.2, Stage 5). Each CMO would then measure the success of their own

company against the marketing campaigns adopted by the other CMOs of other companies.

The CMO would then strategise with the rest of the members of the company to try to find a

unique approach to marketing their products. The CMOs would adopt a blended marketing

campaign and begin to rigorously market their products in the in-world through the live

advertising mediums and in the out-world through promotional flyers, websites, apps, and

direct marketing (see Section 2.2, Stage 4). Diana concluded that it was “quite an interesting

experience” to observe the students, through having exposure to both worlds, being able to

conduct real-time market research to evaluate the performance of their own business.

Thomas similarly believed that linking the out-world with the in-world experience

enables students to explore issues at greater depth and promote a contextual realisation of

how to effectively operate a successful business. He admitted that paradigm shift in this

approach to teaching Economics and Business was a challenge as he had to develop what he

called the “out-world strategy” which is “a new empowering way of assisting students to


learn in this dynamic environment.” Diana also spoke of empowerment and provided a

practical example of how students were “empowered” in the learning environment. She

observed that students who had adopted the role of Chief Operating Officer (COO) became

personally motivated to produce a high-quality Operations Plan as they knew that this plan

would have a direct impact on the trading success of their business in the in-world. Further to

this, the students conducted detailed market research on sourcing cost-effective suppliers and

devised an efficient manufacturing process in order to provide the most effective quality

products at the cheapest prices. Students also demonstrated a more in-depth understanding of

Operations Management by investigating the specific legislative requirements for selling

their products so as to limit the possibility of their company being sued in-world. Diana also

noted that when she taught Operations Management without using the PierSim Business

Island Simulation, the students were not as engaged with wanting to learn the impact of their

Operations Management decision-making strategies, as the students were not able to see how

such decisions translated to the sales of their products and contributed to the “triple bottom

line” for their business.

Diana, however, identified a weakness of the in-world experience in that she was

unable to directly control the pace of the impacts of the imposed scenarios (see Section 2.2,

Stage 6). She commented that each trading round only lasted for around ten minutes and

students became quite “frantic” during this period. She added that she made students exit the

in-world after each round to allow them to collectively reflect on what had happened in that

round. She established the out-world environment as a boardroom discussion where each

student, in their assigned role, had to evaluate the performance of their business in the light

of the disaster/scenario that was imposed. Students were given the opportunity to identify

and discuss problems that arose for different businesses and different roles through the

round. They worked together towards practical solutions to those problems as a group. Diana

believed that by having this reflection time in the out-world, students were able to

consolidate their understandings of how the theory of Management was used to effectively

respond to the issues presented to them. She believed that the more opportunities students

have to work collaboratively to solve problems, the better the outcome would be for them.

Additionally, those students who had difficulty in understanding what was going on in the

in-world would be able to learn from their peers in the out-world discussions. Slowing down

the pace of the impact of the scenario also provided an opportunity for the whole class to

understand the goal of the round. Diana reflected that the synergy between the in- and out-

worlds provided the opportunity for collaboration to build new ideas, positively strategise

improvements for everyone’s business in the current circumstances. Considering she is

unaware (in advance) of the outcome of each round, Diana scaffolds students in making


predictions on how their business will “survive” the scenario. Diana explained that this

unpredictability adds excitement to the learning experience. When possible solutions and

strategies have been developed, Diana then invites the students to go back into the in-world

and encourages them to have confidence in their actions to determine how successful those

solutions were for their particular business.

Figure 7.2 represents the duality of the in- and out-worlds of the simulation. The

“space” bridges the gap between the worlds. The zig-zag lines represent the synergy

described by Diana and the “flow to and from the physical out-world into the virtual in-

world” described by Thomas. From teacher reports, students appear to understand that each

world is discrete but happily stay “in role” between them when required to do so and carry

theory learnt and plans made in the out-world back into the in-world where they are applied.

Teachers encourage students to move to the out-world to reflect on and hypothesise about

what has happened/will happen in the in-world. Both contribute equally to student learning.

Figure 7.2. Duality of the in- and out-worlds.

7.2 Changes to teaching practice

All interview subjects (n=6) noted that the PierSim Business Island simulation had directly

impacted on their teaching of Economics and Business. These impacts covered a range from

a change in attitudes and beliefs about teaching with technology to developing technological

knowledge and skill in an unfamiliar digital environment to more encompassing challenges

to pedagogical practice. The challenges faced by teachers is presented in Section 7.2.1 while

the perceived disruptions are presented in Section 7.2.2. Their experience informed the

responses to Research Question 4 (Section 8.4).


Thomas suggested that teachers changing their practice is dependent on their

willingness to change and their focus on using the technology to achieve genuine and

demonstrable learning outcomes rather than “using technology for technology’s sake.” He

offered that:

… if the teacher is not willing to change their style, it [the introduction of a new

technology] won’t make it happen. What it will do is it will heighten their

insecurities, it will heighten their fear and what you actually see happening is that

the learning experience, if you like, is dumbed down or it doesn’t achieve its full

potential.

While intended as a hypothetical, Thomas’s suggestion of the critical role of

willingness to change could be observed in Survey Respondent 5’s negative attitude and

experience of teaching with PierSim (see Section 6.9.1, Sample Profiles). Respondent 5

described students as being “bored” and explained that they were not able to make a

connection between the in-world and the real-world, that is not achieving what Thomas

described as the “full potential” of the simulation. Respondent 5’s view might well be a

consequence of the insecurity and fear that Thomas conjectured.

Both Pearl and David similarly commented on the importance of a willingness to

change, to be responsive to changes in curriculum or in available technologies. Pearl

summed this up by saying that:

…good teachers should … always put themselves in a position where they are made

aware of methods, applications and pedagogies that will improve what they do. I

think you need to take them on and use them where you feel that they’re going to be

of benefit to what you do at the end of the day. I think we can sometimes get too

distracted with the novelty of things and not truly appreciate that the end result is

still a good knowledge base, a good skill level and I guess the experience to better

handle the content.

Pearl’s positive attitude is indicative of the higher levels of the Teacher Professional

ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002) introduced in Section 4.4 (Figure 4.3).

These are:

Integration, in which the use of ICT becomes critical to the support of the learning

environment and the opportunity for students to achieve learning outcomes through the

learning experiences provided; and,


Transformation, in which the teacher is able to take on leadership roles (formal or

informal) in the use of ICT and be knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by

themselves and others.

Diana explained that the simulation has completely changed the way she teaches,

even across other subjects out of the Business area. She has realised the importance of real-

world timing, real-world execution, and the range of skills that students need to operate a

successful business. She admitted that she is “quite excited to be able to incorporate this type

of learning in other areas of her teaching because it appeals and relates to the students.”

Initially, however, when she first started using the PierSim Business Island Simulation, she

taught with more traditional teaching strategies by delivering the concepts and then just

applying them to the program. She would simulate one scenario and the class would just run

through it. She relied on the one scenario as she was not confident in trying the more

advanced scenarios in case she did not have the scope of being aware of the advanced

scenario’s full implications. This notion of working in familiar ways is evident in the

introductory levels of published models of the adoption of technology in teaching and

learning (see Section 4.4, Figure 4.5).

However, as her confidence grew, Diana became interested to try new scenarios and

direct alternate outcomes for businesses and explore the implications of competing advanced

scenarios. Diana realised the program did affect her teaching because she knew that she

needed to develop new skills and acquire a deeper appreciation for contextual learning and a

connection to the real-world which she believes has improved the outcomes for her students.

She summarised this by stating that the whole process has made her reflect more deeply

about the connections between the curriculum and the real-world and how she can present

that to the students so that they can achieve a valuable, usable skillset for their future career

endeavours. The progression, or change, she described matches the trajectories of the models

of adoption of technology (see Section 4.4, Figure 4.5).

She stated that the design of the learning activities becomes very clear to the students

as to exactly where they could use these skillsets in the real-world and, given that there is a

move for Australia to become more of an innovative country and develop entrepreneurial

businesses, Diana believes that these skillsets will be valuable for the next 10 to 20 years in

Australia. Many of her students have expressed interest in establishing their own businesses

and become entrepreneurs and “now they know exactly what they need to be able to do to

achieve that goal, which is very exciting and rewarding for them.” As a result, Diana

confirmed that this different teaching approach has genuinely increased her enthusiasm for

teaching in the classroom as she is able to see such improvements for her students’ learning.

For her, teaching within and through the simulation affords the opportunity to clearly see


how her students’ higher order thinking skills can be developed. Her students are encouraged

to understand why it is important to be flexible, innovative and creative thinkers and to be

able to apply and transfer their thinking to new situations.

Carolyn recounted her experience in teaching within and through the PierSim

Business Island simulation. Her recount demonstrated how a “willingness to change” and a

responsiveness to change to available technologies are enacted. She began by acknowledging

that her confidence level and mastery of using the PierSim Business Island Simulation had

changed over time. She believed that having experienced the simulation during the previous

semester had enabled her to enjoy a wider range of the functionality and capacity of the

program. She said that she had been able to better understand, for example, what strategies

would be most effective to help students respond to the Artificial Intelligence (AI) factors

imposed by the program (see Chapter 2). She believed that, because of past experience, she

was better informed as to how students can progress their knowledge through the in- and out-

worlds. She completed a student review of the simulation at the end of the previous semester

and found that her students, on the whole, had enjoyed the experience as it was completely

different to what they were familiar with and what they had done before.

This, in turn, created conversations with students who were not studying the subject

and, as a result, Carolyn found that her second cohort of students to engage with the program

were more excited from the outset. She also found it useful to showcase previous students’

in- and out-worlds marketing campaigns to the new cohort and this created more interest

among the students. Carolyn was conscious that she was focusing on her own application of

the Economics and Business concepts for her next cohort of students and feels that she is

now better able to establish connections between theory and practice.

Carolyn was aware that teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island

Simulation had changed her practice and has given her an opportunity to engage with more

current industry issues so as to simulate the impact of these in-world throughout the topic.

She was confident that she was able to extend her next cohort of students by teaching more

in-depth economic theory because she better understood the capabilities of the simulation.

She further believed that she would be able to support the students’ collaborative decision-

making in response to the imposed natural disasters. Carolyn commented that she introduced

a couple of advanced economic concepts and issues during her previous cohort’s session. To

her surprise, the students grasped the concepts because they were able to apply the necessary

higher-order thinking skills. Carolyn’s recount of conscious and deliberate change is

comprehensive and highlights what is possible when change is approached willingly and

deliberately. It also demonstrates the enactment of Pearl’s advice “to take them [new


technologies] on and use them where you feel that they’re going to be of benefit to what you

do at the end of the day.”

Before proceeding the discussion of the findings from the interview concerning the

challenges and disruptions of a change in practice, it is of particular interest to consider the

affective responses noted by the teachers during their recounts. These observations build on

the findings presented in Table 7.2 relating to the interview subjects’ responses to Item 6d in

the online survey.

Carolyn’s previously cited enjoyment in observing students’ reaction to the disaster

scenario is indicative of a positive affective response (see Section 7.1.3). In her interview,

Pearl mentioned that she had been able to use the simulation with confidence and she

believed that this had made it more enjoyable for both herself and her students. Rose

admitted her pleasure in her students’ mastery in using the simulation and excitement in

developing and implementing scenarios. Diana, who had “strongly” agreed with Item 6d,

admitted in interview to being “quite excited to be able to incorporate this type of learning in

other areas of her teaching because it appeals and relates to students.” Diana’s excitement,

elsewhere described as “enthusiasm,” extended to her students. She explained that:

I was excited to share the experience with the students and other teachers. As my

excitement of working in this environment grew, the students’ excitement grew as well

because they are a reflection of how I was feeling. … the more relaxed and confident I

became with the program, the more relaxed and confident the students became.

Other emotions were evident in the interview data. Despite the positive reactions,

Diana acknowledged that when she was first introduced to the program, she was “terrified”

of how she was going to manage it and admitted that she felt “trepidation with the new

technology.” She reflected that she could see potential value in the whole program, but it

seemed “just so complicated and so convoluted” that she “did not really think that …[she]

was going to have the opportunity to develop some mastery over it.” Rose also commented

on her initial concern when first teaching with the simulation and admitted that she found it

difficult to “actually visually understand what was happening in the in-world.” Considering

this is “brand new,” she acknowledged being nervous about how the students were engaging

with each other in the in-world. She became more confident when she realised that she could

easily move between the islands in-world and was able to “see” the avatars from each

business. It would therefore seem that there was an emotional or affective element in the

change in teachers’ practice in using the PierSim Business Island simulation and that the

process of changing practice was not completely or exclusively technological or

pedagogical.


It is of interest to note that students also exhibited an emotional response to the

simulation. Diana said that an unexpected implication of teaching with the simulation was

that students were initially overwhelmed. She noted that they appeared quite reluctant to use

their avatar to commence rigorous trading, not because they did not know what to do but

rather because they lacked confidence in their abilities to be able to respond to the conditions

imposed on them by the program’s Artificial Intelligence (AI). She stated that:

…once the students can get over that initial fear factor of a new technology and they

have a few goes at it, then they’re actually quite excited to use the program to show

their skills in the other areas. But that happens in business all the time in the real-

world. You know, a boss might come in with some new, wonderful idea and the staff

have to just go with it and a lot of the time there is reluctance to that change. So, it’s

even more real-world that this happens with the students as well with this technology.

The students thus appeared to follow a similar trajectory to some of the teachers in being

unsure in the beginning but quickly gaining confidence through experience.

7.2.1 Challenges to teaching practice

The challenges described by the interview subjects in changing their teaching practice can be

interpreted in terms of the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler,

2006). Those to be discussed in this section are: technological knowledge (TK);

technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); content knowledge (CK); pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK); and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).

Technological Knowledge (TK)

The first challenge to teaching practice to be discussed is technical and is related to teachers’

technological knowledge (TK), a component of the TPACK model (see Sections 1.4.2 and

4.3.2, Figure 1.2). In their survey responses, the interview subjects generally indicated that

they were “comfortable” in the technical aspects of the simulation (Item 6a) and in

navigating through 3-D virtual spaces (Item 6b) (see Table 7.3).


Table 7.3

Interview subjects survey responses (Items 6a and 6b)

Interview

subject

(Pseudonym)

R # Item 6a: I am comfortable with

the technical aspects of the

PierSim Business Island

Simulation.

Item 6b: I am comfortable in

navigating through 3-D virtual

spaces.

Diana 1 4 – Agree 4 – Agree

Carolyn 2 4 – Agree 4 – Agree

Pearl 4 3 – Neutral 5 - Strongly Agree

Thomas 8 4 – Agree 4 – Agree

David 9 4 – Agree 4 – Agree

Rose 15 5 - Strongly Agree 4 – Agree

Gaining technological knowledge is not automatic and requires a willingness and

conscious effort. As noted in her admission of nervousness, Rose’s initial confidence was

quite low because she was supposed to receive training before she began teaching with the

PierSim Business Island simulation (see Section 5.2.2). However, this did not occur because

of her commencing at her school after the school year had begun. This meant that she had to

rely on her peers to mentor her (in the absence of a formal induction or training). She

explained that she was fortunate to be sharing a class with another teacher who had taught

with the program for the previous three years. During this time, Rose’s ability to understand

what happened in both the in- and out-worlds “definitely evolved.” She made reference to

unexpected technical issues that arose and how she learned to deal with them. For example,

when the simulation stalls and the avatar cannot move, she quickly realised that this was an

embedded function which is triggered when students make an unwise business decision. She

realised that this “freeze” was the result of poor decision-making rather than a hardware

failure or software glitch. Should this happen, she quickly learned to ask the students to

come to the out-world to develop a plan to resolve the poor decision-making that had caused

the problem and then to return to the in-world to implement their solution. This movement in

and out of the simulation was represented in Figure 7.2.

Pearl shared that some technical issues, particularly during the first time she used the

program, made it frustrating for her because the students were eager to participate but then

lost interest when elements of the program either did not work or they could not log on. She

reported issues with the manoeuvrability of the avatar and instances where students would

find themselves in situations which they found difficult to “get out of.” Pearl argued that


appropriate technical support needs to be provided during the initial phases of introducing

the PierSim Business Island Simulation to the students. She suggested that she would have

benefitted from having a guide or reference document so that in the event of technical issues

arising, she would be able to conduct preliminary troubleshooting. This document could

become a part of the classroom resources and, in that way, students could also take more

responsibility by referring to this guide to solve some of their technical problems. Pearl

concluded that becoming more confident in navigating the technical functions of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation has been as a result of her being able to refine her own

technological skill level with the program. She bemoaned that the technical support in her

school has not necessarily improved and there has been no progress in providing a

classroom-friendly manual or troubleshooting reference document.

Diana had a similarly poor first experience due to technical issues. When the

program would not connect to the students’ laptops in her first lesson, she had to contact the

IT support team in her school and, as a result, lesson time was wasted leaving students

“unimpressed.” Diana added that, once she had developed some rudimentary technical

troubleshooting skills, she became more confident in its execution. She admitted that, over

time, she developed competence in managing the simulation on a technical level. She

believed, however, that the initial technical problems were outside of her scope of expertise

and that she should not have to be expected to manage.

Despite the reports of difficult technical beginnings for Rose, Pearl and Diana, each

had managed to become confident in its use. Each, in their recounts, acknowledged the

importance of technological knowledge and in maintaining student engagement by being

able to troubleshoot problems in the classroom.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is the ability to teach with technology (see

Sections 1.4.2 and 4.3.2, Figure 1.2). In regard to the PierSim Business Island simulation,

TPK is the ability to apply the concepts and processes of Economics and Business to a

virtual environment. In the survey, the interview subjects had been asked if they were “able

to explain Economics and Business concepts and map these to the PierSim Business Island

Simulation.” Table 7.4 summarises their responses to this item and indicates their confidence

in doing this, and thus, in their own technological pedagogical knowledge. All agreed with

Pearl “strongly” agreeing with the statement.


Table 7.4

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6c)

Interview subject (Pseudonym)

R # Item 6c: I am able to explain Economics and Business concepts and map these to the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Diana 1 4 – Agree Carolyn 2 4 – Agree


R # Item 6c: I am able to explain Economics and Business concepts and map these to the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Pearl 4 5 - Strongly Agree Thomas 8 4 – Agree David 9 4 – Agree Rose 15 4 – Agree

Thomas was alluding to TPK when he noted that teachers need to become fully

conversant with the simulation and understand what this technology is capable of doing. He

added that teachers need to design lessons using the “unique characteristics” of the

simulation to create authentic learning experiences to assist the student to learn about the

current issues facing the business world. These “unique characteristics” can be interpreted as

affordances. An example of TPK (and the exploitation of affordances) is evident in

Carolyn’s reliance on the technical features of the “Wholesale Island” to encourage students

to become more reflective in their decision-making in regard to purchasing and the

implications of effective supply chain management (see Section 2.2, Stage 3).

David and Thomas independently noted that incorporating the PierSim Business

Island Simulation into their teaching and learning environment “is not about the technology.”

For them, technology was simply the tool to allow teachers and students to achieve what

they wanted/needed from the learning experience. David argued that unless a teacher was

committed to “making learning exciting, learning fun, learning engaging and learning

meaningful,” then he/she would be producing similar outcomes to teaching from a textbook.

Both believed that if technology is to drive teaching and learning, then an investigation is

needed as what the technology can do to help achieve learning goals. Sadly, both mentioned

that they see too much of technology being used because of curriculum demands and, as

David shared, “quite frankly, it’s a waste of time and you’ll be better off just using the

textbook. It’s a farce and a joke.”

Thomas believed that technology has to be seen as a tool that is driven by a clear set of

educational objectives and learning outcomes that teachers want for students. David stated


that he believes it is how teachers leverage the affordances of technology which leads to the

attainment of desired learning goals. Thomas concluded by stating that many of his

experiences of witnessing technology use in the classroom has just been to “use the

technology for technology’s sake” which, in his view, distracts the students from the

intended learning outcomes and achieves little.

Content Knowledge (CK)

Content knowledge is, put simply, what teachers need to know about their discipline areas

(see Sections 1.4.2, 4.1.1, 4.3.2, Figures 1.2 and 4.1). While a discrete component of

TPACK, content knowledge is also represented in Technological Content Knowledge and

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Both David and Thomas suggested that to

teach successfully within and through the PierSim Business Island simulation, teachers need

to have high levels of content knowledge. David said that teachers need “to understand, at

quite a depth, business principles and economic principles and the way that they interact with

the real-world.” Thomas wondered if many teachers have:

… the level of practical experience and the expert current knowledge of Economics

and Business, and one might also say the wisdom, to be able to extract from the

learning experience the ultimate benefits for the student.

Thomas explained that the simulation has the capability of enabling students to

experience a certain level of understanding from interacting with each other when trading

their products. He insisted, however, that, in order for students to engage in higher order

thinking skills and begin to conceptualise the complexities of specific economic conditions,

teachers need to become more like “consultants” in terms of approach.

Practical industry experience emerged from the interviews as a valid form of content

knowledge in Economics and Business. Rose observed that the currency of her business

industry knowledge guided most of her decision-making in the detailed planning and

development of her units. She explained that she relied on her personal experiences of real-

world market conditions and issues in order to simulate these in- and out-worlds during the

trading sessions.

Finally, content knowledge can also be interpreted as curriculum knowledge

(Shulman, 1986). Table 7.5 summarises the interview subjects’ responses to the item in the

survey relating to knowledge (awareness) of the Australian Curriculum (Item 6e).


Table 7.5

Interview subjects survey responses (Item 6e)


R# Question 6e: I am aware of ICT as a General Capability and its organising elements within the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business.

Diana 1 5 - Strongly Agree Carolyn 2 5 - Strongly Agree Pearl 4 5 - Strongly Agree Thomas 8 4 – Agree David 9 4 – Agree Rose 15 5 - Strongly Agree

As demonstrated in Table 7.5, Thomas and David “agreed” to the statement while the others

offered “strong” agreement.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

The majority of interview subjects referred to the open-endedness of teaching within and

through the PierSim Business Island simulation, particularly where scenarios have been

introduced (Section 2.2, Stage 6). There was consensus that teachers need a high level of and

confidence in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to operate in environments where

there are no predetermined outcomes.

As previously noted, Pearl explained that there has been a change in her teaching

over time because of the PierSim simulation. She commented on her increasing

technological knowledge (TK) and the need to increasingly rely on her pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK) to respond to the unexpected. She said that each group she has taught has

been different, particularly in how they respond to the AI in the simulation and in the

solutions and decisions they make to the scenarios that she has added to the in-world. Having

no prescribed or anticipated outcome from the interactions the students have in the in-world

has required her to be more responsive to each cohort’s learning styles and specific needs.

A further instance of teachers drawing on their PCK is evident in Diana’s deliberate

adoption of a student-centred approach. Her aim was to differentiate the curriculum to meet

students’ learning needs. She believed that by allowing students to operate in both worlds

and take ownership for their particular roles, she could quickly identify the students who

have not grasped the key management concepts. Diana believed that this was due to the fact

that:


… the students could not hide amongst the whole class of students. So, if there is a

Chief Executive Officer [CEO] in business number one and they don’t know what

they’re doing, I can see it very, very clearly and it’s an opportunity for me to either

address it right then and there or I can address it later, but it certainly is a skill that I

know I need to develop in that particular student.

Diana added that she could easily identify those “gaps” in the students’ learning and was

able to provide the appropriate support for them so that they could re-engage with the

learning experience.

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Some interview subjects provided examples of their technological pedagogical and content

knowledge (TPACK), that is, where all component knowledges are drawn on to design

learning experiences (see Figure 1.2). For example, David suggested that one of the key

challenges in selecting appropriate pedagogies to teach within and through the simulation is

setting the “level of learning appropriate to the development level of the student” (see

Appendix A, ICT Continuum). This required him to examine how he leverages the

technology to achieve those outcomes for the specific Economics and Business concepts he

was teaching. He was also conscious of the need to be aware that using the PierSim Business

Island simulation was also about achieving understandings that students gain from having

participated and bringing the knowledge and learning that they have into the dynamic,

interactive learning environment. He admitted, however, that there were “quite often new

observations and new understandings occurring through the process of trading and

negotiating in the in-world.”

Thomas reflected that teaching Economics and Business within and through PierSim

Business Island Simulation has probably not changed his teaching style. It has, however,

allowed him to enhance his teaching of the concepts and principles of Economics and

Business through a simulated and practical environment. It has allowed him to consider a

wider range of options of a way in which he can package the material in an interesting way

for students to learn. Thomas believed that his educational philosophy underpins the

practical approach he has taken to the teaching of Economics and Business. This philosophy

has always been:

… we learn by doing, we learn by having fun, we learn by engaging, we learn by

reflecting, we learn by reading and preparing ourselves, and then testing and

evaluating that information to check on its validity and reliability.

Thomas explained that he has always looked for ways to bring real-life situations

into the classroom despite the difficulty of achieving real authentic and contextual learning


experiences. Using the simulation has allowed this to happen. For example, in teaching the

circular flow of income in Economics, Thomas used the in-world of the PierSim Business

Island simulation to create the experience of the economy operating under differing

circumstances. He believed that this simulated what happens in the real-world market

conditions. He acknowledged that by creating this environment and allowing students to

observe the direct results of their decision-making processes allowed a “fairly deep level of

learning” to take place. Thomas admitted that:

…it is very difficult to make something that one might say is as boring as the circular

flow actually become real and meaningful for students in a secondary school

environment. Because for most of them, it’s pretty meaningless and it is probably for

most of us. But when they can actually see the way that the elements interact with

each other and actually see what happens, the experience provides them a window

into the knowledge. And you find the first formation of wisdom and understanding

starting to form in the students, even if it’s at the most simplistic level. It’s a

beginning that is essential, I think if we’re going to develop people with business

acumen and entrepreneurial skills.

Diana similarly agreed that teaching within and through the simulation has allowed

her to change her approach to teaching specific Economics and Business. She communicated

that she felt she had more influence over effectively teaching the finances, marketing and

operations of a particular business and the students had the ability to modify and control

these concepts while they are using the simulation. She noted that the program allows the

students to develop customer relations both in the simulation itself as well as out of a

simulation, as part of a larger assessment item.

7.2.2 Disruptions to teaching practice

The teaching practice of the interview subjects had been disrupted and changed irrevocably.

Each commented on how, through the simulation, they were able to explore more in-depth

concepts and were able to allow students to gain a deeper and more contextual understanding

of how these concepts interrelate with the operations of a specific organisation. The sources

of disruption appear to be in the (i) novel format of the simulation, (ii) the open-endedness of

learning experiences, (iii) the changes in the roles of and relationships between teachers and

students, and (iv) a shift in ownership of learning experiences from teacher to student.

It is useful to return to Li et al.’s (2017) definition of disruptive technologies as

having radical novelty, relatively fast growth, coherence, prominent impact, uncertainty and

ambiguity is useful in determining the disruptions to teaching wrought by the PierSim


Business Island simulation. Two of these characteristics have emerged from the interview

data: radical novelty and uncertainty and ambiguity.

Firstly, the radical novelty of the simulation has been considered through a

discussion of the in- and out-worlds structure of the simulation (Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and

7.1.3). Novelty also comes from the immersive 3-D virtual world which replicates the

appearance of a game world. Pearl was previously cited as saying that “we can sometimes

get too distracted with the novelty of things” when referring to the adoption of the simulation

(see Section 7.2). Thomas noted that some teachers might see the PierSim Business Island

Simulation as “just playing a game and having fun.” In the past, he had been disappointed by

a variety of simulation programs that used in teaching because they provide students with a

predetermined “definitive answer.” However, Thomas believed that PierSim could have the

potential to elevate these “game play” programs when teachers become familiar with the

simulation’s capacity and effect change to their pedagogical practice. Thomas confirmed this

by stating that many simulations required the individual to:

… lose their identity and simply operate within a world in which is fragmented, and

which often becomes very numerical and does not have that depth of human

experience that comes with contact and interaction between human beings.

Secondly are the characteristics of uncertainty and ambiguity have been identified

within the immersive educational simulation. Thomas pointed out that:

… when you are teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island

simulation, you cannot rely on a certain page in a textbook and are not provided

with the “model answers” to the Economic and Business problems used in the

classroom.

The outcomes of learning experiences, particularly when environments are changed

by the simulation’s AI and through the introduction of different scenarios are not known.

Further, as previously noted by Pearl (in relation to pedagogical content knowledge) as the

interactions and decisions made by students are unpredictable, teachers have to draw on their

own expert knowledge and experience to guide the students towards certain possible positive

economic and business outcomes (Section 7.2.1). This lack of certainty categorises learning

experiences within the simulation as “disruptive.” Carolyn acknowledged that she

encourages evaluative problem-solving when she implements the natural disaster scenario

within the PierSim Business Island Simulation. She believed that this particular learning

experience provides students with opportunities that teachers cannot provide when teaching

with more traditional methods to demonstrate evaluative problem-solving.


Carolyn mentioned that having the opportunity to offer students an environment

where the unexpected can happen, where the teacher themselves does not know or cannot

predict the outcome of the condition, can be both rewarding and challenging for both the

students and the teacher. She believed that this dynamic environment and learning

experience makes it more exciting because “you can’t predict [what will happen]. It’s not set

in stone, it’s not ‘every single time you press this button, this happens’.”

Further, by implementing scenarios, Carolyn explained that she was able to work

with the students in problem-solving solutions to address the economic downturn in the

marketplace as a result of the natural disaster. She was then able to offer appropriate

strategies where students could measure the success of their proposed solutions by seeing

how those strategies worked in the in-world. She then encouraged students to debrief in

sessions in the out-world. They evaluated the success of their problem-solving by

benchmarking their performance against their agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

that were developed during the establishment of their virtual business. Carolyn reflected that

the students, generally, were able to provide greater insight of the relationship between the

key theoretical concepts they learnt and how the application of these concepts directly

affected the conditions in the trading environment. Carolyn further stated that, from her

current experience with the program, she is able to better understand how the in-world

“works.” She intended to use this knowledge to design more advanced problem-solving

activities to see whether students can further extend their higher-order thinking around these

evaluative processes.

The third source of disruption is a change in the role of the teacher as the one who

imparts knowledge and the student as one who accepts knowledge passively. It is of interest

to note Pearl’s response to Item 5 (see Section 6.5) in the online survey. The item asked

about the PierSim Business Island simulation being disruptive. Pearl (as Respondent 4)

agreed and offered, by way of explanation, that “they [the simulations] are disruptive in that

the learning is powered by the student, rather than by the teacher.” Similarly, Carolyn (as

Respondent 2) disagreed and offered that “the students are encouraged to work

collaboratively to succeed in the simulation which effects the way they interact in the

classroom.” In interview, the teachers described themselves – without prompting – in a range

of roles including consultant and mentor (see Section 7.2.3 for a further discussion of

changing roles). David believed that teachers should shift from a teacher-directed learning

environment where most of the classroom activity and the classroom interaction pivots on

the teacher. This involves a shift along a continuum from a traditional didactic role to be a

business consultant for the student. He added that if teachers simply teach under a more


traditional approach to teaching with technology, there will be “a disconnect between what is

being taught and what the students will learn in this new environment.”

The final source of disruption (related to a change in roles and relationships) is a

shift in ownership of learning experiences from teacher to student. Harmes et al. (2016)

represented this disruptive shift in a diagram (Figure 7.3) which maps the shifts to the ACOT

Stages of Instructional Evolution adopted in the TIM (Technology Integrated Matrix). This

mapping also includes reference to other attributes: characterisation of knowledge, use of

technology tools, and instructional focus.

Figure 7.3. Progression across levels of integration (Harmes et al., 2016, p. 143).

It could be conjectured that this change in ownership is intertwined with the

“presence pedagogy,” that is, the “flattened approach … that removes the pre-set hierarchy

of expertise” (Bronack et al., 2008) described in Sections 2.2 and 4.2.3 (see also Table 4.1).

Pearl admitted that she initially wondered how the simulation would “actually work”

and if students would be able to demonstrate higher-order thinking skills. She also wondered

if students would “see this as simply a game simulation” where they would not take

ownership for the actions of their decision-making. She soon came to realise that the

curriculum intent of the simulation and the reliance on the concepts of Economics and

Business resolved her concern and engaged the students in learning.

A number of interview subjects were aware of the change to their practice (see also

Section 7.2.3). For example, Diana explained that rather than being a “classical teacher with

all the knowledge,” her classroom operates as a collaborative environment where solutions

are negotiated rather than given. Diana explained that:


…it [her change in role] changes the whole dynamic of the classroom. Rather than me

being the classical teacher with all the knowledge and the students being the classical

learner where I impart my knowledge, we’re in it as a team. They [students] have to

contribute to their knowledge as much as I have to contribute to their knowledge, so it

equalises us in terms of our knowledge and how problems are solved. They need to

problem solve. I don’t provide solutions. We work on the solutions together.

7.3 Transformative practice

Peeraer and Van Petegem (2012) used “transform” as the keyword in their culminating level

(see Figure 4.5). Similarly, the highest level in Newhouse et al.’s (2002) Teacher

Professional ICT Attributes Framework is “transformation” (see Figure 4.3). It is used in this

instance to describe where the teacher is able to take on leadership roles in the use of ICT

and be knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by themselves and others. Finally, and of

relevance to this response is the TIM (Technology Integration Matrix) (Welsh et al., 2011)

which maps Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics of meaningful learning with a modified

version of the ACOT Stages of Instructional Evolution (Dwyer et al., 1990) (see Section

4.4.1, Table 4.3 and Appendix B).

The first descriptor in the TIM categories used in the following section will be one of

Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics of meaningful learning: Active, Constructive, Authentic,

Collaborative, and Goal-Directed (Intentional). These have previously been used in this

thesis in the analysis of the online survey (see Item 4, Section 6.4) and used to describe the

affordances of the simulation in the teaching of Economics and Business (Figure 1.3). The

second descriptor in each instance is Transformation, the highest level modified from the

ACOT Stages of Instructional Evolution (see Section 4.4): Entry, Adoption, Adaptation,

Infusion, and Transformation. This labelling will provide a way to categorise the

transformative learning experiences designed and described by the interviewed teachers.

There are parallels in this categorisation and previous discussions of challenges and

disruptions to practice. This analysis of transformative practice will inform the research

question referring to change in practice (Research Question 4).

7.3.1 Active: Transformation

Jonassen (1990) suggested that active learning is the opposite of passivity or inactivity as it

is where students engage in learning which involves firsthand observation and the

manipulation of materials or ideas. In the survey findings, particularly in response to Item 3,

active learning was interpreted as being “immersive” and “engaging” in the context of the


PierSim Business Island simulation. Rose, in inadvertently supporting these descriptions of

active learning within the PierSim Business Island simulation, noted that:

… in one of my classes early this year, they were so good at it [using the PierSim

simulation] and there was so much activity and noise and everything, and it was

really exciting to watch them actually do that rather than sitting behind a desk and

just concentrating on this is the right way and this is the wrong way of actually

running a business. [and] they could actually implement that in a very safe

environment.

One of the indicators of the active: transformation level, or more properly, Active

learning at Transformation level, is marked by the teacher serving as a guide, mentor, and

model in the use of technology (Welsh et al., 2011). Of particular interest in this study (and

noted in the discussion of disruption, Section 7.2.2), is how teachers perceived different roles

for themselves when teaching within and through the PierSim Business Island simulation.

The clearest indication that the interview subjects had redefined their role as teacher lies in

the metaphors that they chose to use to describe themselves and their teaching practice.

These included: consultant, advisor, assistant, administrator, facilitator and “anchor.”

Thomas, for example, believed he was able to support students by providing them

with the knowledge and the theory to understand what takes place within the simulation. In

this, he explained that acts more as a consultant and advisor to his students than a traditional

teacher. Diana also described herself as a consultant particularly during the trading stages of

a unit. By doing so, she explained that she was able to gain a better understanding of how

students were progressing with the key concepts of the unit. As she was able to directly work

(consult) with the students in-world, she was able to assess their understanding and

application of theory taught in the out-world. The consultant role therefore enabled Diana to:

… clearly examine their [students’] conceptual understanding of the topic and the

development of their skills in real-time, as opposed to hoping that they get the

understanding of the concepts in an activity and then assessing it later on and

checking their recall. This way, I actually get to see the development of their skills at

the right time; at that time. I think that’s a very, very powerful thing for a teacher to

be able to see.

Rose also offered that she acts in a consultative and advisory role, that is, as a

facilitator for her students. She described her role as:

… a facilitator rather than a chalk and talk kind of a deal. It’s more about helping the

students through a journey of their own discovery of what a business is or isn’t for

them because not all businesses will work and we’ve got to realise that. Like this


student who decided they weren’t going to operate one day because he worked out

that it wasn’t going to be beneficial. He was actually going to lose money. That kind of

thing is actually really good. … I think I’m more of a facilitator in helping them

reaching their own conclusions about business.

Carolyn recognised that her role in this environment was to become more consultative

with the students, that is, where she is seen by the students to not only have the knowledge to

pass onto her students but to also use her knowledge in both worlds to work with her

students to assist them in their companies in order to generate the biggest profit. She viewed

herself as “more of an assistant I guess, the guide on the side rather than the sage on the

stage.”

Pearl explained that when teaching multi-faceted concepts like the share market and

the impact real-world events have on the economy, Pearl adopts a more “advice-giving” role

and provides the appropriate context for these changing market conditions. Pearl believes

that her pedagogical practice has changed to become more flexible in the sense that when

they go in- and out-worlds with her becoming more of a “facilitator, an administrator to their

learning as opposed to directing it as much as I have done in the past.” Pearl believes that

incorporating the PierSim Business Island Simulation has allowed her to channel some of

that responsibility of what the students are learning and refining about that knowledge to

their own ability to navigate through the virtual world. For example, when implementing an

economic scenario like where the Australian dollar decreases dramatically, the students in

Pearl’s class are then left with choices about what it is that they need to do to source

appropriate goods. Pearl then facilitates and administrates how students investigate more

local production sources and how they negotiate deals with potential suppliers. She then

initiates discussions as to why such practices would become beneficial to their own business

and how such instances would then impact on their prices; therefore, their clientele and their

relationship with other businesses in that area.

Carolyn and Rose commented that their pedagogical approach was to become an

“anchor” for the content and processes they were teaching in class. Both stated that they

instigated discussion on the implications of what students were experiencing in the trading

platform of the PierSim Business Island Simulation.

Others made specific reference to how their role had changed since beginning teaching

within and through the simulation. For example, Carolyn admitted that her first few times

teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation was very “surface level” in that she

was trying to make connections with teaching the necessary Economics and Business

concepts while “trading” in this new environment. However, as her confidence in teaching


with the simulation has grown, she has moved to exploring alternative ways to provide

students with the opportunity to engage in deeper conversations (out-world) and participate

in higher-order thinking skills in Economics and Business while trading in the in-world

environment.

Rose also acknowledged that students were also aware of the change in her role as

teacher demonstrated through students becoming more inquisitive about Rose’s business

industry experiences. They then began to adopt some of Rose’s personal business strategies

in their own business operations which Rose saw as a satisfying outcome to her change in

role.

7.3.2 Constructive: Transformation

Jonassen (1990) described constructive learning as being “articulative” and “reflective.”

Harmes et al. (2016) described constructive learning as being “where students connect new

experiences and observations with prior knowledge and understanding.” In the survey

findings, particularly in response to Item 3, constructive learning was interpreted as being

“interactive” in the context of the PierSim Business Island simulation.

In the TIM (Harmes et al., 2016), “constructive” learning (at the level of

Transformation) is where the teacher facilitates learning opportunities in which students

regularly engage in activities that would have been impossible to achieve without

technology. This is akin to the Redefinition introduced in the literature review as a

component of the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006) and as the means to categorise those

responses to Item 3 in the online survey (Section 6.3).

An example of constructive:transformation learning which emerged from the

interviews relates to the teachers’ capacity to create scenarios to change the learning

environment. Some spoke of continuing to change variables in response to students’

responses. Both Thomas and Diana suggested that the teacher is able to teach a concept from

the Economics and Business curriculum and then have that concept explored in differing

scenarios, one in which there is perhaps an economic boom, one in which there is an

economic recession, one in which there is a stagnation. The teacher is able to then observe

what actually occurs between the students through the interactions in both the in- and out-

worlds. A level of higher order thinking then can be encouraged by the teacher by simulating

excessive demand, reduction in supply or issues within the operations chain. Thomas

positively stated that the teacher can manage these “real-life” instances by manipulating,

behind the computer program, the variables that actually run the simulation.

In addition, Diana shared her experience of creating a financial crisis scenario and

initiating a change in the interest rates which significantly affected any business that had


obtained a loan from Finance Island. As with the Zika virus scenario, Diana then observed

how the students responded to the changed monetary conditions gauging their “capacity to

cope.” She encouraged her students to apply the theory of Financial Management she had

taught them in the out-world as she continued to change the inflation rates in order to

simulate a more profound market crash. Diana said that teaching within and through the

PierSim Business Island simulation:

… [has] certainly made me reflect on the way that I teach in a classroom. Knowing

that students need particular skills at a particular time changes the way you plan your

lessons and how you will affect those lessons [by changing conditions] and how you’ll

judge the ability of the students to do these skills, so it certainly changes the way that

you plan and the way you deliver material.

7.3.3 Collaborative: Transformation

Collaborative learning is where students interact in knowledge-building communities,

conversing with each other to create common understandings related to their tasks. Jonassen

(1990) described collaborative learning as “co-operative” and included a “conversational”

element.

In organising Collaborative learning experiences at Transformation level, the

teacher seeks out and facilitates opportunities for collaboration that would not be possible

without technology. There was little mention of collaboration in the online survey. It

featured more strongly in the interviews with references to instances of collaboration in both

the in- and out-worlds with the meaning extending to aspects of cooperation and

communication.

Collaboration has been mentioned as an out-world between both the teachers and

students. Carolyn recounted how, during one of the trading cycles, there were three business

classes running in the same learning space at the same time. By having colleagues to

collaborate with in the planning and delivery of the unit, Carolyn was able to focus on the

areas where she had particular strength. Other teachers, indirectly, taught her some of the

more advanced technical capabilities of the program and showed her some strategies to

complement the in-world learning experience. Carolyn felt that this team-teaching approach

enabled the three teachers to better facilitate discussions as the focus was on helping all

students in the trading room as opposed to just focusing on their own class. Carolyn reflected

that this was also a good opportunity for students to see how teachers engage in a team-

teaching approach and can “value-add” to the learning outcomes for the students.

Students using PierSim work in teams and work together to plan their business

strategies. They assume managerial roles and take responsibility for differing aspects of


business. Carolyn reported that she encouraged her students to have their business members

(CEO, CMO, COO and CFO) operate simultaneously in both worlds. This was achieved by

having students commence the round by developing a strategy to determine which products

would be available within their company. This involved preparing stock ledger cards in the

out-world to track the purchase and sale of the standard and premium products that were

available for sale in their virtual business. The out-world preparation and decision-making by

the COO is simultaneously implemented by the CEO in the in-world. Decision-making

processes were executive frequently both in- and out-worlds even “for simple tasks like

whether to travel the islands via taxi to the wholesaler or whether or not they are going to

walk.”

Carolyn commented that once the Total Product Concept (TPC) was approved by the

management team, students would enter in-world to purchase the desired products from the

wholesaler including all of the purchasing inputs. The students had to collaborate to set an

appropriate pricing level for their products and implement strategies to signal when they

needed to go back to the wholesale market to restock their inventory. The students would

then decide whether to travel back to their own virtual business to determine a suitable

product display being mindful that the products may not have arrived due to logistical

issues or decide to begin their marketing campaign both in- and out-world. Carolyn noted

that the students had to focus equal attention on displaying their marketing campaign in-

world by uploading their graphic advertisements to the virtual billboards and advertising

signs and in the out-world by distributing marketing material to the consumers in the trading

environment.

Carolyn placed particular importance on designing the learning experiences around

student-centred practices throughout the entire unit while using the PierSim Business Island

Simulation. Her strategies ranged from whole class discussions, group discussions within the

students’ businesses and one-to-one discussion between the Management roles of the other

company. Students would maintain a record of their discussion, through the minutes of their

business meetings, and would constantly refer to these details when trading over a number of

weeks. There was appropriate time in the unit planning to allow students to be able to

strategise together as a class and then, as a business group, implement those strategies both

in-world and “out-world.” She believed that the combination of the continual class, group

and one-to-one discussions enabled students to reflect on their business decision-making and

develop the appropriate strategies in response to the ever-changing market conditions.

Carolyn made reference to how the online chat function in-world was also quite effective as

students were able to communicate their proposals to the business community and see real-

time the effect of their strategies. Carolyn distinctly mentioned that she also contributed to


this online real-time chat session to not only affect change to the market conditions but to

also determine how students were coping with the issues discussed “in-world.”

7.3.4 Authentic: Transformation

Authentic learning is situated in meaningful, real-life contexts. Jonassen (1990) described it

as being both complex and contextual. In the survey findings, particularly in response to

Item 3, authentic learning was also interpreted as being “experiential” in the context of the

PierSim Business Island simulation. Further, responses to Item 3 were aligned to “currency”

and real-world contexts. In offering Authentic learning experiences at Transformation level,

the teacher encourages and supports students’ innovative use of technology in higher-order

learning activities that encourage making connections to their own lives and the world

beyond the classroom.

Rose explained that her pedagogical approach towards teaching with the PierSim

Business Island Simulation has enabled her to allow students to experience learning

Economics and Business in “a refreshing new way.” She believes that the simulation has

transformed her teaching of Economics and Business. She commented that in terms of her

students, she believes that:

… they did get a lot out of it and so did we. So it transformed the way we interacted

and the fact that the businesses, themselves, took on a life of their own. So it’s not just

about standing up in front of them and saying, “Now a business normally does this.”

it’s about them experiencing what a business really does.

Thomas believed that the design of the PierSim Business Island Simulation enabled

him to extend his pedagogical practices by creating more meaningful experiences across

Accounting, Economics, Business Management and Operations Management. He designed

lessons that allowed students to learn through situated experiences that mimic real-life

events. He believed that he is able to achieve this more effectively through the context of the

wider holistic operations within each of the PierSim Business Island Simulation’s

businesses. He concentrated his teaching practice on finding ways to allow students to

understand that learning about Economics and Business does not happen in isolation because

many business elements are necessary to explore when operating businesses for real. He

realised that, too often, he would concentrate on teaching the specific elements of a topic

and, consequently, students would only learn about them separately. He admitted that he

tried to show relationships between some of the concepts using more traditional methods of

teaching, for example, through case studies, presentations and news segments.

Pearl also acknowledged that what she believes she is creating in a classroom

environment, is not always what the students see, so giving them a simulated real-world


environment “puts them there” and creates those real-world elements that reveal the

relationships between the concepts learnt. She believed that the students can actually see

how businesses work and they see how shop set-ups are pivotal in working towards

successful business operations. She also believes that there is no substitute for allowing

students to see how their own business is directly competing against other businesses in

order to capitalise on market share. Pearl concluded by stating that “It’s very difficult to do

that artificially in a classroom without having all the necessary props.” There was genuine

consensus in the capacity of the simulation to bring authenticity to students’ learning.

7.3.5 Goal-Directed (Intentional): Transformation

Intentional learning is where students articulate goals and planning strategies for achieving

them. Jonassen (1990) added the elements of “goal-directed” and “regulatory.” The TIM

replaced “Intentional” with “Goal-directed.” In Goal-directed (Intentional) learning activities

at Transformation level, the teacher creates a rich learning environment in which technology

use is integral, seamless, and indispensable. In the survey findings, particularly in response

to Item 3, intentional learning was also interpreted as being “consolidating” and “curricular”

in the context of the PierSim Business Island simulation.

In interview, Thomas commented that he has trialled a variety of teaching strategies

when implementing scenarios for students to problem-solve within the PierSim Business

Island Simulation. He has become a supporter of learning strategies which use scenarios to

build a platform for learning and create opportunities that are afforded by case studies. He

suggested that the problem with incorporating case studies as a strategy is that they are

“words on a page” which he believed could “never actually really simulate reality; they

remain two-dimensional.” Alternately, he tried to explore ways to make concepts and

learning inter-relational to ensure that students are provided with a more authentic learning

experience. Thomas believed that the simulation has embarked him “on a journey of how he

can make the learning of Economics and Business more engaging and authentic” for his

students.

7.4 Chapter summary

Each interview subject acknowledged the differences between the in-world, out-world and

the “real-world.” Using the affordances of each of these “worlds.” the interviewed teachers

attempted to create authentic learning environments for students which placed them in real-

world situations and provided them with a window into promoting a degree of wisdom and

understanding. The majority spoke of how the experiences allowed students to “see” the

interaction of Economics and Business in action. To scaffold this, the teachers created role-


plays in both the in-world and “out-world’. They also used the available controls to create

realistic scenarios; for example, financial crises or weather events. Each teacher saw the

controls as a means to scaffold student learning. They also saw this as the means to be more

creative with their teaching.

The interviews revealed three themes. These were supported by findings from the

survey (Chapter 6) and the research. As noted, the first theme was concerned with PierSim as

a learning environment. The findings relating to this theme inform Research Question 3 as

they highlighted the connections between pedagogy and the affordances of the technology

(Section 8.3) and Research Question 4 (Section 8.4) as they referred to changes in teaching

practice within and through the simulation. The second theme was concerned with changes

in teacher practice (Section 7.2). These discussions informed Research Question 2 which is

concerned with the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers implementing the

simulation. “Challenge” was addressed through the TPACK framework introduced in

Section 1.4.2 and expanded in Section 4.3.2. The sources of “Disruption” were derived

through focussed coding (Section 5.3.1). The third theme was a mapping of practice

described against the Transformation level of the TIM (Technology Integration Matrix)

(Section 7.3). The findings associated with this theme informed the overarching aim of the

study, that is, how teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the face of immersive

educational simulations, and addresses Research Question 1 which is concerned with

teachers’ beliefs about pedagogy.

The following chapter, Chapter 8, will address the four research questions of the

study (as introduced in Section 1.2). This precedes the final chapter of the thesis, Chapter 9,

which will conclude the thesis.

170 Chapter 8: Discussion

Chapter 8: Discussion

This chapter will respond, in turn, to each of the research questions addressed by this study.

It draws its discussion from the findings from the online survey and interviews respectively

presented in the previous chapters (Chapters 6 and 7). The research questions were:

Research Question 1

[RQ1]

What do teachers believe to be the role of ICT (Information

and Communication Technologies) in education, particularly

in the use of immersive educational simulations in the

teaching of Economics and Business? (see Section 8.1)

Research Question 2

[RQ2]

What are the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers in

the adoption of immersive educational simulations into their

teaching practice within the Economics and Business

curriculum area? (see Section 8.2)

Research Question 3

[RQ3]

What are the pedagogical connections between the

affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular

content domain noted by teachers in the adoption of

immersive educational simulations into their teaching practice

within the Economics and Business curriculum area? (see

Section 8.3)

Research Question 4

[RQ4]

To what extent and in what way do teachers’ practice and

beliefs about pedagogy change as a result of teaching within

and through an immersive educational simulation? (see

Section 8.4)

This chapter will then propose a new relational schema as a theoretical model to map

teaching and learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive educational

simulation (see Section 8.5). The chapter will end with a summary of the responses to the

four research questions (see Section 8.6). The following chapter (Chapter 9) will consider the

broader aim of the study, that is, to ask:

How teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the face of immersive educational

simulations.

The response will take the form of a new signature pedagogy, named the “Emergence

Pedagogy”, to inform teaching practice with immersive educational simulations.

Chapter 8: Discussion 171

8.1 Research Question 1

The first research question of this study asked:

What do teachers believe to be the role of ICT (Information and Communication



A teachers’ belief of the role of digital technologies in teaching and learning is a significant

factor in determining their teaching practice (Buckberry, 2005; Chai et al., 2013; Ertmer,

2005; Ertmer et al., 2012; Fives & Gill, 2015; Hiatt, 2006; Lundin & Magnusson, 2003;

Schofield et al., 2001; Woodward, 2007). As noted in Section 1.4.1, Tondeur et al. (2017)

showed that teachers tend to use technologies that align with their pedagogy and their

“existing beliefs about ‘good’ education” (p. 2).

It is useful to begin the response to Research Question 1 by reviewing how teachers

described their practice with the PierSim Business Island simulation in this study (Section

8.1.1). This provides insight into how they perceive the role of digital technologies in the

teaching of Economics and Business. This response concludes with a summary of findings

from the online survey and the interviews (Section 8.1.2).

8.1.1 Teachers’ recount of practice

In interview, teachers referred to details of their practice to illustrate their beliefs and

observations. These details typically aligned to the context of Economics and Business,

which, as noted is one of four Year 7-10 subjects in the Australian Curriculum: Humanities

and Social Sciences (HASS) learning area. The first and self-evident role of digital

technologies in teaching this subject identified in this study is to assist in delivering its

content and to support or scaffold relevant learning experiences (see Section 3.3.2).

Teachers focussed on the curriculum requirements of Economics and Business,

particularly: Financial Management, Marketing Management, Human Resource Management

(HRM), and Operations Management. They made specific reference to how they

incorporated the different “islands” within the PierSim Business Island Simulation to show a

distinct relationship of how each of these four areas of business affect the overall operations

of the business. For example, allowing students to visit the “Financial Island” to obtain a

loan in order to commence operations for their virtual business was effective in

demonstrating how sufficient capital contributions and financing does impact on a business’s

ability to commence trading.


In relation to the teaching of Marketing Management, teachers commented that the

PierSim Business Island Simulation’s capacity to allow students to design their own graphic

advertisements and have these strategically placed on billboards in-world within the “Retail

Island” allowed students to explore the implications of an effective marketing campaign.

Teachers were able to help students to “realise creative intentions,” an aim of the ICT

Capability, by providing guidelines and advice to students on how such marketing

campaigns align with the vision and mission of the business. The ability for the program to

use its AI to promote “push marketing” techniques allowed the students to realise the distinct

impact of their advertising and promotion of their products. Because of this, teachers were

able to help students to generate ideas in how to engage in market research and develop a

marketing plan that will support the strategic direction of the business. Teachers observed a

distinct shift in students’ approach to understanding the various Marketing Management

concepts and principles as they could see “real-time” how their marketing campaign had a

direct impact on the ability for the business to generate desired and targeted sales. Reference

was made to how the assessment trading days allowed students to create both in- and out-

worlds marketing techniques which emphasised the importance of a holistic marketing

strategy. Teachers, in this case, believed that the simulation enabled them to develop

meaningful learning experiences that encouraged students to take ownership of their

decision-making in relation to Marketing Management theory.

In relation to the teaching of Human Resource Management (HRM), teachers

commented that they explored the “Heads Up Display” (HUD) function to provide students

with an in-depth understanding of how Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” allows businesses to

determine the morale and corporate culture of the organisation (Section 2.2.1). Students were

able to respond in real time to the morale of the staff of their virtual business and the impact

of various personnel requirements. Teachers reflected that this particular technology enabled

students to better understand the Industrial Relations and legislative issues pertaining to

HRM. It was evident that teachers placed emphasis on the value and importance of the

various HR roles within the trading environment, namely, Chief Executive Officer (CEO),

Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Financial

Officer (CFO). They believed that students were able to develop effective relationships

within/between these roles in order for the virtual businesses to survive through the various

economic and market conditions imposed on them. The development of student’s content

knowledge relating to HRM was reinforced when the teachers noted that students needed to

make business decisions only based on their own portfolios.

In relation to Operations Management, teachers reflected on how the PierSim Business

Island Simulation allowed students to explore various concepts and practices of an


Operations Management strategy through the use of the “Wholesale Island”. Teachers

commented on how students were able to observe the implications of Supply Chain

Management (SCM) as a result of purchasing goods from the wholesaler and producing

goods for sale in their retail stores. Students were able to see the logistical effects for their

product development as a result of the AI ICT tools embedded within the program. Teachers

were able to promote the “Total Product Concept” (TPC) for the students’ virtual businesses

by ensuring students were able to investigate and justify their decision-making for their

product choices, incorporating both standard and premium product ranges. This simulation

allowed teachers to “generate processes that clarify a task or steps” (ICT Capability)

informed by the understanding of the content of the TPC within Operations Management.

While teachers agreed that the use of the PierSim Business Island Simulation is

effective in creating engaging learning experiences to teach aspects of the Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business, the level of a teacher’s belief of the role of technology

in the teaching of Economics and Business can be determined by their level of engagement

with the ICT functions embedded within the simulation and application of this to their

subject-specific content knowledge. The level of sophistication in the application of the

scenario appeared to be largely dependent upon the teachers’ own industry experience of the

specific area of business. Teachers commented that, when implementing the scenarios

through the PierSim Business Island Simulation, they would refer to their personal

experiences in establishing and operating a business in order to guide students in responding

to the impending economic impact of the scenarios imposed.

By creating such learning experiences with the aid of the PierSim Business Island

Simulation, the teachers were able to observe what impact the students’ acquired knowledge

had on their engagement with real-world economic and business situations. Teachers also

acknowledged that by modifying the conditions to the trading environment and allowing the

students to actively experience the direct results of their decision-making processes,

promoted a higher-level learning opportunity for the students. Their ability to modify the

conditions of the trading environment has, in turn, enabled them to design and develop a

range of learning experiences that reflect how “real-life” businesses would typically respond

to both internal and external market forces.

8.1.2 Identifying the roles of digital technology in teaching and learning

The data to inform the response to Research Question 1 is drawn from the online survey,

particularly Items 3, 4 and 7 and from the semi-structured interviews.


Survey data

Three items in the online survey related to teacher beliefs of the role of ICT in the teaching

of Economics and Business.

Item 3 of the online survey directly asked: What do you think (generally) is the role of

ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the teaching of Economics and

Business? As noted in Section 6.3, the responses revealed were coded as: (i)

Authenticity (evident through references to currency and real-world activities (n=14,

42.42%); (ii) Redefinition (n=12, 36.36%); (iii) Engagement (n=6, 18.18%); and, (iv)

Support (n=1, 3.03%) (see Table 6.3).

Item 4 of the online survey asked: What do you see as the main purpose of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation? As noted in Section 6.4, the main purposes which emerged

were: immersive, engaging, interactive, collaborative, authentic, experiential,

consolidating, and curricular. These were grouped by the characteristics of meaningful

learning: Active (Immersive, Engaging); Constructive (Interactive); Cooperative

(Collaborative); Authentic (Authentic, Experiential); and, Intentional (Consolidating,

Curricular) (Jonassen, 1999; Jonassen et al., 2004) (see Figure 6.3).

Item 7 of the online survey offered four statements drawn from Attewell’s (2004) study

which listed “benefits” of using digital technologies in teaching and learning. The

statements were: (i) improve students’ literacy and numeracy; (ii) allow students to

recognise their own strengths and weaknesses during the learning process; (iii)

participate in both independent and collaborative learning activities; and (iv) enable

students to remain focussed for longer periods of time. Respondents could select any,

some, all or none of the prescribed statements. The majority agreed that the simulation

allowed students to participate in both independent and collaborative learning activities

(n=14, 93.33%) (see Section 6.7).

The responses relating to “beliefs” overlap with purposes and affordances in that they both

make beliefs visible.

Interview data

There were no direct questions in the interviews about beliefs or roles. Despite this,

interview subjects alluded to both in their wide-ranging and open interviews. Examples of

this include the following previously cited statements:

Pearl advised teachers “to take them [new technologies] on and use them where you

feel that they’re going to be of benefit to what you do at the end of the day.”


Thomas explained that his philosophy of teaching with technology was that:

… we learn by doing, we learn by having fun, we learn by engaging, we learn by

reflecting, we learn by reading and preparing ourselves, and then testing and

evaluating that information to check on its validity and reliability.

Pearl’s advice can be aligned to Tondeur et al.’s (2017) observation that technology use is an

enactment of belief and intention. Thomas’s philosophy can be extended from the abstract to

the practical and describes roles for technology which enable the active, authentic and

experiential learning identified in the online survey.

A content analysis of the interview data revealed firmly held beliefs that technology

should not be used “for technology’s sake” and that teaching and learning is “not about the

technology.” Further, there was a regret that, in some schools, using technology is to comply

with curriculum or policy requirements.

8.1.3 Summary of response to Research Question 1

This research question (RQ1) sought to identify what teachers believe to be the role of ICT

in education in general and in the use of immersive educational simulations in the teaching

of Economics and Business.

Thirteen generic roles were identified:

1. makes “learning exciting, learning fun, learning engaging and learning meaningful”

[David, Interview, see Section 7.2.1].

2. is critical to the support of the learning environment.

3. enables the creation of open-ended problems with no definite solution.

4. can change the way teachers teach.

5. use encourages teachers to reflect on practice.

6. allows teachers to be designers of creative learning experiences.

7. allows a shift from teacher- to student- centred learning.

8. engages students.

9. provides immediate feedback to students.

10. allows a change in the relationship between teachers and students.

11. can change the way that students interact with content and the way that content skills are

developed.

12. can change the way that students interact with each other.


13. helps develop skills for students as preparation for the real-world.

All generic roles were positive and resonated with existing research findings (see

Section 4.3.1). For example, the roles relating to student-centred learning sit well with the

research findings of Ertmer and Glazewski (2015). Similarly, the roles relating to how

students interact with content and with each other is integral to Warburton’s (2009)

description of extended or rich interactions. Finally, the roles relating to teacher practice are

reflected in West’s (2012) contention that the use of digital technologies change how

teachers “operate” classrooms.

Further to this list of generic roles, the interviewed teachers also alluded to 11 specific

roles taken by the PierSim Business Island simulation. While some are logical extensions

from the generic list, e.g., reference to student engagement and interaction, each emerged

from participant responses to the teaching of Economics and Business. These specific roles

are that the immersive educational simulation:

1. enacts curricular objectives.

2. engages students in Economics and Business concepts and processes.

3. provides the opportunity for experiential learning through using a 3-D world and gaming

strategies.

4. provides the opportunity for collaboration between students to solve unfamiliar

problems.

5. provides the opportunity for students to be reflective and to engage in evaluative

problem-solving.

6. provides the opportunity for students to engage in higher-order thinking.

7. engages students in a range of research activities.

8. requires a student-centred approach to teaching.

9. allows students to test their knowledge by applying it to unfamiliar problems.

10. allows an assessment of student learning at a deep rather than superficial level.

11. allows students to progressively take ownership of their learning.

It is of interest that the specific roles read more as affordances as each is prefaced by

an active verb, particularly “provides” and “allows”. They also demonstrate clear

connections to the affordances of digital technologies in education previously identified in

the research literature and through data analyses in this study. For example, the role of

collaboration has been frequently cited as an affordance of using digital technologies in


education (see, for example, Adu & Poo (2014); Dalgarno & Lee (2010); Harmes et al.

(2016), Jonassen (1999) and Jonassen et al. (2003)). Similarly, Warburton’s (2009)

affordance of authentic content and culture is akin to the specific roles relating to Economics

and Business curriculum.

There are some overlaps between the generic and specific roles identified in this study.

Table 8.1 shows a thematic alignment between the roles.

178

Cha

pter

8: D

iscu

ssio

n

Tabl

e 8.

1

Sum

mar

y of

bel

iefs

of t

he ro

les o

f dig

ital t

echn

olog

y in

edu

catio

n

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (g

ener

ic)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (E

cono

mic

s an

d B

usin

ess)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

tech

nolo

gy (E

cono

mic

s an

d B

usin

ess)

(S

urve

y Ite

m 3

)

Cha

ract

eris

tics o

f mea

ning

ful

lear

ning

(Jon

asse

n, 1

990)

1.

mak

es “

lear

ning

exc

iting

, lea

rnin

g fu

n, le

arni

ng e

ngag

ing

and

lear

ning

m

eani

ngfu

l.”

en

gage

s stu

dent

s in

Econ

omic

s and

B

usin

ess c

once

pts a

nd p

roce

sses

.

enga

ges s

tude

nts i

n a

rang

e of

re

sear

ch a

ctiv

ities

.

A

uthe

ntic

ity

En

gage

men

t

Red

efin

ition

A

ctiv

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l

2.

is c

ritic

al to

the

supp

ort o

f the

le

arni

ng e

nviro

nmen

t.

enac

ts c

urric

ular

obj

ectiv

es.

R

edef

initi

on

A

ctiv

e

Inte

ntio

nal

3.

enab

les t

he c

reat

ion

of o

pen-

ende

d pr

oble

ms w

ith n

o de

finite

solu

tion.

prov

ides

the

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r stu

dent

s to

be

refle

ctiv

e an

d to

eng

age

in

eval

uativ

e pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng.

pr

ovid

es th

e op

portu

nity

for s

tude

nts

to e

ngag

e in

hig

her-o

rder

thin

king

.

allo

ws s

tude

nts t

o te

st th

eir

know

ledg

e by

app

lyin

g it

to

unfa

mili

ar p

robl

ems.

A

uthe

ntic

ity

A

ctiv

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l

4.

can

chan

ge th

e w

ay te

ache

rs te

ach.

requ

ires a

stud

ent-c

entre

d ap

proa

ch to

te

achi

ng.

al

low

s an

asse

ssm

ent o

f stu

dent

le

arni

ng a

t a d

eep

rath

er th

an

supe

rfic

ial l

evel

.

Red

efin

ition

Aut

hent

ic

Inte

ntio

nal

5.

use

enco

urag

es te

ache

rs to

refle

ct o

n pr

actic

e.

R

edef

initi

on

A

ctiv

e

Aut

hent

ic

Inte

ntio

nal

6.

allo

ws t

each

ers t

o be

des

igne

rs o

f cr

eativ

e le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

es.

Red

efin

ition

Act

ive

Cha

pter

8: D

iscu

ssio

n 17

9

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (g

ener

ic)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (E

cono

mic

s an

d B

usin

ess)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

tech

nolo

gy (E

cono

mic

s an

d B

usin

ess)

(S

urve

y Ite

m 3

)

Cha

ract

eris

tics o

f mea

ning

ful

lear

ning

(Jon

asse

n, 1

990)

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal

7.

allo

ws a

shift

from

teac

her-

to

stud

ent-

cent

red

lear

ning

.

allo

ws s

tude

nts t

o pr

ogre

ssiv

ely

take

ow

ners

hip

of th

eir l

earn

ing.

Red

efin

ition

Act

ive

C

onst

ruct

ive

C

oope

rativ

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l 8.

en

gage

s stu

dent

s.

En

gage

men

t

Act

ive

C

onst

ruct

ive

C

oope

rativ

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l 9.

pr

ovid

es im

med

iate

feed

back

to

stud

ents

.

En

gage

men

t

Act

ive

C

onst

ruct

ive

In

tent

iona

l. 10

. allo

ws a

cha

nge

in th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n te

ache

rs a

nd st

uden

ts.

Red

efin

ition

Coo

pera

tive

In

tent

iona

l 11

. can

cha

nge

the

way

that

stud

ents

in

tera

ct w

ith c

onte

nt a

nd th

e w

ay th

at

cont

ent s

kills

are

dev

elop

ed.

Red

efin

ition

Act

ive

C

onst

ruct

ive

C

oope

rativ

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l 12

. can

cha

nge

the

way

that

stud

ents

in

tera

ct w

ith e

ach

othe

r.

prov

ides

the

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r co

llabo

ratio

n be

twee

n stu

dent

s to

solv

e un

fam

iliar

pro

blem

s.

R

edef

initi

on

C

oope

rativ

e

Inte

ntio

nal

13. h

elps

dev

elop

skill

s for

stud

ents

as

prep

arat

ion

for t

he re

al-w

orld

.

A

uthe

ntic

ity

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal


Table 8.1 further categorises the generic and specific roles identified in this study in

response to Research Question 1 against the role of technology in Economics and Business

(from the findings from Survey Item 3) (Section 6.3) and the identification of the

characteristics of meaningful learning using technology (Jonassen, 1990; Jonassen et al.,

2004) (see Sections 6.9.2, Table 6.8). This additional mapping serves to corroborate the

identification of these roles within the study and the existing literature.

The responses to Item 3 (Section 6.3, Table 6.3) yielded beliefs that the roles of ICT

in the teaching of Economics and Business included: (i) Authenticity (evident through

references to currency and real-world activities; (ii) Redefinition; (iii) Engagement; and, (iv)

Support. The generic and specific roles described in Table 8.1 can be linked to three of these

previously identified roles (with one instance of multiple links): Authenticity (n=21.43%);

Engagement (n=3, 21.43%); and, Redefinition (n=8, 57.14%). The majority are therefore

related to Redefinition, named after a component of the SAMR Model (Puentedura, 2006)

(Section 4.4) indicating a belief that teaching and learning would not be possible without

digital technology and that the affordances (qualities and characteristics) that digital

technology brings to teaching and learning afford unique opportunities (see also Section

6.3.2).

The characteristics of meaningful learning described by Jonassen (1999) were:

Active (Manipulative/Observant); Constructive (Articulative/Reflective); Cooperative

(Collaborative/Conversational); Authentic (Complex/Contextual); and, Intentional (Goal-

directed/Regulatory) (Section 1.6.2, Figure 1.3). This set of characteristics is widely used in

the research literature (see, for example, Harmes et al., 2016) and is integral to the analysis

of Survey Items 3, 4 and 7 (see Section 6.9.2, Table 6.8). Table 8.1 illustrates all of

Jonassen’s (1990) characteristics frequently with multiple links: Active (n=9, 22.5%);

Constructive (n=4, 10%); Cooperative (n=5, 12.5%); Authentic (n=5, 12.5%); and,

Intentional (n=13, 32.5%). The majority of roles identified in this study therefore represent

the intentional characteristic which is where goals and planning strategies for achieving them

are articulated. In the “top” level of the TIM (Technology Integration Matrix) (Harmes et al.,

2016), namely Transformation, the intentional characteristic is noted when a teacher creates

a rich learning environment in which technology use is integral, seamless, and indispensable.


The second research question was concerned with challenges and disruptions to practice. It

asked:


What are the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers in the adoption of



In this study, teachers faced a number of challenges and disruptions in the adoption of the

PierSim Business Island simulation. These have been addressed in the Findings chapters of

this thesis (see Chapters 6 and 7).

In the interview findings, challenges and disruptions were discussed discretely (see

Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3). The challenges were described in terms of the TPACK model

(Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), particularly: technological knowledge

(TK); technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); content knowledge (CK); pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK); and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The

sources of disruption, derived through thematic analysis, were: (i) novel format of the

simulation, (ii) the open-endedness of learning experiences, (iii) the changes in the roles of

and relationships between teachers and students, and (iv) a shift in ownership of learning

experiences from teacher to student.

There was a dedicated item in the survey relating to disruption (Item 5, see Section

6.5) which produced mixed results in that the majority of respondents “misunderstood” what

was being asked and associated disruption with time, technical issues or student behaviour

such as noise. For example, Respondent 3 offered that “disruptive” was the opposite of

“engaging and practical” (see Section 6.9.1, Sample Profiles). Those who had grasped the

intended meaning of the question were articulate and reflective in their responses, for

example (and as previously cited in Section 6.5), Respondent 14 offered that:

PierSim can disrupt traditional methods of teaching business, where the teacher is

the source of all information and can lead students through strategic management.

This environment turns learning around, where students can teach their teachers

how to respond to business challenges. … it is an exciting and enjoyable process

where the students reflect heavily on what they did and what they could do better.

The key challenge and disruption that emerged through the data collection, however,

was the impact that the in- and out-worlds learning environments (see Sections 2.2 and 7.1,

Figure 7.1) had on the teachers’ pedagogical practice, particularly in how teachers addressed

the curricular demands of the Australian Curriculum (see Section 3.3).

As noted in Chapter 3, the Australian Curriculum reinforces the importance of

effective ICT integration through its advocacy for the ACARA ICT General Capability as a

key dimension that affects all curriculum areas. The aims of this is to allow students to


“access, create and communicate information and ideas, solve problems and work

collaboratively” (ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 1).

The “organising elements” of the ACARA ICT General Capability are designed to

build upon students’ knowledge, understanding and engagement with ICT (see Figure 3.1).

Three of the five elements are used here to organise and report on the pedagogical challenges

and disruptions faced by teachers in adopting the PierSim Business Island simulation. They

are: Creating with ICT; Communicating with ICT; and, Managing and operating ICT.

8.2.1 Creating with ICT

The introduction of the PierSim Business Island Simulation in Economics and Business has

allowed teachers to explore learning activities that allow students to engage with the ICT to

enhance their learning. The “creating with ICT” element of the ICT Capability is where:

Students use ICT to generate ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps,

and generate and manage digital solutions to challenges arising from learning

activities or responding to a need or creative intention. In developing and acting

with ICT capability, students:

generate ideas, plans and processes

generate solutions to challenges and learning area tasks.

(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1, emphases added)

Teachers mentioned that students were faced with the challenge of making financial

plans explaining how they would source their funding and determine whether incurring

certain levels of debt in the business’s infancy was feasible. Therefore, teachers reflected that

the simulation was effective in providing a different approach to teaching students about the

setup costs of an organisation and the importance of having sound financial recording

processes in place so that appropriate tracking of funds was evident. Teachers also

commented that the adoption of the “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) to provide data on changing

interest rates and loan repayments throughout the trading period, enabled students to develop

appropriate financial strategies to respond to market conditions and meet the short-term and

long-term financial obligations of the virtual trading business. In this instance, disruption

was created through unexpected actions and circumstances.

The recount of practice presented in Section 8.1.1, in response to Research Question 1,

includes instances of learning experiences which allow students to “create” in both the in-

and out-worlds. Pertinent examples are students’ use of Retail Island to develop their

marketing strategies. Further to this, teachers were also able to help students “create

solutions to challenges and tasks” using the specific HR roles, namely, Chief Executive

Officer (CEO), Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief


Financial Officer (CFO) within each business. They also encouraged students to practise

their understanding of various HRM issues by responding to the ever-changing HUD levels.

The design of the HUD in the PierSim Business Island Simulation provided teachers with the

capability of showing the implications of how HRM plays a vital role in the vision and

operations of the virtual businesses in real time. Teachers were then able to expand of the

rigour of this particular Content Knowledge (CK) area by introducing students to developing

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) based on these distinct HR portfolios. Again, teachers

demonstrated that their focus was more predominately focussed on realising the potential of

teaching more advanced HRM concepts and practices with the aid of creating learning

experiences using these ICT tools within the program that were specifically designed to

focus on HRM.

In each instance of “creating with ICT,” teachers rose to the challenge posed by the

technology and have made meaningful use of the available functions. They have shown it is

possible to deal with disruption to existing practice by finding new ways to engage students

in the content of Economics and Business (see Section 7.2).

8.2.2 Communicating with ICT

The “communicating with ICT” element of the ICT Capability:

… involves students understanding and using appropriate ICT to communicate with

others.

Students use ICT to share ideas and information to collaboratively construct

knowledge and digital solutions. They develop an understanding of the context when

communicating using ICT, including a sense of the audience, the form of

communication, the techniques used and the characteristics of the users and the

technologies. In developing and acting with ICT capability, students:

collaborate, share and exchange

understand computer-mediated communications.

(ACARA, n.d.-c, para. 1, emphases added)

Communicating in a virtual environment is disruptive in that it changes the roles and

relationships between teachers and students. Teachers have responded to the challenge of

facilitating the organising element of communicating with ICT through an immersive

educational simulation. The way that teachers offered opportunities for communication and

collaboration within the in- and out-worlds have been described in Section 7.2.3, which

presented instances of transformative practice. Specific reference was made to how Carolyn

made use of the in-world chat function to communicate with her students and for them to


communicate with each other. It matters little that the communication tools exist within the

simulation, what is critical is the intentional use that the teacher has found for the chat

function. Bronack et al. (2008) explained that:

…. communication and collaboration tools, while necessary, are not sufficient to

encourage and promote community among learners. Presence Pedagogy requires that

these mediated interactions be ongoing and intentional to build into the world an

expectation that students will interact when logged into the world and that these

interactions, whether planned or serendipitous, are an integral part of the students’

coursework” (p. 64).

Therefore, exploration of the “communicating with ICT” organising element of the

ACARA ICT General Capability is important to determine how such tools within the

PierSim Business Island Simulation can be adopted by the teachers to promote the

“collaborative construction of knowledge” in an engaging manner.

8.2.3 Managing and operating ICT

The “managing and operating ICT” element of the ICT Capability:

… involves students managing and operating ICT to investigate, create and

communicate. Students apply technical knowledge and skills to select, use and

troubleshoot appropriate digital technologies. They develop an understanding of

hardware and software components, and operations of appropriate ICT systems,

including their functions, processes, procedures and devices. Students apply

technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and maintain

digital data. In developing and acting with ICT capability, students:

select and use hardware and software

understand ICT systems

manage digital data.

(ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1, emphases added)

The survey findings suggest that students “love to engage with digital devices” [Respondent

14] and that they “prefer using technology” [Respondent 2] (see Section 6.3.3). Despite this

interest and presumed digital fluency, a disruption occurred when the students were initially

faced with as unfamiliar a learning environment as the teachers. The physical design of the

PierSim Business Island Simulation includes five islands (as discussed in Section 2.2.1)

where students navigate their way to establish and operate their virtual business. In addition

to this “virtual reality” simulation that adopts avatars to replicate the Human Resource

Management (HRM) of a particular business, each company also accessed the web-based

“Administration” portal where they are able to view “real-time” data of the progress of their


organisation as well as upload documents/files to be embedded within the virtual trading

environment. These two online environments provide an opportunity for interaction and

collaboration between students, their businesses and the teacher. Therefore, teachers needed

to become aware of the purpose and functionality of both of these online environments so as

to structure their lessons appropriately and, in turn, to deal with the disruption caused by the

new environment.

Teachers, initially, responded to this challenge by allowing students to enter in-world

and explore for themselves how to move between the different islands (e.g., Wholesale

Island and Retail Island) and determine the most effective way to purchase products from

other business and sell their range of products to their customers. The ability for teachers to

facilitate students constructing their own business trading environment, enabled the students

to quickly transfer their knowledge of small business management to their virtual businesses.

In the beginning phases of its implementation, interview subjects reported that the

technical issues experienced by the students included: the program “freezing” on the laptops;

the avatars not appearing in-world; and the “virtual reality” simulation not communicating in

“real-time” to the “Administration” portal. While teachers acknowledged that IT Support

was available during these lessons to “fix” the technical glitches, some commented that the

disruption affected students’ interest in being exposed to this unique learning experience.

The teachers interviewed offered that they needed to become more “adaptable” to

the disruption of the changing conditions in the classroom so as to be able to troubleshoot the

technical issues while still providing students with opportunities to practise their learnt

knowledge throughout the lesson. They said that they needed to “persevere” through such

technical glitches and motivate students to remain focussed on the learning activities.

Further, they needed to rely on their learnt Technological Knowledge (TK) to be

able to provide general IT advice to students in order to troubleshoot any issues that arise.

They were not fazed by a lack of advanced understanding of the technical aspect of the

simulation as they were able to still able to navigate their way through the program and

could still assist students in general IT issues that arose.

In interview, relating to the management and operation of ICT, Rose commented that

when she teaches introductory accounting using the simulation, students are able to establish

their online recordkeeping package and record transactions “real-time” which enables them

to view the automatically-generated financial statements. This “real-time” data encourages

students to make more informed decisions when devising appropriate strategies to improve

their business’ performance and positions within the “in-world’s” marketplace. She believes

students take pride and ownership in their learning as they are able to be directly accountable


for their business’ income and expenditure. In terms of economics, Rose allows students to

explore a range of macro-economic and micro-economic issues that can be simulated “in-

world.” She primarily achieves this through adopting the role of the government and

imposing certain economic scenarios to allow students to determine the “economic problem”

and assess the environment using the economic indicators, before implementing agreed

recommendations to improve the current situation. She mentioned that this approach is

particularly effective when students participate in a “cost-benefit-analysis” for the business

and explore the “opportunity costs” for their business operations. Rose also communicated

that she is able to provide students with a deeper understanding of the “price mechanism” as

students can directly see how prices changes in-world cause equality between the supply and

demand in the virtual marketplace.

Rose observed how easily most students could navigate their way around the islands

without any real formal instruction. She stated that they were very good with understanding

that concept of where they had to go and what they have to do in order to maintain their

business operations. She realised, however, that students were surprisingly less confident

out-world when it was time to negotiate with other businesses and collectively develop a

strategic plan in order to respond to the imposed natural disaster. Rose reflected that she was

“glad” to have quite a few trial days where students participated in the trading environment

without her introducing them to any scenarios. She commented that “it was hard at first for

them to understand that they were actually running a real-time business that would be greatly

affected by the ever-changing market conditions of both the in- and out-worlds

environments.” However, Rose was pleased by the end of the last normal trading session as

most students “really clued into what was happening” and were well prepared for the

impending natural or economic disaster.

Diana similarly noted that students are initially overwhelmed and are quite reluctant to

use their avatar to commence rigorous trading, not because they did not know what to do but

rather because they lacked confidence in their abilities to be able to respond to the conditions

imposed on them by the program’s Artificial Intelligence (AI). She stated that:

… once the students can get over that initial fear factor of a new technology and they

have a few goes at it, then they’re actually quite excited to use the program to show

their skills in the other areas.

Carolyn recognised that the PierSim Business Island Simulation allows for the

“unknown” and also allows for different groups of students to interact with the technology in

ways they might not have experienced outside of this particular learning experience. Carolyn

admitted that she relied on a multiplicity of approaches to maximise the experiences for her


students so that they were able to capitalise on the out-world business decision-making

before applying such strategies to their in-world trading environment.


This research question (RQ2) was concerned with the challenges and disruptions faced by

teachers in the adoption of immersive educational simulations in the teaching of Economics

and Business. The defining of challenges and disruptions in this study drew on the

understanding that they frequently displace established practices or make them obsolete

(Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; Kilkkia et al., 2018) (see Section 6.5).

The specific disruptions faced by the participants in this study include a break from

traditional modes of delivery of information and skill and an end to the teacher being the

source of all information (see Section 6.5). Every disruption posed a challenge in terms of

how teachers reacted and how they changed their practice in response. This section has

presented how challenges have been met in terms of the ICT Capability, a key dimension of

the Australian Curriculum (see Section 3.3.1, Appendix A): Creating with ICT;

Communicating with ICT; and, Managing and operating ICT: Creating with ICT. Each

instance reported by participants also inform the response to Research Question 4 which

attempts to determine the extent and nature of changes to teachers’ practice and beliefs.


Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that teachers adopting emerging technologies in their

practice should focus on “establishing [the] pedagogical connections between the

affordances of technology and the teaching of a particular content domain” (p. 155). This

argument has influenced the third research question which asked:

What are the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the technology and

the teaching of a particular content domain noted by teachers in the adoption of



Research Question 3 has two components: “affordances” and “pedagogical

connections.” Affordances have been noted through the thesis. For example, the online

survey identified a number of affordances, described as perceived benefits, of digital

technologies in teaching and learning (see Sections 6.3 and 6.4, Figures 6.1-6.3). These

included: authenticity, collaboration, redefinition and engagement. In terms of learning,

affordances as “characteristics” include: interactive, immersive, constructive and reflective.

The interview data also yielded rich descriptions of the affordances of the simulation

described in terms of transformative practices (see Section 7.2.3). These were: active,


constructive, collaborative, authentic and intentional (goal-directed). Figure 8.1 extends the

diagram presented as Figure 6.3 to include (from the outer rim) the affordances identified

through the interviews. The inner concentric circles represent the eight survey items with

specific attention given to Items 3, 4 and 7.

Figure 8.1. Grouping of affordances by meaningful characteristics (after Jonassen, 1990).

This section, in response to Research Question 3, offers a list of the “pedagogical

connections” which, in essence, attempt to explain how the affordances of the simulation are

put to work in achieving learning outcomes for students. They are the outcome of what


Thomas had described as designing of lessons using the “unique characteristics” of the

simulation to create authentic learning experiences (see Section 7.2.1).

The following is categorised as: (i) Teaching affordances, which view the learning

experiences from the perspective of the teacher (Section 8.3.1); and, (ii) Learning

affordances, which view the learning experiences from the perspective of the student

(Section 8.3.2). These are revisited in the summary of this chapter (see Section 8.5, Table

8.1).

8.3.1 Pedagogical connections to teaching affordances

The “teaching affordances” listed in this section have been drawn from survey and interview

data. They can be identified within the description of teacher practice provided in response to

Research Question 1 and in several of the tenets of “presence pedagogy” described by

Bronack et al. (2008).

Managing the learning environment: The teachers’ manipulation of the variables of the

simulation to create scenarios such as financial crises, natural disasters, pandemics and

industrial action afford opportunities for active learning, that is, where students work on

meaningful tasks including making adjustments and observing the results. This

affordance was a common theme in the interviews (see Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.2.2 and

8.2.3) and in the discussion of pedagogical content knowledge and disruptions.

Developing scenarios is a feature of Active Learning, Constructive Learning, Authentic

Learning and Goal-Directed (Intentional) Learning at Transformation level.

Real-time responsiveness: Thomas and Diana both agreed that the “real” benefit is that

the teacher can embed decisions from the “out-world strategy” in the in-world in real

time. This means that the students can see first-hand the outcome of their strategic

decision-making and can, thus, reflect on the implications and consequences of their

decision-making strategies. This pedagogical connection is aligned with the affordance

of experiential learning (see Section 7.1.2).

Encouraging higher order thinking: The simulation, through its open-endedness,

encourages students to solve problems and to apply theory to complex unfamiliar

problems. In her response to Item 7 in the online survey, Carolyn offered that “PierSim

is a dynamic learning environment that … activate[s] students’ higher order thinking

skills thus improving their ability to apply learnt theory to real-world practice” (see

Section 6.7). Diana admitted that, while a more traditional pedagogical approach such as

using YouTube clips or delivering content via PowerPoint can be effective at times, she

believes they need to be complemented with the real-world practice of Economics and


Business concepts so as to promote higher-order skills. Students have the chance in

PierSim to show their knowledge of the Marketing Management strategies that are

taught in class. Diana explained how she has been able to provide different scaffolded

scenarios to aid the students in their strategic decision-making for their business

operations. This is where she thought that learning experiences became “quite

interesting” as she was able to directly modify the business environment to test the

flexibility and the management skills of each business. She believed that by being able to

make such modifications to the in-world environment, she is able to promote higher

order thinking skills and authentically assess students’ understanding of theory.

Pearl reflected that, for her, placing the same level of importance on the in- and

out-worlds became a:

…very necessary way, I guess, of examples of higher order of thinking in a sense

that once they [students] became comfortable with the content and the technique,

they were actually able to use that knowledge base to refine their skill and to refine

their understanding about how things work in the real-world.

References to higher-order thinking were evident in the discussion of changes to

teaching practice (Section 7.2) and Authentic Learning at Transformation level (Section

7.3.4).

Encouraging critical thinking: Carolyn believes that the simulation forces students to

really question their own business planning model before they see it executed “in-

world.” Students soon realise that they have very limited time in-world to actually

implement their strategies; therefore, progress through the stages of the trading cycle

quite quickly and intentionally to generate desirable profit margins. As a result, she

noted that the students were very orderly and focussed on what they were doing in-world

and were more effective in their questioning of other businesses out-world when

collaboratively responding to specific scenarios imposed on them. A connection was

implied between students’ capacity for critical thinking and their content knowledge.

Scaffolding student learning: The expected form of an educational simulation is that the

learning is programmed within the simulation. PierSim Business Island allows the

teacher to scaffold the students’ learning, typically in the out-world. Pearl, in her

response to Item 7 in the survey, offered that “best results are obtained with there is

facilitation through external activities both before and after the interactive event” (see

Section 6.7). Thomas explained, in interview, that the in-world was supported by the

teaching of Economics and Business concepts in the “out-world.” He further explained

that the structuring of teaching in the particular environment required thought about how


he incorporates theory into the classroom. The approach he believes works best is to

have a theoretical session which provides the students with the required knowledge.

Subsequently, he mentioned that it is important to have a debriefing session afterwards

where the entire class explores the learning that took place. These strategies describe

how student learning could be scaffolded in the out-world.

Rose described a way to scaffold student learning within the in-world. She spoke

of her use of the Chat function in-world which she used to pose questions that would

naturally require feedback from each of the groups. Carolyn also used the in-world Chat

function when implementing a natural disaster scenario. Acting as the government, she

made broadcast announcements via the chat function to alert the groups to the impending

disaster. This heightened the students’ excitement and was particularly effective in

allowing her to observe the students’ reactions in real time to the imposed scenario.

Open-ended problems: The outcome of the simulation is driven by students’ actions

rather than predetermined by the simulation. Thomas stressed that the PierSim Business

Island simulation is “non-linear,” meaning that most existing technology-based programs

are linear and once students “crack them” (meaning that they provide the pre-determined

answer), the students then follow the same process to achieve the same output. Whereas,

non-linear programs, like PierSim, constantly change the conditions and outcomes so as

to continually challenge students’ thinking and decision-making of their own actions in

being able to respond to the changing marketplace. This level of flexibility of the

program, in the sense that it can be used to create holistic environments, but it also can

be used to teach a very specific element within the program, allows the teacher to

become quite creative in their approach to teaching the business and economic concepts,

as well as continue to explore “real-life” issues that can be applied as scenarios within

the simulation. Rose believes that the students begin to become the “drivers” of their

learning as they become immersed in both in- and out-worlds that they directly influence

the direction of the learning outcomes. Open-endedness (and open-ended problems)

were referenced in discussion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Section 4.3.2)

and disruptions to teaching practice (Section 7.2.2). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s

(2008) tenet relating to “encouraging exploration and discovery” (see Table 4.1).

Teaching concepts holistically: Thomas and Diana made reference to the fact that while

they try to promote an integrated approach to teaching Economics and Business, they

commonly taught each concept in isolation and had variable experiences of how skillsets

from those different areas in business would work together to make it a successful

business. Both Thomas and Diana felt that, in traditional pedagogy, there was little

integration occurring in terms of understanding how the business concepts and principles


work together or how they link with all the other elements that a particular manager has

to encounter in their daily role. References to teaching concepts holistically are

addressed along with Authentic Learning at Transformation level (Section 7.2.7).

Teachers’ redefinition of their role: The capacity for teachers to adopt new/revised roles

is a necessary condition for active and experiential learning. In interview, teachers

described themselves in a range of roles including consultant, advisor and mentor. In

addition, there was the metaphorical role of “anchor” offered in describing the stability

and direction that the teacher brings to a dynamic learning environment (see Section

7.2.2). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenet relating to “stimulating

background knowledge and expertise” (see Table 4.1).

Teacher:student relationship: Interview subjects frequently alluded to a change in their

relationship with their students as a consequence of the change in their role. Rose noted

that her professional working relationship with her students changed as a result of using

the PierSim Business Island Simulation. She commented that she was not the one to

“typically stand in front of the classroom and tell them what to do” as her focus was

primarily on creating an inclusive environment where students would lead the discussion

and interactions amongst each other. It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenet

relating to “capitalising on the presence of others” (see Table 4.1).

8.3.2 Pedagogical connections to learning affordances

In many instances, the “learning affordances” are the obverse or “flip-side” of teaching

affordances. Each is the product of a deliberate action or design of a learning experience, and

each takes advantage of a particular affordance of the PierSim Business Island simulation.

Experiential learning: The simulation, through its immersive format, allows students to

“experience” the concepts of Economics and Business as opposed to simply learning

about them. Carolyn, in particular, explained that the simulation has allowed her to teach

the concepts of Economics and Business differently, that is, applying theory to practice

as opposed to looking at practice to explain the concepts. When asked about teaching

specific theoretical concepts in Economics and Business, Thomas explained that he

approached the teaching of these concepts differently from traditional practice. For

example, he explained that when he was teaching the topics of Marketing Management,

Operations Management, Human Resource Management and some of the Economics

concepts (for example, the circle or flow of income), he had to:


… rethink how the interrelationship between these concepts and the real-world

practice of business would be simulated through the program, as opposed to simply

informing students of the concepts through a more traditional method of teaching.

Thomas commented that there is “nothing that he knew of that comes even close

to being able to reproduce this ‘real-world’ level of complexity in any educational

learning environment” for secondary school students. Experiential learning is a feature

of Authentic Learning at Transformation Level (see Section 7.3.4). It rests with

understandings of both active and authentic learning. It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s

(2008) tenets relating to “encouraging exploration and discovery” and “delineating

context and goals” (see Table 4.1).

Immediacy (Feedback): Immediacy also relates to the feedback that students receive in

the in-world. Thomas noted the value of the cause-and-effect impact of students

“actually see[ing] that something like that has a multifaceted impact on the way

businesses run and the way the economy reacts.” References to “real time” and

immediacy were typically in conjunction with descriptions of the scenarios and students’

responses to them.

Students adopting managerial roles: The adoption of managerial roles can be interpreted

as active learning. Having a role affords each student an opportunity to see the team’s

business problems from a specific perspective with specific responsibilities. Pearl

commented that role-playing within and through the simulation cannot be compared to

how she allowed students to adopt roles in a more traditional sense. When she previously

asked students to adopt the role of the Human Resource Manager and role play aspects

of the recruitment process, students would typically engage with this but there was no

sense of “realism.” Whereas, students adopting the specific roles in the PierSim Business

Island Simulation, allows them to become immersed in their specific duties and provides

more “realism” and they can actually see the implications of their actions in-world which

she could not artificially create in other classroom activities as successfully. It is of

interest to note that students experienced little difficulty in moving between the in- and

out-worlds and through one world to the other. Pearl reflected that:

… I find that when … students [are put] into groups and they adopt roles, such as

Financial Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Manager and

Operations Manager, they actually participate and take on those roles with a deal of

sincerity and realism. They really get into it! If I was not to use a virtual

environment to do that artificially, it would lose some of the authenticity of it. Then

when they come to the out- world, they leave that persona or that role in-world and


are able to look at it objectively to work out what it is they think they did well at and

perhaps even discuss what other roles in the group did and performed.

This affordance was referenced in regard to Collaborative learning at Transformation

level (Section 7.3.3).

Collaboration. The organisation of students into teams creates genuine purposes for

collaboration. In his response to Item 7 in the online survey, David offered that:

We mainly use it for group work to ensure that a team environment and working

with peers is the main focus. As it is in groups and not the normal classroom

teaching environment, the students do seem to remain generally more focused and

will engage in the activity for longer periods than if it was another individual paper-

based task.

Pearl described the value of collaborating by referring to how “small groups

allow the ability of brainstorming of ideas … and provides a safety net for students

who recognise the weaknesses in their own learning.” Further, Thomas offered that:

Working through a simulated environment and the necessity to work

collaboratively in a competitive arena often provides students new insights into

their own capabilities and shortcomings.

The affordance of collaboration was referenced in discussions of the duality of the

in- and out-worlds (Section 7.1.3) and in discussions of Collaborative learning at

Transformation level (Section 7.3.3). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenets

relating to “facilitating interactions and encouraging community” and “supporting

distributed cognition” (see Table 4.1).

Students taking ownership of their learning: Similarly, Pearl explained that she adopted

specific student-centred strategies in the out-world in which students were encouraged to

ask strategic questions in response to the scenarios that had been imposed on the in-

world. Students would then conduct investigative research to gauge how the real-world

markets dealt with similar disasters and then they would, in groups, develop appropriate

strategies that they would implement in-world. Through adopting questioning techniques

out-world, students were able to also write scenarios to different types of questions.

Pearl believed the benefit of having the in-world complement the out-world meant that

students were able to see in-depth interactivity of how their avatar could be manipulated

to represent the findings from their research. Pearl believed that this particular student

focus allowed them to take ownership of their strategic decision-making in ways not

possible in traditional classrooms.


Rose, when teaching Financial Management, allowed the students to decide on

how to record each of their business’s transactions. She said that, at first, the students

complained that they did not know how to best do this. In response, Rose encouraged

them to research how real-world businesses in their chosen industry record transactions.

Students began to investigate issues pertaining to Financial Management and became

more engaged when they could customise their recordkeeping system to their particular

operational needs. By not prescribing a process, Rose’s students took ownership of their

learning. Ownership was referenced in discussions of pedagogical content knowledge

(Section 7.2.1) and disruptions to teaching practice (Section 7.2.2).


This research question (RQ3) was concerned with the pedagogical connections between the

affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular content domain, namely,

Economics and Business. Affordances were represented through the thesis (as drawn from

differing research sources) as benefits, characteristics and themes. They were collated in

Figure 8.1. This section has identified teaching affordances as distinct from but related to

learning affordances (to be extended into the relational schema developed in conclusion to

this chapter) (see Section 8.5). The affordances identified in response to RQ3 are

summarised in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2

Pedagogical connections of affordances

Teaching affordances Learning affordances

Managing the learning environment

Real-time responsiveness

Encouraging higher order thinking

Encouraging critical thinking

Scaffolding student learning

Open-ended problems

Teaching concepts holistically

Teachers’ redefinition of their role

Teacher:student relationship

Experiential learning

Authentic learning

Immediacy (Feedback)

Students adopting managerial roles

Collaboration

Students taking ownership of their

learning


There are clear connections between the response to Research Questions 1 and 3.

These connections are evident in Table 8.3 which adds the teaching and learning affordances

identified in RQ3 to the mapping of the findings of RQ1, the roles of technology (identified

in Survey Item 3) and the characteristics of meaningful learning (Jonassen, 1990) as

presented in Table 8.3. The generic and specific roles identified are linked to multiple

teaching and learning affordances.

Cha

pter

8: D

iscu

ssio

n 19

7

Tabl

e 8.

3

Sum

mar

y of

affo

rdan

ces a

nd p

edag

ogic

al c

onne

ctio

ns o

f the

Pie

rSim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (g

ener

al)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s)

(RQ

1)

Teac

hing

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Lear

ning

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Rol

e of

tech

nolo

gy

(Eco

nom

ics a

nd

Bus

ines

s)

(Sur

vey

Item

3)

Cha

ract

eris

tics o

f m

eani

ngfu

l le

arni

ng (J

onas

sen,

19

90)

mak

es “

lear

ning

exc

iting

, le

arni

ng fu

n, le

arni

ng

enga

ging

and

lear

ning

m

eani

ngfu

l”.

en

gage

s stu

dent

s in

Econ

omic

s and

B

usin

ess c

once

pts a

nd

proc

esse

s.

enga

ges s

tude

nts i

n a

rang

e of

rese

arch

ac

tiviti

es.

M

anag

ing

the

lear

ning

en

viro

nmen

t

A

uthe

ntic

lear

ning

Expe

rient

ial

lear

ning

A

uthe

ntic

ity

En

gage

men

t

Red

efin

ition

A

ctiv

e

Aut

hent

ic

In

tent

iona

l

is c

ritic

al to

the

supp

ort o

f th

e le

arni

ng e

nviro

nmen

t.

enac

ts c

urric

ular

ob

ject

ives

Man

agin

g th

e le

arni

ng

envi

ronm

ent

Red

efin

ition

Act

ive

Inte

ntio

nal.

enab

les t

he c

reat

ion

of

open

-end

ed p

robl

ems w

ith

no d

efin

ite so

lutio

n.

pr

ovid

es th

e op

portu

nity

for

stud

ents

to b

e re

flect

ive

and

to

enga

ge in

eva

luat

ive

prob

lem

-sol

ving

.

prov

ides

the

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r st

uden

ts to

eng

age

in

high

er-o

rder

thin

king

.

allo

ws s

tude

nts t

o te

st

thei

r kno

wle

dge

by

En

cour

agin

g hi

gher

or

der t

hink

ing

En

cour

agin

g cr

itica

l th

inki

ng

O

pen-

ende

d pr

oble

ms

A

uthe

ntic

lear

ning

Aut

hent

icity

Act

ive

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal.

198

Cha

pter

8: D

iscu

ssio

n

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (g

ener

al)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s)

(RQ

1)

Teac

hing

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Lear

ning

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Rol

e of

tech

nolo

gy

(Eco

nom

ics a

nd

Bus

ines

s)

(Sur

vey

Item

3)

Cha

ract

eris

tics o

f m

eani

ngfu

l le

arni

ng (J

onas

sen,

19

90)

appl

ying

it to

un

fam

iliar

pro

blem

s. ca

n ch

ange

the

way

te

ache

rs te

ach.

requ

ires a

stud

ent-

cent

red

appr

oach

to

teac

hing

.

allo

ws a

n as

sess

men

t of

stud

ent l

earn

ing

at a

de

ep ra

ther

than

su

perf

icia

l lev

el.

Sc

affo

ldin

g st

uden

t le

arni

ng

Te

achi

ng c

once

pts

holis

tical

ly

Red

efin

ition

Aut

hent

ic

Inte

ntio

nal.

use

enco

urag

es te

ache

rs to

re

flect

on

prac

tice.

Te

ache

rs’

rede

finiti

on o

f the

ir ro

le

Red

efin

ition

Act

ive

A

uthe

ntic

In

tent

iona

l. al

low

s tea

cher

s to

be

desi

gner

s of c

reat

ive

lear

ning

exp

erie

nces

.

Teac

hers

’ re

defin

ition

of t

heir

role

Ex

perie

ntia

l le

arni

ng

R

edef

initi

on

A

ctiv

e

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal

allo

ws a

shift

from

teac

her-

to

stud

ent-

cent

red

lear

ning

.

al

low

s stu

dent

s to

prog

ress

ivel

y ta

ke

owne

rshi

p of

thei

r le

arni

ng

Te

ache

r:stu

dent

re

latio

nshi

p

Stud

ents

ado

ptin

g m

anag

eria

l rol

es

St

uden

ts ta

king

ow

ners

hip

of th

eir

lear

ning

R

edef

initi

on

A

ctiv

e

Con

stru

ctiv

e

Coo

pera

tive

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal

enga

ges s

tude

nts.

St

uden

ts ta

king

ow

ners

hip

of th

eir

lear

ning

Expe

rient

ial

lear

ning

En

gage

men

t

Act

ive

C

onst

ruct

ive

C

oope

rativ

e

Aut

hent

ic;

In

tent

iona

l pr

ovid

es im

med

iate

fe

edba

ck to

stud

ents

.

R

eal-t

ime

resp

onsi

vene

ss

Im

med

iacy

(F

eedb

ack)

Enga

gem

ent

A

ctiv

e

Cha

pter

8: D

iscu

ssio

n 19

9

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (g

ener

al)

(RQ

1)

Rol

e of

dig

ital t

echn

olog

y (E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s)

(RQ

1)

Teac

hing

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Lear

ning

Aff

orda

nce

(RQ

3)

Rol

e of

tech

nolo

gy

(Eco

nom

ics a

nd

Bus

ines

s)

(Sur

vey

Item

3)

Cha

ract

eris

tics o

f m

eani

ngfu

l le

arni

ng (J

onas

sen,

19

90)

C

onst

ruct

ive

In

tent

iona

l al

low

s a c

hang

e in

the

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

teac

hers

and

stud

ents

.

Teac

her:

stud

ent

rela

tions

hip

C

olla

bora

tion

R

edef

initi

on

C

oope

rativ

e In

tent

iona

l

can

chan

ge th

e w

ay th

at

stud

ents

inte

ract

with

co

nten

t and

the

way

that

co

nten

t ski

lls a

re

deve

lope

d.

C

olla

bora

tion

R

edef

initi

on

A

ctiv

e

Con

stru

ctiv

e

Coo

pera

tive

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal

can

chan

ge th

e w

ay th

at

stud

ents

inte

ract

with

eac

h ot

her.

pr

ovid

es th

e op

portu

nity

for

colla

bora

tion

betw

een

stud

ents

to so

lve

unfa

mili

ar p

robl

ems

Col

labo

ratio

n

R

edef

initi

on

C

oope

rativ

e

Inte

ntio

nal

help

s dev

elop

skill

s for

st

uden

ts a

s pre

para

tion

for

the

real

-wor

ld.

Ex

perie

ntia

l le

arni

ng

A

uthe

ntic

ity

A

uthe

ntic

Inte

ntio

nal


The most frequently occurring teaching affordances ((N=12) were “managing the learning

environment” and “teachers’ redefinition of their role” (n=2, 16.67%). All other teaching

affordances are represented in Table 8.4 once. The most frequently occurring learning

affordance (N=13) was “experiential learning” (n=4, 30.77%) followed by “collaboration”

(n=3, 23.08%). There were two instances each of “students taking ownership of their

learning” and “authentic learning” and single instances of “immediacy (feedback)” and

“students adopting managerial roles.” In sum, there clear pedagogical connections between

the affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular content domain noted by

teachers in the adoption of immersive educational simulations into their teaching practice

within the Economics and Business curriculum area.


To further investigate teacher practice within and through the PierSim Business Island

simulation, the fourth research question asks:

To what extent and in what way do teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy


simulation?

Participants provided information on the extent and manner of change to their pedagogical

practice and beliefs. They were asked, where relevant, to give examples of purposeful

changes made to their practice and the impact of these changes to their beliefs. The response

to this research question, presented in this section, is based on the career stages of the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) (see Section 3.2.1) and existing

models of pedagogical practice (see Section 4.4). Each allows the measurement of change

which is integral to this research question and the broader aim of the study.

8.4.1 Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) were introduced in

Section 3.2.1 in regard to the professional demands on teachers to adopt digital technologies

in their practice. As noted, the standards are categorised in progressive career stages:

Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead. Those standards relating to digital

technologies, as ICT, are: Standards 2.6, 3.2 and 4.5 (see Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

This study was not a longitudinal investigation of change but a sense of change over

time can be gained from teachers’ recounts of their initial reactions to and experiences when

beginning to teach within and through PierSim Business Island. In regard to Standard 2.6,

evidence of the proficient, highly accomplished and lead stages can be found in Diana’s

interview and survey responses (presented respectively throughout Chapters 6 and 7),


including recollection of her first using the simulation (summarised in Figure 8.2). The

APST differ in nature to the adoption models referred to in this thesis in that they map out

increasing collaboration with colleagues and leadership in the field as well as mastery of the

intent of each standard.

Figure 8.2. Mapping of Diana’s recount to the career stages of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

Diana demonstrated the “proficient” stage by recalling that, when she began, she stayed

within traditional patterns of presenting the content and applying the concepts in the in-

world. She offered only one scenario until she gained more confidence and better

understood students’ reactions (see Section 7.2).

Diana demonstrated the “highly accomplished” stage by describing the scenarios she has

designed including natural disasters, financial crises and a pandemic. She has also

modified scenarios in real time in response to students’ capacity, for example, she

escalated a rise in interest rates into a full financial collapse (see Section 7.2.5). Doing

this revealed a solid understanding of the purpose of the “islands” to allow students to

“see” the connections between the key concepts of Economics and Business.

Diana demonstrated the “lead” stage by involving colleagues in activities such as the

mock interviews for students applying for management roles (see Section 7.1.2).

Elsewhere, she alluded to her leading and supporting colleagues by saying that she “was

excited to share the experience with the students and other teachers” (see Section 7.2).


8.4.2 Models of teacher technology adoption

The models of teacher technology adoption presented in the literature review (see Section

4.4, Figure 4.5) all begin in unfamiliarity and share an endpoint which involves

transformative teacher practice which makes creative use of digital technology to achieve

learning outcomes. Each implies a change in beliefs and dispositions towards the use of

digital technology in teaching and learning. For example, the seminal ACOT framework

(Dwyer et al., 1990) placed Invention as its culminating level. This level is characterised by

teachers using technology to experiment with teaching styles such as team-teaching and

instructional strategies such as project-based learning. The SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006)

and LoTi (Moersch, 2010), through levels respectively labelled as Redevelopment and

Refinement, describe teaching practices which seamlessly incorporate digital technologies.

A useful model to consider in the response to this research question (and in the

development of a new model in the following chapter) is the Teacher Professional ICT

Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002). Figure 8.3 repeats the model (see Figure 4.3)

adding examples from this study to demonstrate the range of levels apparent in what

appeared to be a cohesive homogenous group of teachers who have shared similar training

and preparation. The most important part of the framework is the inclusion of the “critical

use border” which marks the point at which digital technology is integral, rather than

ancillary, to the learning activities designed by the teacher.


Figure 8.3. Extended Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002).

The “inaction” stage was exemplified by only one participant, namely Survey

Respondent 5 (see Section 6.9.1, Sample profiles), who demonstrated little or no “buy-in” to

the use of the simulation in his/her practice. Of particular interest is Respondent 5’s

reference to boredom in diametric opposition to comments from other participants who

commented on the engagement that the simulation engenders in students (see Section 6.3.3).

Further, Respondent 5 spoke of the simulation having an “ancillary” role (see Section 6.3.4),

a view which is clearly “below” the critical use border.

The “investigation” stage which is marked by the beginnings of interest and

involvement is exemplified in part by Survey Respondent 10 who, as noted in Section 6.9.1

(Sample profiles), was the most cautious of all participants, offering a neutral response to the


question of “enjoyment” of teaching within and through the simulation. Respondent 10

expressed a similar view to Respondent 5 about the supporting role of the simulation,

referring to as an “addition to content resources” (Section 6.3.4). The prospect for change

was evident in Respondent 10’s remarks regarding the experiential nature of the simulation

offering that it was “an interactive teaching method to replace real-world experiences if real-

world experiences are not possible, or as a practice for real-world experiences” (Section

6.9.1, Sample profiles).

The “application” stage, given the circumstances of the study and the involvement of

all participants in teaching within and through the simulation, was expected to be a common

or minimum level of adoption. This stage is where teachers use “ICT regularly with students;

and can do so competently and confidently.” The majority of survey respondents indicated

that they were confident in their technical competence (see Table 5.4) with some, in

interview, admitting to having been “nervous” or “terrified” at the beginning (see Section

7.2). The survey revealed that most participants enjoyed teaching with the simulation, with a

third indicated strong agreement. The high levels of enjoyment thus expressed by some was

echoed in the interviews where terms such as “enthusiasm” and “excitement” were

occasionally used by the interview subjects to discuss how they felt about aspects of their

practice (see Section 7.2). Technical competence and confidence may be necessary

conditions for a change in practice. Thomas, in interview and as previously cited, noted that

teachers need to become fully conversant with the simulation and understand what this

technology is capable of doing. He quickly went on to say that this knowledge be put to use

in designing meaningful learning experiences.

The observe of the singular necessity of technological knowledge, that is a lack of

competence and confidence, may delimit the opportunity for change. Respondent 5, who was

profiled as the most negative participant (see Section 6.9.1, Sample profiles) and as being at

the Inaction stage, indicated “discomfort” with the survey items relating to technological

knowledge (Items 6a and 6b) (see Appendix D). This claim is not supported, however, in the

case of Respondent 7 who similarly noted “discomfort” in the technical aspects of the

simulation (Item 6e) but clearly grasped the affordances of students’ interacting

collaboratively within the simulation and for student engagement.

The “integration” stage is where teachers have crossed the “critical use border.” It is

where the “use of ICT becomes critical to the support of the learning environment and the

opportunity for students to achieve learning outcomes through the learning experiences

provided.” In many ways, the participants in this study had crossed the border by default by

teaching with the simulation because the reliance on technology is self-evident. This study


has been less about the selection of the technology and more about coming to terms with it as

the unfamiliar environment in which teaching and learning occurs.

There were a number of instances of teaching practice reported in this study which

demonstrate “integration” stage. Many relate to how the teachers made use of the in-world,

particularly in the development of scenarios and their observation of how students responded

to them. A feature of the in-world is the Heads-Up Display (see Section 2.2.1, Figure 2.5)

which, if used appropriately, informs students and teachers of the status of the virtual

businesses. Students interact as avatars and navigate their way within the in-world, that is,

between the five islands (see Section 2.2.1).

The “transformation” stage is where the teacher is able to take on leadership roles

(formal or informal) in the use of ICT and be knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by

themselves and others. This stage is noted through specific learning experiences and the

identification of differing affordances for learning that they represent (see Section 7.2.3).

The transformation stage is also evident in the expression of personal teaching philosophies

relating to the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning. This expression is

indicative of teachers’ knowledge and reflection and their capacity to extract abstract

understandings from the experience of teaching within and through the simulation. An

example is Thomas and David’s assertion that the simulation is “not about the technology”

(see Section 7.2.1). This means that, as for Watson (2001), pedagogy comes before

technology and should drive any decisions about teaching and learning.


This research question (RQ4) was concerned with the extent and nature of change to

teachers’ practice and beliefs through their experience of teaching with an immersive

educational simulation in Economics and Business. The majority of participants indicated

that they believed that their practice had changed, and such change had been made

deliberately in response to the challenges and disruptions created by the use of an unfamiliar

learning environment (see Response to Research Question 2). This section made use of the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes

to indicate change in teacher practice.

8.5 The development of a relational schema as a theoretical model

While the models of teacher technology adoption presented in the literature review (see

Section 4.4, Figure 4.5) involve the presence of transformative teacher practice, a gap exists

in the literature to identify the presence of teaching and learning affordances of a specific

disruptive technology; in this case, an immersive educational simulation in a secondary


education setting. Research Questions 1 and 3 developed for this study, raised an awareness

of the need to identify the roles of technology in teaching and learning as well as specifically

in teaching Economics and Business (see Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3). The emergence of specific

affordances of teaching and learning from the online survey and interview data is represented

through the construction of a relational schema as a new theoretical model in this thesis (see

Figure 8.4).


Figure 8.4. A relational schema as a theoretical model to map teaching and learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation.


The relational schema (see Figure 8.4) reveals that some roles have both teaching and

learning affordances while others have one or the other. It identifies that teaching

affordances, while discrete, can be grouped to represent how they impact on differing roles.

Further, some roles draw on multiple learning affordances. There is an interconnectedness

between roles and affordances. Each can also be seen as an indicator of how the teachers in

this study have re-interpreted their practice in the face of disruptive technologies. The

relational schema also identified the pedagogical connections between the affordances and

the teaching of Economics and Business.

The responses to the research questions offered in this chapter will contribute to the

discussion in the following chapter which introduces a new signature pedagogy to address

the overarching aim of the study, that is, how teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the

face of immersive educational simulations. The key to change and re-interpretation of

practice appears to be willingness to change and to adopt new technologies, to hand

ownership of learning to students, and to welcome disruption.

8.6 Chapter summary

This chapter has presented a response to each of the four research questions which guided

this study. As noted, data was drawn from the online survey and interviews. The chapter

began with a summarised account of teacher practice which, while providing illustrations

and examples to illustrate all responses, also addressed the role of ICT (Information and

Communication Technologies) in education in general and more specifically, in the teaching

of Economics and Business. The chapter then addressed Research Question 2, which

considered the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers through the lens of the

Australian Curriculum: ICT Capability. Challenges and disruptions caused by the simulation

have been recorded elsewhere in the thesis, particularly, Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.

The response in this chapter, in particular, considered the challenges and disruptions in terms

of the organisational elements of creating with ICT, communicating with ICT, and managing

and operating ICT. In response to Research Question 3, the pedagogical connections

between the affordances of the technology and the teaching of Economics and Business was

described in terms of teaching and learning. The chapter discussed how Research Question 4

asked about the extent and means that teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy have

changed as a result of teaching with an immersive educational simulation (see Section 8.4).

Specifically, Research Question 4 asked about the extent and means that teachers’ practice

and beliefs about pedagogy have changed as a result of teaching with an immersive

educational simulation (see Section 8.4). The response used the career stages of the

Australian Professional Standards as an indicator of the extent of change. The means of


change were demonstrated through the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework

(Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005). Finally, the development of a relational

schema as a theoretical model was then proposed to map teaching and learning affordances

to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation. The following chapter will

present a new signature pedagogy to inform teaching practice with immersive educational

simulations.

210 Chapter 9: Conclusion

Chapter 9: Conclusion

This study sought to investigate how teachers re-interpret their own pedagogy in the face of

immersive educational simulations. The study accepted the view that immersive educational

simulations represented a positive addition to promote real-world connections within

education (Barkand & Kush, 2009; Duncan et al., 2012; Farley, 2014; Johnson et al., 2012;

Savin-Baden et al., 2010). This aligns with Bronack et al.'s (2008) suggestion that:

… that place where we can think and how beyond ourselves, via mediated interactions

with others using tools, techniques and technologies that are both familiar to us and

also invisible. (p. 64)

Based on Sendov’s (1986) seminal question “how do we build education in the

presence of the computer?” (p. 16), the overarching aim of this study was to investigate

teachers’ re-interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations.

This qualitative study, informed by Grounded Theory, revealed that existing

theoretical understandings of pedagogical practice did not satisfy teachers’ beliefs to

transform the teaching and learning experience within and through such advanced

technology. A “trial and error” approach to teaching within and through immersive

educational simulations did not satisfy those teachers who had begun to interrogate the

disruptive technology to ensure it provided opportunities for students to demonstrate higher-

order thinking skills. It became apparent that those teachers who adopted a lead role in the

implementation of the immersive educational simulation would need to effect change to their

own current pedagogical beliefs in order to confidently and competently teach

simultaneously and contiguously in these in- and out-worlds environments.

A new theoretical understanding of teaching within and through immersive

educational simulations was emerging, and the development of a contemporary pedagogy to

support the teaching within and through immersive educational simulations became evident.

In this study, a signature pedagogy emerged when teaching Economics and Business within

and through an immersive educational simulation. This chapter, as the conclusion to this

thesis, will describe this pedagogy and explain its components.

9.1 The development of a signature pedagogy – Emergence Pedagogy

The “emergence pedagogy” as a signature pedagogy for the teaching of the Australian

Curriculum: Economics and Business within and through an immersive educational

simulation is illustrated in Figure 9.1. “Emergence Pedagogy” was chosen as a label for this

Chapter 9: Conclusion 211

new signature pedagogy on the basis that an emergence typology provided an apt

relationship when engaging with Grounded Theory; in this case, the adoption of Charmaz’s

(2006) version which employed ontological and epistemological frameworks to describe

findings from a constructivist paradigm (Levers, 2013). De Haan (2006) recognised the

importance of characterising “emergence” as a unique or unexpected phenomenon that

transcends the thing that produces it. This typology relied on the researcher, being as

objective as possible, constructing theory that aimed to reduce the complexity found in the

data gathered, did not have a linear relationship with the data and was still recognised as an

independent entity (Levers, 2013). There was a direct relationship between how the

researcher interpreted the data and this form of interpretation being influenced by the

emerging theory (Levers, 2013).

For this study, and key to Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist paradigm, was the idea

that the data was observed from a critical realist ontological perspective whereby there were

real-world connections that allowed the researcher and participants to be able to access in

order to explain the data and theory. Teachers, through their reflections of their own teaching

practice within and through the immersive educational simulation, were able to make real-

world connections through the in- and out-worlds environments. The researcher was also

able to make real-world connections when interpreting the data, which revealed a strong link

to teachers’ content knowledge and industry currency knowledge to inform one’s approach

to teaching within and through the immersive educational simulation. Concurrently, the

researcher was able to construct a theory that simplified the complexity of teachers teaching

simultaneously and contiguously in- and out-worlds, which portrayed the characteristics of a

subjectivist epistemological perspective (Levers, 2013). This, in turn, acknowledged how

“emergence” could be conceptualised when using Grounded Theory (Levers, 2013).

212

Ref

eren

ces

Figu

re 9

.1.

“Em

erge

nce

Peda

gogy

” ba

sed

on th

e am

alga

mat

ion

of th

e Te

chno

logi

cal P

edag

ogic

al C

onte

nt K

now

ledg

e (T

PAC

K) m

odel

(Koe

hler

&

Mis

hra,

200

9); t

he T

each

er P

rofe

ssio

nal I

CT

Attr

ibut

es F

ram

ewor

k (N

ewho

use

et a

l., 2

002)

; and

the

Aus

tralia

n C

urric

ulum

Org

anis

ing

Elem

ents

of t

he IC

T G

ener

al C

apab

ility

(AC

AR

A, 2

014)

.

Em

erg

en

ce

P

ed

ag

og

y

TEAC

HIN

G

AFFO

RD

ANC

ES

AFFO

RD

AN

CES

LEAR

NIN

G


The implication for teachers to successfully employ this emergence pedagogy for

immersive educational simulations, is that they must explicitly address the “duality”

approach of the in- and out-worlds learning environments. Figure 9.2 shows the model of the

emergence pedagogy with the in- and out-worlds creating a boundary. This figure, as with

Figure 9.1, is symbolically modelled on the universally recognised Wi-Fi symbol to

emphasise the importance of the teacher being able to evolve (or “beam out”) to the next

level of digital technology (in this case – using immersive educational simulations) while

maintaining a connection to their pedagogy and the curriculum.

Figure 9.2. The in- and out-worlds marking the boundary of the emergence pedagogy.

At the “surface level” (Shulman, 2005), teachers must exploit their Content

Knowledge (CK) of the key Economics and Business concepts and principles to critically

apply advanced scenarios to ensure that students are able to demonstrate their ability to

practise higher-ordering thinking skills of establishing and operating their virtual businesses

within a range of complex market conditions. This level of Content Knowledge (CK)

requires teachers to reflect on their own personal industry experience and engagement of

current business situations. The ability for teachers to exercise an ease of transferring current

industry knowledge and experience, allows for more contextual understanding of the

implications for business within differing trading marketplaces. The level of personal

industry exposure to specific areas of business operations (e.g. Financial Management,

Operations Management, Human Resource Management and Marketing Management),


allows the teacher to lead “expert” discussions out-world with the students and

collaboratively forecast how the outcomes of such discussions will translate in the in-world

virtual trading environment. The ability for teachers to demonstrate how the scenarios will

be enacted and help students to then create solutions to the presented challenges, allows

teachers to demonstrate “concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning” that specifically

encourages “interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing” in order to elicit

a different level of higher-order thinking amongst the students (Shulman, 2005, p. 54).

The emergence pedagogy also allows teachers to demonstrate a “deep structure”

(Shulman, 2005). Teachers have formed the assumption that by referring to their own

industry currency when engaging as the “Administrator” role “in-world,” enables them to

adopt a pedagogical approach that relies on the “know how” (Shulman, 2005) of Business

Management within an Australian context. By doing so, they are able to be discriminating in

their questioning techniques, so as to ensure alignment with the “Content Descriptors” of the

Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business, as well as achieving the intent of the

syllabus document by providing a real-world context. This assumption adopted by the

teacher, demonstrates a leadership role of imparting a subject-specific body of knowledge.

This, in turn, promotes a sense of “authenticity” in that teachers experiencing similar market

forces issues with their own businesses (or the company/ies they worked for), were able to

realistically guide students to reflect on the feasibility of their strategic business decision-

making practices, and achieve a more successful learning outcome when applying this to the

immersive educational simulation.

For teachers to feel confident at the “transformation stage”, they have demonstrated

that their pedagogical approach has an “implicit structure” (Shulman, 2005), as their own

“professional attitudes, values and dispositions” (Shulman, 2005, p. 55) have aided their

ability to implement the immersive educational simulation using effective pedagogical

design and strategy. This moral dimension, focussing on how teachers demonstrate a set of

moral beliefs about the immersive educational simulations is characterised by these teachers

employing certain professional values when teaching within and through the immersive

educational. When designing and developing the unit planning for the incorporation of the

immersive educational simulation, teachers placed “value” in ensuring that a level of

“authenticity” was at its core focus. Teachers would collaboratively create activities that

would mimic what would happen in the real-world of Economics and Business. Allowing

students to experience a number of key roles in business (e.g., CEO, CFO, COO and CMO)

provided insight as to how these corporate roles effect change to the success of a particular

business. Teachers placed value in exploring a range of pedagogical strategies to enable

students to participate in collaborative activities that promoted a real-world sense of


interaction that was “encouraged by the nature of the competition, to implement and assess

the merits of key business decisions and strategies” (see Section 6.4.2, Respondent 8).

Providing an authentic learning platform indicates teachers’ belief of facilitating team

interaction and encouraging the development of interpersonal skills necessary for the

simulation of interacting with real-world Economics and Business environments. Teachers

then placed professional “value” in how students “consolidated” in the learning process by

providing the structured and unstructured learning experiences, which enabled the students

to practise business-related interactions to consolidate the students’ understanding of the

Economics and Business concepts. Teachers also placed professional “value” in how

students “engaged” with the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business. Encouraging

students to be actively involved in the key business decision-making and strategic planning

of their businesses, enabled teachers to demonstrate professional “value” in the belief of

“engaging” students in becoming fully involved in the learning of the curriculum.

Teachers also placed importance on their own professional “attitudes” towards the

intent of integrating the immersive educational simulation within the curriculum and were

willing to provide a learning environment that encouraged the pursuit of “experiential”

learning. Teachers provided “as real an environment as possible that is simulated and

controlled by the teacher to provide students the opportunity to run a business in an easily

accessible format” (see Section 6.4.6, Respondent 14). The professional “dispositions”

adopted by teachers were influenced by the level of “interactivity” they encouraged students

to participate in. This pursuit of exploring ICTs to support students’ learning experiences

practically demonstrates the implications of students’ business decision-making within the

real-world context of the virtual trading environment.

Teachers’ professional “dispositions” were also characterised by their connection to

the in- and out-worlds learning environments and the importance of exploring these learning

platforms to promote higher-order thinking skills. The consideration to implement the

immersive educational simulation as a “practical way to reinforce and consolidate the

concepts of entrepreneurship, marketing, some understanding of finance and production, in a

simulated environment where risk is minimal” (See Section 6.4.2, Respondent 4), enabled

teachers to reflect on their own belief for the purpose and importance of working in these

two different learning platforms. Teachers became aware of potential affordances of

incorporating immersive educational simulations in order to teach Economics and Business

concepts and principles.


9.1.1 Emergence pedagogy – engagement with the immersive educational simulation

When faced with implementing the PierSim Business Island Simulation into the learning

environment in order to teach the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business, teachers

recognised that they needed to “transform” their pedagogical practice. They needed to adopt

a “lead” role when designing and developing the curriculum, assessment and resources to be

able to competently teach with the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Teachers realised

that simply “applying” prior pedagogical practices to this new learning environment, would

only allow students to consolidate their understanding of key Economics and Business

concepts and skills, and students would not be able to extend their higher-order thinking

skills in business decision-making. Teachers had moved across the “critical use border”

(Newhouse et al., 2002) by realising that the successful implementation of the PierSim

Business Island Simulation was dependent on the teachers’ belief that this immersive

educational simulation was critical in supporting a “best practice” learning environment for

students to effectively practise real-world business scenarios. Figure 9.3 adds the application,

integration and transformation levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework

(Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) to the emergence pedagogy model.

Figure 9.3. The levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) within the emergence pedagogy.

Application of the immersive educational simulation

The teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by firstly recognising his/her ability to

regularly use the immersive educational simulation with students and know how to do so

competently and confidently (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Newhouse et al., 2002). The teacher

is able to competently and confidently make appropriate connections between the concepts


and principles of the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business)

through the immersive educational simulations (in this case – PierSim Business Island

Simulation) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to “create” pedagogical

connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages the appropriate

generation of “ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to respond to

questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks” (ACARA,

n.d.-d, para. 1). The teacher is then able to “communicate” these appropriate pedagogical

connections through the immersive educational simulation which allows for the sharing of

“ideas and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and digital solutions”

(ACARA, n.d.-c, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can “manage and operate” the appropriate

pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation by taking into

consideration the technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and

maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).

Integration with the immersive educational simulation

The teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by firstly recognising that the immersive

educational simulation (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation) “becomes critical

to the support of the learning environment and the opportunity for students to achieve

learning outcomes through the learning experiences provided” (Newhouse et al., 2002). The

teacher is able to seamlessly make effective “real-life” connections between the concepts and

principles of the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business) through

the immersive educational simulations in order to advance the students’ knowledge and

understanding of the content area (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation)

(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to effectively “create” enhanced

pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages the

meaningful generation of “… ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to

respond to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”

(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). The teacher is then able to convincingly “communicate” these

appropriate pedagogical connections through the immersive educational simulation which

promotes the sharing of “ideas and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and

digital solutions” (ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can confidently “manage and

operate” the pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation by taking

into consideration the technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and

maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).

Transformation with the immersive educational simulation

Within the “transformation stage,” the teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by

recognising that they adopt a leadership role (both formal and informal) in the teaching of


the subject-specific curriculum, in this case Economics and Business, through the immersive

educational simulation of the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Critical to this is the

ability for the teacher to become “knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by themselves

and others” (Newhouse et al., 2002). The teacher is able to demonstrate “expertise” in

advancing the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business) through

the immersive educational simulations in order to evolve the students’ knowledge and

understanding of the content area (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation)

(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to “create” exemplary pedagogical

connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages other teachers to

successfully generate “… ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to

respond to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”

(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Additionally, the teacher is then able to meaningfully

“communicate” these pedagogical connections through the immersive educational simulation

which advocates for the sharing of “ideas and information to collaboratively construct

knowledge and digital solutions” (ACARA, n.d.-c, para, 1). Finally, the teacher can

effortlessly “manage and operate” the pedagogical connections with the immersive

educational simulation by taking into consideration the technical knowledge and skills to

efficiently and securely manage and maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).

Teachers reflected that the desired curriculum outcome was concerned with the

teacher being able to exploit the characteristics of the technology in order to provide an

enhanced level of pedagogical practice for student learning within the constructivist learning

environment (Newhouse et al., 2002). The multifaceted design of the PierSim Business

Island Simulation allowed for a greater vision and belief of how such a virtual trading

platform could promote a level of “authenticity” that had not been witnessed in more

traditional classroom learning activities. Therefore, teachers acknowledged the complexity in

designing the unit of work to reflect the differing stages of knowledge utilisation when

establishing and operating the virtual business worlds.

9.1.2 Emergence pedagogy – alignment to the organising elements of the ICT General Capability



reinforce that a different pedagogical approach is needed to ensure the “duality” of teaching

in- and out-worlds is effectively practised. Teachers “create” exemplary pedagogical

connections with both in- and out-worlds to effectively promote an environment where

students can create “ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to respond

to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”


(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Secondly, teachers meaningfully “communicate” these

pedagogical connections by advocating for students to participate in the sharing of “ideas

and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and digital solutions” (ACARA,

n.d.-c, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can effortlessly “manage and operate” the pedagogical

connections when implementing the immersive educational simulation by taking into

consideration the Technological Knowledge (TK) to enable students to “efficiently and

securely manage and maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1). Therefore, this level of

engagement allows teachers to promote that in order “to participate in a knowledge-based

economy and to be empowered within a technologically sophisticated society now and into

the future, students need the knowledge, skills and confidence to make ICT work for them”

(ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 2). This concept that technology is not fixed and is responsive to

ongoing developments, enables teachers to transfer these skillsets across different learning

environments, in order to achieve maximum desired learning outcomes.

In summary, the adoption of an immersive educational simulation enabled teachers to

adopt an “emergence pedagogy” to actively promote the “transformation” of learning within

the in-world (which is reliant on the ability for students to practise their enterprising

skillsets) and the out-world experience of the classroom (which encourages the driving force

behind effective strategic business decision-making processes). Therefore, by clear

interpretation of their own practice and adoption of the “emergence pedagogy”, teachers are

rising up with students by working alongside of them to respond to unknown situations

(within and through the immersive educational simulation environment) and are able to

effectively “create with ICT”, “communicate with ICT”, and “manage and operate with ICT”

as a result of the consultancy approached engrained in currency and authenticity; thus truly

promoting “lead” status in accordance with the descriptors of Standard 2.6 of APST.

Therefore, the key success of implementing immersive educational simulations, such as the

PierSim Business Island Simulation, is determined by how teachers interpret their own

pedagogy and recognise the power of in- and out-worlds duality of learning.

Being exposed in the face of an immersive educational simulation presents teachers

with the opportunity to reflect quite deeply on who they are as teachers and how they

reconnect with the content. Therefore, it is timely that this new pedagogy is actually

practised and recognised because it is a change in the shift in teacher thinking and teacher

beliefs. Teachers, in this subject-specific curriculum area, now place a different focus on the

expertise required of their own content knowledge and their own industry experience of

economics and business. Therefore, teaching within and through the immersive educational

simulation is “disruptive” – the disruption is not an obvious one but is quite intangible – it is

about teachers’ relationship with content, their command in content and their confidence


with content. This, in turn, encourages lead teachers to adopt emergence pedagogy which

enables them to feel confident and competent when teaching simultaneously and

contiguously between the in-world and the out-world.

9.1.3 Emergence pedagogy – teaching affordances



became aware of their own affordances to their teaching practice when presented with such a

disruptive technological environment. Those who adopted a “lead” role demonstrated

specific affordances to effect change to their teaching of the specific Economics and

Business concepts while promoting real-world scenarios. Figure 9.4 shows the presence of

teaching affordances when simultaneously and contiguously interacting within and through

the immersive educational simulation.

Figure 9.4 Adding teaching affordances to the emergence pedagogy.

These pedagogical connections between the affordances and the teaching of

Economics and Business enabled teachers to rethink how they allow students to experience

the Economics and Business concepts and skills. The teaching affordances were described in

Section 8.3.1 in response to Research Question 3. They are:

1. Managing the learning environment


2. Real-time responsiveness

3. Encouraging higher order thinking

4. Encouraging critical thinking

5. Scaffolding student learning

6. Open-ended problems

7. Teaching concepts holistically

8. Teachers’ redefinition of their role

9. Teacher:student relationship

The mapping of these teaching affordances to the identified roles for an immersive

educational simulation, namely in teaching and learning and within Economics and Business,

is illustrated in Figure 8.4. Teachers became very aware of how to manage the learning

environment (first teaching affordance) by manipulating variables within the immersive

educational simulation so as to allow the Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the program to alter

the environment as a result of the change to the economic and business conditions imposed.

The teacher’s belief in real-time responsiveness (second teaching affordance) of current

authentic business issues and strategy was needed to encourage students seeing “first-hand”

the implications of their strategic business decision-making processes. This, in-turn, created

a learning environment that encouraged higher order thinking (third teaching affordance) as

the open-endedness of the in-world experience enabled teachers to support students in being

able to solve “real-time” problems and have them visibly demonstrate their ability to apply

learnt theory to practice. Teachers employed the notion of higher order thinking to

encourage critical thinking (fourth teaching affordance) as the effective integration of the

immersive educational simulation forces students to question their own business planning

before applying such planning within the trading environment. This approach demonstrated a

real connect between students’ capacity for their own critical thinking and their engagement

with their content knowledge of Economics and Business.

The deliberate pedagogical practice of encouraging higher order thinking and

encouraging critical thinking required teachers to carefully scaffold student learning (fifth

teaching affordance). The teacher’s belief of their choice of variables to change the

conditions in-world, allowed them to provided scaffolded support in the out-world physical

classroom setting so as to enable students to successfully apply their business decision-

making in-world. Therefore, the outcome of the virtual trading environment is dependant

upon the interaction of the students with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and, therefore, lead

teachers were very conscious of the necessity to pose open-ended problems (sixth teaching


affordance) when designing the real-world learning experiences for the students. This

specific shift in pedagogical thinking promoted that students became the “drivers” of their

learning as they became immersed in both in- and out-worlds, directly influencing the

direction of the learning outcomes.

The decision to provide open-ended problems forced teachers to teach concepts

holistically (seventh teaching affordance) rather than the more traditional practice of

teaching Economics and Business concepts in distinct components. This, in turn, exposed

teachers’ own expertise in their “expert” content knowledge and current industry experience

so as to be able to show the real-world interrelationships of the concepts and skills being

taught. For lead teachers, this required a shift in their own thinking and encouraged them to

redefine their role (eighth teaching affordance). The teacher now placed importance on being

able to consult, mentor, advise and be an anchor for students during the in- and out-worlds

learning experiences. This effected change to the teacher:student relationship (ninth

teaching affordance), as teachers believed that students viewed them differently and this, in

turn, encouraged the teacher to provide a unique level of support for the students when

responding to the Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the immersive educational simulation.

Therefore, the extent and means that teachers’ beliefs about teaching Economics and

Business concepts and skills have changed as a result of teaching with the immersive

educational simulation and these affordances positively contribute to the establishment of the

emergence pedagogy.

9.1.4 Emergence pedagogy – learning affordances



became aware of the potential learning affordances as a result of teaching with such a

disruptive technological environment. Those who adopted a “lead” role reflected on the

importance of these affordances to enhance students’ knowledge and understanding of

Economics and Business. Figure 9.5 shows the presence of learning affordances when

simultaneously and contiguously interacting within and through the immersive educational

simulation.


Figure 9.5 Adding learning affordances to the emergence pedagogy.

The learning affordances were described in Section 8.3.2 in response to Research

Question 3. They are:

1. Experiential learning

2. Authentic learning

3. Immediacy (Feedback)

4. Students adopting managerial roles

5. Collaboration

6. Students taking ownership of their learning

The mapping of these learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive

educational simulation, namely in teaching and learning and within Economics and Business,

is illustrated in Figure 8.4. Teachers realised the significance of how the PierSim Business

Island Simulation provides a suitable learning space for students to engage in experiential

learning (first learning affordance). Teachers believed that the power in students being able


to experience the real-world application of Economics and Business, as opposed to simply

referring to fictitious examples or reference to case studies, enables students to become more

engaged with this active and authentic learning experience. Teachers reflected that students

also appreciated the immediacy of feedback (second learning affordance) that the immersive

educational simulation was able to provide, as well as the different forms of feedback that

the teacher was able to provide as a result of operating within the duality of the in- and out-

worlds learning experiences. The design of the curriculum as a result of operating within and

through the PierSim Business Island Simulation, enabled teachers to also believe the power

of enabling students to adopt managerial roles (third learning affordance) which promotes

and encourages higher order thinking and critical thinking throughout the active learning

process. The underlying importance for these roles also encourages collaboration (fourth

learning affordance). Teachers believed that providing the opportunity for students to

effectively collaborate in both in- and out-worlds contributed to the students’ degree of

higher order thinking and demonstration of critical thinking about the application of learnt

Economics and Business theory. This, in turn, provided students with “real-time” insights

into their own capabilities and empowered them to strive for heightened academic excellence

in this field of study. Thus, by teachers believing a change to their own pedagogical practice

was necessary in being able to effectively teach in this duality of the in- and out-worlds

learning experience, students were able to visibly demonstrate their ability to take ownership

of their learning (seventh learning affordance) and become strategic in their own business

decision-making. Therefore, the extent and means that teachers’ beliefs about exploiting the

immersive educational simulation to enable the learning affordances of this environment to

occur, is a key property of the establishment of the emergence pedagogy.

9.2 Summary of the emergence pedagogy

When teachers were faced with the challenge of teaching within and through an immersive

educational simulation, it became evident that they reflected on and changed their teaching

pedagogical practice to ensure successful learning outcomes for their students. A new

signature pedagogy as a theoretical model, titled emergence pedagogy, was created to

advance understandings of pedagogy when teaching subject-specific concepts and skills

within and through immersive educational simulations. The practice of this new signature

pedagogy has the potential to effect change and support teaching simultaneously and

contiguously in both in- and out-worlds environments.

The emergence pedagogy consists of four key properties: (1) engagement with the

immersive educational simulation; (2) alignment to the organising elements of the ICT

General Capability; (3) teaching affordances; and (4) learning affordances of this new


disruptive technology. It is important to note that each of the four properties are

interconnected when teaching Economics and Business. This signature pedagogy provides

teachers with the flexibility to redefine their role to support and guide students through the

content knowledge of Economics and Business. For example, when teachers are successfully

managing the learning environment of the duality of the in- and out-worlds, they are able to

consult, mentor, advise and be an anchor for students as the students engage in higher order

thinking and critical thinking (see Section 9.1.3). This real-time responsiveness, displayed by

the teacher, is a characteristic of how their own expert content knowledge and current

industry knowledge is relied on in order to create such an experiential learning experience

for the students (see Section 9.1.4). Therefore, the teacher:student relationship changes as

they operate in- and out-worlds. The teacher is also able to target open-ended problems by

teaching concepts holistically and manipulating the variables and conditions introduced in-

world (see Section 9.1.3). They competently and confidently interchange between applying,

integrating and transforming the in-world experience (see Figure 9.3) to make meaningful

connections between the concepts and principles of the subject-specific curriculum (in this

case – Economics and Business) and the immersive educational simulation (see Section

9.1.2).

The emergence pedagogy also recognises the importance for teachers to scaffold

student learning (see Figure 9.1.3) so as to enable students to create, communicate, and

managing and operate their own learning experience both in- and out-worlds (see Section

9.1.2); thereby, positively promoting the need for students to take ownership of their

learning (see Section 9.1.4). Therefore, this new pedagogy encourages meaningful learning

by promoting that “learning and instructional activities should engage and support

combinations of active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning because

they are synergetic” (Jonassen et al., 2005, p. 3). Thus, this signature pedagogy is worth

consideration as a theoretical model to advance understandings of pedagogy when

integrating an immersive educational simulation to teach a subject-specific curriculum

learning area within secondary education.

9.3 Limitations of the study

Four limitations have been identified within the study that have the potential to restrict the

generalisability and validity of its findings. The first is generic to all small-scale qualitative

studies and that is, the difficulty of drawing generalisations from a specific sample of

individuals within a particular circumstance. Morrow and Smith (2000) explained that

qualitative research is idiographic and emic (focusing on one or a very few individuals,

finding categories of meaning from the individuals studied) as opposed to nomothetic and


etic (focusing on standardised methods of obtaining knowledge from large samples of

individuals, using categories taken from existing theory and operationalized by the

researcher). The difficulty with generalisation will be exacerbated by its particular use of a

new technology, that is, the immersive educational simulation, PierSim in the context of the

Australian Curriculum: Business and Economics.

The second is related to the researcher’s close involvement with the research setting

(see Section 1.1) raising the potential for and allegation of bias. The researcher’s role in the

PierSim Business Island Simulation program might have influenced the candour of responses

in interviews with participants, particularly with the two participants who were employed by

the same school as the researcher (see Section 1.9.1). This potential was offset by adherence

to Cohen et al.’s (2007) advice that, in qualitative research, “validity might be addressed

through the honesty, depth, richness and scope of the data achieved, the participants

approached, the extent of triangulation and the disinterestedness or objectivity of the

researcher” (p. 133). Fernàndez (2004) explained that in Grounded Theory “avoiding

preconceptions is paramount in doing grounded theory. .... How can a person put aside what

she or he knows? The point made in the grounded theory literature is not that a clean slate is

necessary or even desirable; the critical point here is that the research does not start with a

theory to prove or disprove” (p. 45). The limitation of involvement and preconceptions will

be addressed through awareness and care taken in coding to reduce subjectivity.

The third is related to a possible “halo effect” or “Hawthorne Effect” as the

participants were from a small select group. There was a danger that this might lead to their

taking an overly positive view of their practice and the potential of the simulation. Their

understanding and perceptions may also be based on the introductory briefings and peer

support they have enjoyed as part of the initial rollout. This could lead to a singularity of

responses or responses influenced by the promotional material associated with the

simulation.

The fourth is the potential criticism is that the purposive sample does not represent

the wider population of educators but merely represents the varying characteristics and skills

of the participants in the study (Cohen et al., 2007). It does, however, sit well with the

theoretical sampling which is a key process in Grounded Theory, the method selected for this

study (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994, 1998).

Steps were taken to lessen the impact of these limitations. For example, the

development of open-ended questions allowed teachers to come to terms with the

introduction of new technologies. Further, the researcher focussed the interviews on the

learning and teaching environment rather than an individual’s capacity to use or master the

technology thus countering the second and third limitation.


9.4 Recommendations for further research

This study was developed from the desire to explore how emerging “disruptive”

technologies inform a teacher’s pedagogical practice. Therefore, since this is a relatively new

area of research, a number of research directions could be explored. Some areas for further

investigation could include:

investigating how students respond to immersive educational simulations as this will

continue to inform a teacher’s pedagogical approach;

examining a wider sample of teachers (if the program becomes more popular) over a

longer period of time to determine how these teachers evolve their pedagogical practice;

investigating how revisions of the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business

could impact a teacher’s pedagogical belief and attitude towards the adoption of such

“disruptive” technologies;

examining how a teacher’s pedagogical approach to the teaching of a specific year level

of the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business is impacted by the immersive

educational simulation;

investigating how the teachers exploit the characteristics of ICT to guide student-

learning within a constructivist learning environment (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et

al., 2005), particularly for immersive educational simulations;

investigating how teachers interpret their own pedagogy when teaching other business

subjects’ concepts and skills within and through immersive educational simulations; and

exploring how teachers interpret their own pedagogy when implementing immersive

educational simulations for other curriculum learning areas.

9.5 Endnote

The reason I undertook this study was to explore how such a “disruptive” technology, an

immersive educational simulation, could be adopted by teachers to change the way in which

Economics and Business was taught to students. While the very idea of implementing a

virtual reality component to the curriculum seemed quite exciting, I was more interested to

see how teachers, with a range of experience and technological expertise, would cope with

the implementation of such an emerging technology. I wanted to explore how teachers would

reflect on their own pedagogy and belief about emerging technologies, in order to now

respond to the demands of a changing educational landscape for teaching this subject-

specific curriculum area. Initially, I was eager to see how teachers simply accepted that this

was yet another aid to assist them in teaching Economics and Business (as they were used to


previously incorporating a range of ICT tools). However, I became more intrigued with how

teachers began to show visible signs of relying on their own business industry experience

when teaching the key concepts of Economics and Business within this technology platform.

As the study progressed, I was quite surprised at the level of significance teachers

placed on their pedagogical approach when in- and out-worlds. This sparked a keen

interested in delving into the reasons why teachers were keen to explore new ways of

teaching as a result of having to teach simultaneously in- and out-worlds. The rich

discussions amongst the teachers surrounding this “duality” approach began to create a

renewed sense of excitement amongst the teachers in how they were creating engaging

learning experiences for their students. It was at this stage that I sensed something exciting

was emerging as teachers were really beginning to engage in deep reflection of their own

pedagogical practice and trialled a range of existing pedagogical strategies to inform their

teaching within an immersive educational simulation. After variable success, teachers began

to innately resort to their own business industry experience to respond to the Artificial

Intelligence (AI) of the PierSim Business Island Simulation program. I believe that this was

a key turning point in how teachers viewed this immersive educational simulation. No longer

did they see the program as a way to consolidate students’ understanding of the key

Economics and Business concepts and skills, but rather saw this as an opportunity with work

with students to begin working against the program.

Teachers began to realise how powerful the AI was within the program and viewed

PierSim Business Island Simulation as an assistant to the learning experience. They became

confident in consulting with students, using their expert industry experience and content

knowledge, to guide students in being able to respond to and forecast how the AI would

change the market conditions within the virtual trading environment. It was exciting to

observe the dynamics change in the classroom, from listening to the interviewees’ responses.

The literature suggested that teachers would simply resort to traditional pedagogical

practices and use the technology to consolidate students’ understanding of the content being

delivered to them. However, while aspects of this were relevant in the initial phases of the

interviews and survey responses, it was clear that, as the interviews progressed, the teachers

delved into more complex applications of integrating the PierSim Business Island Simulation

program. Therefore, teachers began to pioneer ways in how to effectively teach both in- and

out-worlds. It was refreshing to see how teachers relied on their expertise as a teacher and

their wisdom from their own business industry experience to devise pedagogical strategies

that would enhance the learning experiences for the students.

While this study only focussed on a small sample size, it was pleasing to see that this

group of teachers demonstrated exemplary teaching practice by responding to change in such


a professional manner with the students’ best interests always at the forefront of their own

reflections. Hopefully, this study will allow for further study in the design and development

of effective pedagogical practices when implementing such disruptive technologies as

immersive educational simulations.

I believe we are only just starting to see a glimpse of the real potential that AI, virtual

reality and even mixed reality has to offer the secondary schooling learning environment and

I truly am privileged to be a part of this next exciting era for Economics and Business

Education. Perhaps it is timely to advocate that:

“Nobody wants to use technology to recreate education as it is”

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 256)

References 231

References

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-a). Aims. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/economics-and-business/aims

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-b). Applying social and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Applying+social+and+ethical+protocols+and+practices+when+using+ICT&level=Level+4

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-c). Communicating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Communicating+with+ICT&level=Level+1&level=Level+2&level=Level+3&level=Level+4&level=Level+5&level=Level+6&page=2

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-d). Creating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?element=Creating+with+ICT&level=Level+4&searchNodeId=14423&searchTerm=AUDIENCE

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-e). Economics and Business. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/economics-and-business/

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-f). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-g). Information and communication technology (ICT) capability. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-h). Information and Communication Technology Capability learning continuum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/1074/general-capabilities-information-and-communication-ict-capability-learning-continuum.pdf

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-i). Investigating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Investigating+with+ICT&level=Level+4

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-j). Managing and operating ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-

232 References

capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Managing+and+operating+ICT&level=Level+1&level=Level+2&level=Level+3&level=Level+4&level=Level+5&level=Level+6

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2014). Australian Curriculum: Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences

Adams, J., & Morgan, G. (2007). “Second Generation” E-learning: Characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft-skills development. International Journal on ELearning,6(2), 157-185.

Adu, E. K., & Poo, D. C. C. (2014). Smart learning: A new paradigm of learning in the Smart Age. Paper presented at TLHE 2014: International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, National University of Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Tlhe/tlhe2014/abstracts/aduek.pdf

AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). (2014). Australian Professional Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers. No. 41. Paris OECD.

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 & Education, 52(1), 154-168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006

Apple, M. W. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Attewell, J. (2004). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Australian Curriculum. (n.d). Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences

Barkand, J., & Kush, J. (2009). GEARS: A 3D Virtual Learning Environment and Virtual Social and Educational World used in online secondary schools. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 215-224.

Becker, J. H., & Riel, M. M., (2001). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist compatible computer use (Report No. 7). Teaching, Learning and Computing Project. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/startpage.html

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75275

Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C.M. (1995, January–February). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.

References 233

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis - Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1080/09523980701847115

Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J., & Matzen, N. (2008). Presence pedagogy: Teaching and learning in a 3D Virtual Immersive World. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-69.

Brown, T. (2005). Towards a model for m-Learning in Africa. International Journal of ELearning, 4(3), 299-315.

Buckberry, N. (2005). More than a vision for learning. British Journal of Administrative Management, 45, 28-29.

Butler, A.E., Copnell, B., & Hall, H. (2018). The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian, 25, 561-566. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.01.002

Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 2, 22-28.

Campbell, C. (2009). Learning in a different life: Pre-service education students using an online virtual world. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1) 3–17. Retrieved from http://www.jvwresearch.org/index.php?_cms=default,3,3

Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2010). Grounded Theory as an emergent method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy, (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 155-170). New York: Guilford Press.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2

Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, L., Çallı, L., & Çallı, F. (2014). 3D printing and co-creation of value. Paper presented at the 12th International IADIS Conference, Portsmouth, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.port.ac.uk/14538/1/IADIS_Conference_2014_Final.pdf

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 39(5). Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/conole.pdf

Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. doi:10.1007/s10639-009-9106-z

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). “Disruptive technologies,” “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511-524. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009

234 References

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593

Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University: Provo, UT. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=etd

Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends Linking Research Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 60-69.

Craven, D., & Weir, S. (n.d.). A new virtual simulation experience for business education. Retrieved from http://piersim.com/beaq

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18-28. doi: 10.5204/jld.v6i3.155

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004813

Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x

de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a Virtual World. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x

de Haan, J. (2006). How emergence arises. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 293–301. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.003

Denessen, E. (2000). Opvattingen over onderwijs (Beliefs about education). Apeldoorn: Garant.

Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245–256.

Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary-school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503-535. doi: 10.1080/00220270701305362

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1897/1972). The psychological aspect of the school curriculum. In J. A. Boydston & F. Bowers (Eds.), The early works of John Dewey, 1882-1898 (Vol. 5, 1895-1898) (pp. 164-177). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinios University Press.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

References 235

Dickerson, J., & Kubasko, D. (2007). Digital microscopes: Enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 279-292.

Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121. doi: 10.1080/01587910303047

Dickey, M. D. (2005a). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1-2), 121-137. doi: 10.1080/10494820500173714

Dickey, M. D. (2005b). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.

Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge Framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346. doi: 10.2190/EC.41.3.d

Duncan, I., Miller, A., & Jiang, S. (2012). A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 949-964. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01263.x

Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Haymore-Sandholtz, J. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices. ACOT Report #8. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt08.pdf

Ellis, S. (1996). Presence of mind: A reaction to Thomas Sheridan’s ‘Further musings on the psychophysics of presence’. Presence: Virtual and Augmented Reality, 5(2), 247–259. doi: 10.1162/pres.1996.5.2.247

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61. doi: 10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. doi: 10.1007/bf02504683

Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2015). Essentials of PBL implementation: Fostering collaboration, transforming roles, and scaffolding learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 89–106). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(1), 423-435. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. R. Fives & M. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs (pp. 403–418). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

236 References

Farley, H. (2014). Virtual worlds in higher education: The challenges, expectations and delivery. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum Models for the 21st Century (pp. 325–349). New York: Springer.

Fernández, W. D. (2004) The Grounded Theory method and case study data in is research: Issues and design. In D.N. Hart & S.D. Gregor (Eds.), Information systems foundations: constructing and criticizing (pp. 43-59). Canberra, Australia: ANU E-Press.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education & technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Flavin, M. (2017). Disruptive technology enhanced learning: The use and misuse of digital technologies in higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Fram, S. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/fram1.pdf

Gazzard, A. (2009). The avatar and the player: understanding the relationship beyond the screen. In G. Rebolledo-Mendez, F. Liarokapis & S. de Freitas (Eds), Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, (pp. 190–193). IEEE Computer Society, Coventry, UK, 23–24 March.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for Virtual Worlds: A communal constructivism case study. Computers & Education, 55(1), 342-349. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.020

Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2012). Ethical considerations for educational research in a Virtual World. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(3), 239-251. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.641678

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2005). Skype and podcasting: Disruptive technologies for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 9-12. doi: 10125/44026

Goodman, J. (2012). Reforming schools: Working within a progressive tradition during conservative times. New York: SUNY Press.

Gregory, S., Butler, D., de Freitas, S., Jacka, L., Crowther, P., Reiners, T., Grant, S. et al. (2014). Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspective on education in a 3-D virtual world. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational Technology (pp. 279-289). Proceedings of the 31st Annual ASCILITE Conference (ASCILITE 2014), November 23-26, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Gros, B. (2016). The design of smart educational environments. Smart Learning Environments, 3(15), 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s40561-016-0039-x

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.

References 237

Hallberg, L. R. M. (2006). The ‘core category’ of Grounded Theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1, 141- 148. doi: 10.1080/17482620600858399

Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. Tech Trends, 60(5), 433-441. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Harmes, J. C., Welsh, J. L., & Winkelman, R. J. (2016). A framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in the instruction of real-world skills. In S. Ferrara, Y. Rosen, & M. Tager (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-world Skill Development (pp. 137-162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 95, pp. 131-171). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hattie, J. (2017). Hattie’s 2017 Updated list of factors influencing student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hatties-2017-updated-list

Hattie, J., & Anderman, E.M. (Eds.), (2013). International guide to student achievement. New York: Routledge.

Hedberg, J., & Alexander, S. (1994). Virtual reality in education: Defining researchable issues. Educational Media International, 31(4), 214–220. doi: 10.1080/0952398940310402

Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Hew, K., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive Virtual Worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x

Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and the community, Loveland, CO: Learning Centre Publications.

Hill, S., & Jacka, L. (2013). Fad or future? Exploring affordances of virtual worlds for music performance education. Paper presented at the Australian Society for Music Education 3-5 October 2013, Canberra.

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. London: Blackwell Science.

Holmes, A., Polhemus, L., & Jennings, S. (2005). A blended approach to situated professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 381-394. doi: 10.2190/F97W-QUJ4-G7YG-FPXC

Howell, J. (2012). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

238 References

Huang, R., Yang, J., & Zheng, L. (2013). The components and functions of smart learning environments for easy, engaged and effective learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 7(1), 4-14.

Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441-456.

Jacka, L. (2015). Virtual worlds in pre-service teacher education: The introduction of virtual worlds in pre-service teacher education to foster innovative teaching-learning processes. Unpublished PhD thesis, Southern Cross University. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a429/50f6151778c0f230df512844c829ff9bd78b.pdf

Jacka, L. (2018). Using virtual worlds in educational settings: Making learning real. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, H. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture – Media education for the 21st Century (Part Two). Retrieved from https://www.idunn.no/file/pdf/33191596/confronting_the_challenges_ofparticipatoryculture_-_media_education_for_the.pdf

Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in “Second Life.” International Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 3, 180–186.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12

Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/46484

Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2005). Modelling for meaningful learning. Learning Sciences and Technologies Group (Ed.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 7–28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.

Kenny, J. (2002). What did we get for our training money? Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=357732

Kilkkia, K., Mäntyläa, M., Karhua, K., Hämmäinena, H., & Ailistob, H. (2018). A disruption framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 275–284. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.034

Kimmons, R., Miller, B. G., Amador, J., Desjardins, C. D., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 809–829. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9394-5

King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 11 - 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References 239

Kirriemuir, J. (2008). Measuring the impact of Second Life for educational purposes. EduServ Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/sl/uksnapshot052008

Kirschner, P. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7-47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.

Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P.J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. doi: 10.1007/BF02504675

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. doi: 10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In American Association of College for Teacher Education. (AACTE) (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 60-70. doi: 10.1177/002205741319300303

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563-573. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/88181

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wengner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levers, M-J. (2013). Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. SAGE Open, October-December 2013, 1–6. doi: 10.1177/2158244013517243

Li, M.N., Porter, A. L., & Suominen A. (2018). Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 285-296. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.032

Lim, K.F. (2013), The signature pedagogy in chemistry education. Chemistry in Australia, 2013, p. 35. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30058946

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Blackwell Science.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lingard, L., Albert, M. & Levinson, W. (2008, August 23). Qualitative research: Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ, 337, 459-461. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47

240 References

Livingstone, S. (2012) Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38 (1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938

Lloyd, M. (2016). National and international frameworks for teacher competency. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 295-306). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, M. (2018). Imagining the affordances of mobile devices as a mechanism in teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 37-48. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/ijet/index.php/ijet/article/view/32

Lukman, R., & Krajnc, M. (2012). Exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual and real-world environments. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 237-247.

Lundin, J., & Magnusson, M. (2003). Collaborative learning in mobile work: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 273-283. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00029.x

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Type II applications of technology in education: new and better ways of teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1/2), 1–5. doi: 10.1300/J025v23n01_0

Makki, T.W., O’Neal, L., Cotten, S.R., & Rikard, R.V. (2018). When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second- and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education, 120, 90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.005

Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded Theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. doi: 10.1177/002188638602200207

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.

McCarney, J. (2004). Effective models of staff development in ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1080/0261976042000211801

MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (1999). The Adelaide Declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx

MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic,R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J.J. & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2007 Conference, Singapore. Retrieved from https://researchbank.acu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com.au/&httpsredir=1&article=3049&context=fea_pub

McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative

References 241

communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 107-116. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.784930

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Moersch, C. (1995, November). Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.

Moersch, C. (2010, February). LoTi turns up the H.E.A.T. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37(5), 20–23.

Morrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2000). Qualitative research for counseling psychology. In S. D.Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 199–230). New York: Wiley.

Newhouse, P., Trinidad, S. & Clarkson, B. (2002). Quality pedagogy and effective learning with Information and Communications Technologies (ICT): A review of the literature. Perth, Australia: Specialist Educational Services.

Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. doi: 10.2190/EC.44.3.c

Nocchi, S. (2017). The affordances of virtual worlds for language learning: An activity theoretical study. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Dublin City University. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/468f/9ed48d4facdfb7f5c89f618b852607239dfb.pdf

Noddings, N. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Orland-Barak, L. (2002). The theoretical sensitivity of the researcher: Reflections on a complex construct. Reflective Practice, 3(3), 263-278. doi: 10.1080/1462394022000034523

Orman, E., Price, H.E., & Rusell, C.R. (2017). Feasibility of using an augmented immersive virtual reality learning environment to enhance music conducting skills. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(1), 24-35.doi: 10.1177/1057083717697962

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2000, October). Making the transition: Helping faculty to teach online. Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE 2000, Nashville. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0006.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Measuring integration of Information and Communication Technology in education: An item response modeling approach. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1247-1259. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.015

242 References

Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013

Phillips, M. (2015). Digital technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 318-331). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, M., & Li, J. (2016). Disrupting teachers’ knowledge and practice: Augment reality in out-of-classroom settings. Proceedings ACCE 2016, 164-172.

Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the assessment of educational technology professional development in a culture of learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 126-131.

Postman. N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Psotka, J. (2013). Educational games and virtual reality as disruptive technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 69–80.

Puentedura, R. R. (2006). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf

Robbins-Bell, S. (2008). Higher education as virtual conversation. Educause Review, 24(34). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0851.pdf

Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. OLJ, 18(2). doi:10.24059/olj.v18i2.435

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309-309. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42433

Savin-Baden, M. (2010). A practical guide to using “Second Life” in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Savin-Baden, M., Gourlay, L., Tombs, C., Steils, N., Tombs, G., & Mawer, M. (2010). Situating pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research, 52(2), 123-133. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.482732

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 256-283.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schofield, K., Melville, B., Bennet, D., & Walsh, A. (2001). Professional practices online: Renovating past practices or building new ones? Paper presented at the Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

References 243

Schultze, U., & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.11.001

Sendov, B. (1986). The second wave: Problems of computer education. In R. Ennals, R. Gwyn, & L. Zdravchev (Eds.), Information Technology and Education (pp. 14-22). Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.

Sexias, P. (2001). Review of research on social studies. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 545-546). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E. & Thompson, A. (2009). Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through course experiences. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4152-4159). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004

Shulman L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. doi: 10.1162/0011526054622015

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Soraker, J.H. (2009). Virtual entities, environments, worlds, and realities: Suggested definitions and taxonomy. Paper presented at The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, August 13-15, University of Oslo, Norway.

Sternberg, R. J., & Preiss, D. D. (Eds.). (2013). Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. London: Routledge.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd.ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Toffler, A. (2013). Revolutionary wealth. New Perspectives Quarterly, 30(4), 122-130. doi: 10.1111/npqu.11414

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

Toomey, R. (2001). Schooling Issues Digest No 2: Information and Communication Technology for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/digest/technology.htm.

244 References

Tooms, A., Acomb, M., & McGlothlin, J. (2004). The paradox of integrating handheld technology in schools: Theory vs. practice. T.H.E. Journal, 32(4), 14-17.

Treharne, G. J., & Riggs, D. W. (2015). Ensuring quality in qualitative research. In P. Rohleder, & A. Lyons (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology (pp. 57-73). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2005). Framework for implementation of ICT in schools. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Parramatta, November-December. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2005/tri05123.pdf

Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wadhwa, V. (2014, December 21). 5 waves of technology disruption that are just getting started. VB News. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/21/5-waves-of-technology-disruption-that-are-just-getting-started

Wang, T. J. (2011). Educating avatars: On Virtual Worlds and pedagogical intent. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 617-628. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.570433

Warburton, S. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.00952.x

Ward, L., & Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: Implications for the integration of ICT. Computers & Education, 54(1), 113-122. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.011

Watson, D. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251-267. doi: 10.1023/A:1012976702296

Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s Technology Integration Matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69–71.

West, D. M. (2012). Digital schools: How technology can transform education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Winn, W. D. (2005). What we have learned about VR and learning and what we still need to study. In Proceedings of Laval Virtual Conference (pp. 8–17), Laval, France.

Woodward, N. (2007). To make change, manage them. HR Magazine, 52(5), 62-68.

Zeleny, M. (2012). High technology and barriers to innovations: From globalization to relocalization. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11(2), 441-456. doi: 10.1142/S021962201240010X

Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333.

Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00170

Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1-17.

245

Appendices

Appendix A ICT Continuum (ACARA, n.d.-f).

Table A1: Applying social and ethical protocols and practices

Table A2: Investigating with ICT

Table A3: Creating with ICT

Table A4: Communicating with ICT

Table A5: Managing and operating ICT

Appendix B Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) (Welsh et al., 2011)

Appendix C Online Survey questions: questions, rationale, and relationships to

Research Questions

Appendix D Responses to Survey Item D

Table D1: Summary of responses to Item 6 (n=15)

Table D2: All responses to Item 6 by item (n=15)

246

App

endi

x A

: IC

T C

ontin

uum

(AC

AR

A, n

.d.-h

).

Tab

le A

1:

App

lyin

g so

cial

and

eth

ical

pro

toco

ls a

nd p

ract

ices

Ele

men

t Des

crip

tion

Sub-

elem

ent

Lev

el 5

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Yea

r 8,

stud

ents

: L

evel

6. T

ypic

ally

, by

the

end

of Y

ear

10, s

tude

nts:

Th

is e

lem

ent i

nvol

ves s

tude

nts

deve

lopi

ng a

n un

ders

tand

ing

of h

ow

soci

al a

nd e

thic

al p

roto

cols

and

pra

ctic

es

are

appl

ied

whe

n us

ing

ICT.

St

uden

ts a

pply

app

ropr

iate

pra

ctic

es to

re

cogn

ise th

e in

telle

ctua

l pro

perty

for

digi

tal i

nfor

mat

ion

of th

emse

lves

and

ot

hers

. The

y us

e ap

prop

riate

pra

ctic

es fo

r th

e ph

ysic

al a

nd lo

gica

l sto

rage

and

se

curit

y of

dig

ital i

nfor

mat

ion,

and

app

ly

appr

opria

te p

roto

cols

whe

n us

ing

ICT

to

safe

ly c

reat

e, c

omm

unic

ate

or sh

are

info

rmat

ion.

Stu

dent

s gai

n an

un

ders

tand

ing

of th

e be

nefit

s and

co

nseq

uenc

es o

f the

use

of I

CT

by

indi

vidu

als,

grou

ps a

nd c

omm

uniti

es a

nd

the

impa

ct o

f the

use

of I

CT

on th

e fa

bric

of

soci

ety.

Rec

ogni

se in

telle

ctua

l pr

oper

ty

App

ly p

ract

ices

that

com

ply

with

lega

l ob

ligat

ions

rega

rdin

g th

e ow

ners

hip

and

use

of d

igita

l pro

duct

s res

ourc

es.

Iden

tify

and

desc

ribe

ethi

cal d

ilem

mas

an

d co

nsci

ously

app

ly p

ract

ices

that

pr

otec

t int

elle

ctua

l pro

perty

App

ly d

igita

l inf

orm

atio

n se

curit

y pr

actic

es

Inde

pend

ently

app

ly st

rate

gies

for

dete

rmin

ing

the

appr

opria

te ty

pe o

f di

gita

l inf

orm

atio

n su

ited

to th

e lo

catio

n of

stor

age

and

adeq

uate

se

curit

y fo

r onl

ine

envi

ronm

ents

.

Use

a ra

nge

of st

rate

gies

for s

ecur

ing

and

prot

ectin

g in

form

atio

n, a

sses

s the

ris

ks a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith o

nlin

e en

viro

nmen

ts a

nd e

stab

lish

appr

opria

te se

curit

y st

rate

gies

and

co

des o

f con

duct

. A

pply

per

sona

l sec

urity

pr

otoc

ols

Iden

tify

and

valu

e th

e rig

hts t

o id

entit

y, p

rivac

y an

d em

otio

nal s

afet

y fo

r the

mse

lves

and

oth

ers w

hen

usin

g IC

T to

col

labo

rate

with

loca

l and

gl

obal

com

mun

ities

.

Inde

pend

ently

app

ly a

ppro

pria

te

stra

tegi

es to

pro

tect

righ

ts, i

dent

ity,

priv

acy,

and

em

otio

nal s

afet

y of

ot

hers

whe

n us

ing

ICT,

and

di

scrim

inat

e be

twee

n pr

otoc

ols

suita

ble

for d

iffer

ent c

omm

unic

atio

n to

ols w

hen

colla

bora

ting

with

loca

l an

d gl

obal

com

mun

ities

. Id

entif

y th

e im

pact

s of I

CT

in so

ciet

y Ex

plai

n th

e be

nefit

s and

risk

s of t

he

use

of IC

T fo

r par

ticul

ar p

eopl

e in

w

ork

and

hom

e en

viro

nmen

ts.

Ass

ess t

he im

pact

of I

CT

in th

e w

orkp

lace

and

in so

ciet

y an

d sp

ecul

ate

on it

s rol

e in

the

futu

re a

nd

how

they

can

influ

ence

its u

se.

24

7

Tab

le A

2: In

vest

igat

ing

with

ICT

Ele

men

t Des

crip

tion

Sub-

elem

ent

Lev

el 5

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Yea

r 8,

stud

ents

: L

evel

6. T

ypic

ally

, by

the

end

of Y

ear

10, s

tude

nts:

Th

is e

lem

ent i

nvol

ves s

tude

nts

inve

stig

atin

g qu

estio

ns, t

opic

s or

prob

lem

s usi

ng IC

T.

Stud

ents

use

ICT

to d

efin

e an

d pl

an

info

rmat

ion

sear

ches

of a

rang

e of

pr

imar

y an

d se

cond

ary

sour

ces.

They

lo

cate

, acc

ess,

gene

rate

, org

anise

and

/or

anal

yse

data

and

info

rmat

ion

and

appl

y cr

iteria

to v

erify

the

inte

grity

and

val

ue o

f th

e di

gita

l dat

a, in

form

atio

n an

d so

urce

s us

ing

ICT.

In d

evel

opin

g an

d ac

ting

with

IC

T ca

pabi

lity,

stud

ents

:

Def

ine

and

plan

info

rmat

ion

sear

ches

U

se a

rang

e of

ICT

to a

naly

se

info

rmat

ion

in te

rms o

f im

plic

it pa

ttern

s and

stru

ctur

es a

s a b

asis

to

plan

an

info

rmat

ion

sear

ch o

r ge

nera

tion.

Sele

ct a

nd u

se a

rang

e of

ICT

inde

pend

ently

and

col

labo

rativ

ely,

an

alys

e in

form

atio

n to

fram

e qu

estio

ns a

nd p

lan

sear

ch st

rate

gies

or

data

gen

erat

ion.

Lo

cate

, gen

erat

e an

d ac

cess

da

ta a

nd in

form

atio

n Lo

cate

, ret

rieve

or g

ener

ate

info

rmat

ion

usin

g se

arch

faci

litie

s and

or

gani

se in

form

atio

n in

mea

ning

ful

way

s.

Use

adv

ance

d se

arch

tool

s and

te

chni

ques

of s

imul

atio

ns a

nd d

igita

l m

odel

s to

loca

te o

r gen

erat

e pr

ecis

e da

ta a

nd in

form

atio

n th

at su

ppor

ts th

e de

velo

pmen

t of n

ew u

nder

stand

ings

. Se

lect

and

eva

luat

e da

ta a

nd

info

rmat

ion

Ass

ess t

he su

itabi

lity

of d

ata

or

info

rmat

ion

usin

g ap

prop

riate

ow

n cr

iteria

.

Dev

elop

and

use

crit

eria

sy

stem

atic

ally

to e

valu

ate

the

qual

ity,

suita

bilit

y an

d cr

edib

ility

of l

ocat

ed

data

or i

nfor

mat

ion

and

sour

ces.

248

Tab

le A

3 C

reat

ing

with

ICT

Ele

men

t Des

crip

tion

Sub-

elem

ent

Lev

el 5

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Yea

r 8,

stud

ents

: L

evel

6. T

ypic

ally

, by

the

end

of Y

ear

10, s

tude

nts:

Th

is e

lem

ent i

nvol

ves s

tude

nts u

sing

ICT

to re

alis

e cr

eativ

e in

tent

ions

and

cre

ate

solu

tions

to c

halle

nges

and

task

s. St

uden

ts u

se IC

T to

gen

erat

e id

eas,

plan

s an

d pr

oces

ses t

hat c

larif

y a

task

or s

teps

, an

d ge

nera

te a

nd m

anag

e di

gita

l sol

utio

ns

to c

halle

nges

aris

ing

from

lear

ning

ac

tiviti

es o

r res

pond

ing

to a

nee

d or

cr

eativ

e in

tent

ion.

Gen

erat

e id

eas,

plan

s and

pr

oces

ses

Use

app

ropr

iate

ICT

to c

olla

bora

tivel

y ge

nera

te id

eas a

nd d

evel

op p

lans

. Se

lect

and

use

ICT

to a

rticu

late

idea

s an

d co

ncep

ts a

nd p

lan

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f com

plex

solu

tions

. G

ener

ate

solu

tions

to

chal

leng

es a

nd le

arni

ng a

rea

task

s

Des

ign

and

mod

ify si

mpl

e di

gita

l so

lutio

ns, o

r mul

timod

al c

reat

ive

outp

uts o

r dat

a tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

for

parti

cula

r aud

ienc

es a

nd p

urpo

ses

follo

win

g re

cogn

ised

con

vent

ions

.

Des

ign,

mod

ify a

nd m

anag

e co

mpl

ex

digi

tal s

olut

ions

, or m

ultim

odal

cr

eativ

e ou

tput

s or d

ata

trans

form

atio

ns fo

r a. r

ange

of

audi

ence

s and

pur

pose

s.

24

9

Tab

le A

4:

Com

mun

icat

ing

with

ICT

Ele

men

t Des

crip

tion

Sub-

elem

ent

Lev

el 5

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Yea

r 8,

stud

ents

: L

evel

6. T

ypic

ally

, by

the

end

of Y

ear

10, s

tude

nts:

Th

is e

lem

ent i

nvol

ves s

tude

nts

unde

rsta

ndin

g an

d us

ing

appr

opria

te IC

T to

com

mun

icat

e w

ith o

ther

s. St

uden

ts u

se IC

T to

shar

e id

eas a

nd

info

rmat

ion

to c

olla

bora

tivel

y co

nstru

ct

know

ledg

e an

d di

gita

l sol

utio

ns. T

hey

deve

lop

an u

nder

stand

ing

of th

e co

ntex

t w

hen

com

mun

icat

ing

usin

g IC

T,

incl

udin

g a

sens

e of

the

audi

ence

, the

fo

rm o

f com

mun

icat

ion,

the

tech

niqu

es

used

and

the

char

acte

ristic

s of t

he u

sers

an

d th

e te

chno

logi

es.

Col

labo

rate

, sha

re a

nd

exch

ange

Se

lect

and

use

app

ropr

iate

ICT

tool

s sa

fely

to sh

are

and

exch

ange

in

form

atio

n an

d to

safe

ly c

olla

bora

te

with

oth

ers.

Sele

ct a

nd u

se a

rang

e of

ICT

tool

s ef

ficie

ntly

and

safe

ly to

shar

e an

d ex

chan

ge in

form

atio

n, a

nd to

co

llabo

rativ

ely

and

purp

osef

ully

co

nstru

ct k

now

ledg

e.

Und

ersta

nd c

ompu

ter

med

iate

d co

mm

unic

atio

ns

Und

erst

and

that

ther

e ar

e va

rious

m

etho

ds o

f col

labo

ratio

n th

roug

h co

mpu

ter m

edia

ted

com

mun

icat

ions

th

at v

ary

in fo

rm a

nd c

ontro

l.

Und

ersta

nd th

at c

ompu

ter m

edia

ted

com

mun

icat

ions

hav

e ad

vant

ages

and

di

sadv

anta

ges i

n su

ppor

ting

activ

e pa

rtici

patio

n in

a c

omm

unity

of

prac

tice

and

the

man

agem

ent o

f co

llabo

ratio

n on

dig

ital m

ater

ials

.

250

Tab

le A

5 M

anag

ing

and

oper

atin

g IC

T

Ele

men

t Des

crip

tion

Sub-

elem

ent

Lev

el 5

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Ye

ar 8

, stu

dent

s:

Lev

el 6

. Typ

ical

ly, b

y th

e en

d of

Yea

r 10

, stu

dent

s:

This

ele

men

t inv

olve

s stu

dent

s man

agin

g an

d op

erat

ing

ICT

to in

vesti

gate

, cre

ate

and

com

mun

icat

e.

Stud

ents

app

ly te

chni

cal k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills t

o se

lect

, use

and

trou

bles

hoot

ap

prop

riate

dig

ital t

echn

olog

ies.

They

de

velo

p an

und

ersta

ndin

g of

har

dwar

e an

d so

ftwar

e co

mpo

nent

s, an

d op

erat

ions

of

appr

opria

te IC

T sy

stem

s, in

clud

ing

thei

r fu

nctio

ns, p

roce

sses

, pro

cedu

res a

nd

devi

ces.

Stud

ents

appl

y te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills t

o ef

ficie

ntly

and

se

cure

ly m

anag

e an

d m

aint

ain

digi

tal

data

.

Sele

ct a

nd u

se h

ardw

are

and

softw

are

Inde

pend

ently

sele

ct a

nd o

pera

te a

ra

nge

of d

evic

es b

y ad

just

ing

rele

vant

softw

are

func

tions

to su

it sp

ecifi

c ta

sks,

and

inde

pend

ently

use

co

mm

on tr

oubl

esho

otin

g pr

oced

ures

to

solv

e ro

utin

g m

alfu

nctio

ns.

Just

ify th

e se

lect

ion

of, a

nd o

ptim

ise

the

oper

atio

n of

, a se

lect

ed ra

nge

of d

evic

es

and

softw

are

func

tions

to c

ompl

ete

spec

ific

task

s, fo

r diff

eren

t pur

pose

s and

in

diff

eren

t soc

ial c

onte

xts.

Und

ersta

nd IC

T sy

stem

s Id

entif

y an

d co

mpa

re n

etw

orke

d IC

T sy

stem

com

pone

nts i

nclu

ding

be

twee

n ha

rdw

are,

softw

are

and

data

.

App

ly a

n un

ders

tand

ing

of n

etw

orke

d IC

T sy

stem

com

pone

nts t

o m

ake

chan

ges t

o fu

nctio

ns, p

roce

sses

, pr

oced

ures

and

dev

ices

to fi

t the

pu

rpos

e of

the

solu

tions

. Sa

ve a

nd re

triev

e di

gita

l da

ta w

ith su

ppor

t M

anag

e an

d m

aint

ain

data

for

grou

ps o

f use

rs u

sing

a v

arie

ty o

f m

etho

ds a

nd sy

stem

s.

Man

age

and

mai

ntai

n da

ta se

cure

ly in

a

varie

ty o

f sto

rage

med

ium

s and

form

ats.

25

1

App

endi

x B

: T

echn

olog

y In

tegr

atio

n M

atri

x (T

IM)

E

ntry

A

dopt

ion

Ada

ptat

ion

Infu

sion

T

rans

form

atio

n A

ctiv

e In

form

atio

n pa

ssiv

ely

rece

ived

C

onve

ntio

nal,

proc

edur

al u

se o

f too

ls

Con

vent

iona

l in

depe

nden

t use

of

tool

s; so

me

stud

ent

choi

ce a

nd e

xplo

ratio

n

Cho

ice

of to

ols a

nd

regu

lar,

self-

dire

cted

us

e

Exte

nsiv

e an

d un

conv

entio

nal u

se o

f to

ols.

Col

labo

rativ

e (C

oope

rativ

e)

Indi

vidu

al st

uden

t use

of

tool

s C

olla

bora

tive

use

of

tool

s in

conv

entio

nal

way

s

Col

labo

rativ

e us

e of

to

ols;

som

e st

uden

t ch

oice

and

exp

lora

tion

Cho

ice

of to

ols a

nd

regu

lar u

se fo

r co

llabo

ratio

n

Col

labo

ratio

n w

ith

peer

s and

out

side

re

sour

ces i

n w

ays n

ot

poss

ible

with

out

tech

nolo

gy.

Con

stru

ctiv

e In

form

atio

n de

liver

ed

to st

uden

ts

Gui

ded,

con

vent

iona

l us

e fo

r bui

ldin

g kn

owle

dge

Inde

pend

ent u

se fo

r bu

ildin

g kn

owle

dge;

so

me

stud

ent c

hoic

e an

d ex

plor

atio

n

Cho

ice

of to

ols a

nd

regu

lar u

se fo

r bui

ldin

g kn

owle

dge

Exte

nsiv

e an

d un

conv

entio

nal u

se o

f te

chno

logy

tool

s to

build

kno

wle

dge.

Aut

hent

ic

Use

unr

elat

ed to

the

wor

ld o

utsi

de o

f the

in

stru

ctio

nal s

ettin

g

Gui

ded

use

in a

ctiv

ities

w

ith so

me

mea

ning

ful

cont

ext

Inde

pend

ent u

se in

ac

tiviti

es c

onne

cted

to

stud

ents

' liv

es; s

ome

stud

ent c

hoic

e an

d ex

plor

atio

n

Cho

ice

of to

ols a

nd

regu

lar u

se in

m

eani

ngfu

l act

iviti

es

Inno

vativ

e us

e fo

r hi

gher

ord

er le

arni

ng

activ

ities

in a

loca

l or

glob

al c

onte

xt.

Goa

l-Dir

ecte

d (I

nten

tiona

l) D

irect

ions

giv

en, s

tep-

by-s

tep

task

m

onito

ring

Con

vent

iona

l and

pr

oced

ural

use

of t

ools

to p

lan

or m

onito

r

Purp

osef

ul u

se o

f too

ls

to p

lan

and

mon

itor:

som

e st

uden

t cho

ice

and

expl

orat

ion

Flex

ible

and

seam

less

us

e of

tool

s to

plan

and

m

onito

r

Exte

nsiv

e an

d hi

gher

or

der u

se o

f too

ls to

pl

an a

nd m

onito

r.

252

App

endi

x C

: O

nlin

e su

rvey

que

stio

ns w

ith r

atio

nale

, and

rel

atio

nshi

ps to

Res

earc

h Q

uest

ions

#

Item

R

atio

nale

(Sou

rce/

inte

ntio

n)

Rel

ates

to

RQ

#

1 H

ow lo

ng h

ave

you

been

teac

hing

Eco

nom

ics a

nd

Bus

ines

s (or

rela

ted

subj

ect a

reas

)?

Que

stio

ns 1

and

2 a

re in

tend

ed to

obt

ain

gene

ric b

ackg

roun

d in

form

atio

n ab

out t

he p

artic

ipan

ts a

nd th

eir f

amili

arity

with

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion.

-

2 H

ow lo

ng h

ave

you

been

usin

g th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess

Isla

nd S

imul

atio

n (b

ased

on

cate

gorie

s of l

ess t

han

one

year

, mor

e th

an o

ne y

ear b

ut le

ss th

an tw

o ye

ars,

and

mor

e th

an tw

o ye

ars)

?

-

3 W

hat d

o yo

u th

ink

(gen

eral

ly) i

s the

role

of I

CT

(info

rmat

ion

and

com

mun

icat

ion

tech

nolo

gy) i

n th

e te

achi

ng o

f Eco

nom

ics a

nd B

usin

ess?

Que

stio

n 3

is a

dire

ct a

skin

g of

RQ

1. It

is d

raw

n fro

m re

sear

ch in

to th

e ro

le

of b

elie

f and

self-

effic

acy

in th

e ad

optio

n of

ICT

in te

achi

ng p

ract

ice

(Ertm

er,

et a

l., 2

012;

Pee

raer

& V

an P

eteg

em, 2

012)

. It w

ill a

dd to

the

prof

ile o

f the

sa

mpl

e by

des

crib

ing

the

type

s of t

echn

olog

ies c

urre

ntly

and

pre

viou

sly

used

in

thei

r tea

chin

g.

RQ

1

4 W

hat d

o yo

u se

e as

the

mai

n pu

rpos

e of

the

Pier

Sim

B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n?

Que

stio

n 4

is d

esig

ned

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er p

artic

ipan

ts a

re a

war

e of

the

peda

gogi

cal c

onne

ctio

n be

twee

n th

e af

ford

ance

s of t

he si

mul

atio

n an

d th

e te

achi

ng o

f a p

artic

ular

con

tent

dom

ain

(Ang

eli &

Val

anid

es, 2

009;

Ertm

er e

t al

., 20

12; F

arle

y, 2

014)

. The

resp

onse

s to

this

que

stio

n m

ay a

lso

reve

al th

e pa

rtici

pant

s’ u

nder

stan

ding

of h

ow th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n in

tera

cts w

ith th

e Ec

onom

ics a

nd B

usin

ess c

urric

ulum

and

if/h

ow th

e te

chno

logy

can

influ

ence

con

tent

-spe

cific

ped

agog

ies (

Ken

ny, 2

002)

.

RQ

1,

RQ

2,

RQ

3,

RQ

4

5 3-

D im

mer

sive

sim

ulat

ions

such

as t

he P

ierS

im B

usin

ess

Isla

nd S

imul

atio

n ha

ve b

een

desc

ribed

as d

isru

ptiv

e. D

o yo

u ag

ree

with

this

stat

emen

t? P

leas

e of

fer a

reas

on fo

r yo

ur a

nsw

er.

Que

stio

n 5

seek

s to

expl

ore

whe

ther

and

how

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Si

mul

atio

n m

ight

/can

dis

rupt

the

tradi

tiona

l pra

ctic

es o

f tea

chin

g an

d le

arni

ng (C

onol

e, 2

013;

Con

ole

et a

l., 2

008;

God

win

-Jon

es, 2

005;

Pso

tka,

20

13) w

ithin

the

Econ

omic

s and

Bus

ines

s cur

ricul

um a

rea.

RQ

2,

RQ

3,

RQ

4

6 O

n a

scal

e of

1-5

with

1 b

eing

“st

rong

ly d

isag

ree”

and

5 b

eing

“str

ongl

y ag

ree”

, res

pond

to th

e fo

llowi

ng st

atem

ents

: 6a

I a

m c

omfo

rtabl

e w

ith th

e te

chni

cal a

spec

ts o

f the

Pie

rSim

B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n.

Que

stio

ns 6

a an

d 6b

alig

n w

ith th

e TP

ACK

(Tec

hnol

ogic

al, P

edag

ogic

al a

nd

Con

tent

Kno

wle

dge)

fram

ewor

k (C

hai e

t al.,

201

3; K

oehl

er &

Mis

hra,

200

8;

Mis

hra

& K

oehl

er, 2

006)

, par

ticul

arly

“Te

chno

logi

cal K

now

ledg

e” (T

K).

RQ

2

6b

I am

com

forta

ble

in n

avig

atin

g th

roug

h 3-

D v

irtua

l sp

aces

. R

Q2

25

3

# It

em

Rat

iona

le (S

ourc

e/in

tent

ion)

R

elat

es

to R

Q #

6c

I a

m a

ble

to e

xpla

in E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s con

cept

s an

d m

ap th

ese

to th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n.

Que

stio

ns 6

c an

d 6d

seek

to n

ote

if re

spon

dent

s und

erst

and

and

valu

e th

e af

ford

ance

s of t

he te

chno

logy

in th

e te

achi

ng o

f a p

artic

ular

con

tent

dom

ain,

na

mel

y, E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s (A

ngel

i & V

alan

ides

, 200

9; E

rtmer

et a

l.,

2012

; Far

ley,

201

4).

RQ

4

6d

I enj

oy te

achi

ng E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s thr

ough

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion.

R

Q4

6e

I am

aw

are

of IC

T as

a G

ener

al C

apab

ility

and

its

orga

nisi

ng e

lem

ents

with

in th

e A

ustra

lian

Cur

ricul

um fo

r Ec

onom

ics a

nd B

usin

ess.

Que

stio

n 6e

aim

s to

iden

tify

parti

cipa

nts’

kno

wle

dge

of a

nd fa

mili

arity

with

th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r IC

T in

tegr

atio

n w

ithin

the

Aus

tralia

n C

urric

ulum

(A

CA

RA

, n.d

.-c, n

.d.-d

). Th

is a

ligns

with

the

TPA

CK (T

echn

olog

ical

, Pe

dago

gica

l and

Con

tent

Kno

wle

dge)

(Koe

hler

& M

ishra

, 200

8; M

ishr

a &

K

oehl

er, 2

006)

, par

ticul

arly

“Pe

dago

gica

l” (P

K) a

nd “

Con

tent

” K

now

ledg

e (C

K).

RQ

1,

RQ

3

6f

I thi

nk th

at te

achi

ng w

ith th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n re

pres

ents

a m

ore

effic

ient

way

of t

each

ing

Econ

omic

s and

Bus

ines

s.

Que

stio

n 6f

aim

s to

iden

tify

parti

cipa

nts’

agr

eem

ent w

ith th

e be

lief t

hat u

sing

te

chno

logy

allo

ws t

each

ing

to b

e m

ore

effic

ient

(Mad

dux

& Jo

hnso

n, 2

005)

. “E

ffic

ient

” in

this

stud

y is

giv

en to

mea

n ef

fect

ive

in ti

me

take

n to

exp

lain

an

d un

ders

tand

con

cept

s, an

d to

pro

vide

exp

lana

tions

and

con

vinc

ing

exam

ples

.

RQ

1,

RQ

2

6g

I am

con

cern

ed w

ith th

e w

orkl

oad

impl

icat

ions

of

teac

hing

with

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion

Q

uest

ion

6g e

xplo

res t

he p

artic

ipan

ts’ m

ore

prac

tical

con

cern

s for

how

te

chno

logy

impa

cts t

heir

teac

hing

pra

ctic

e (B

utle

r & S

ellb

om, 2

002)

. R

Q2

7 A

ttew

ell’s

(200

4) re

sear

ch a

rgue

d th

at IC

T ca

n: (i

) im

prov

e st

uden

ts’ l

itera

cy a

nd n

umer

acy;

(ii)

allo

w

stud

ents

to re

cogn

ise

thei

r ow

n st

reng

ths a

nd w

eakn

esse

s du

ring

the

lear

ning

pro

cess

; (iii

) par

ticip

ate

in b

oth

inde

pend

ent a

nd c

olla

bora

tive

lear

ning

act

iviti

es; a

nd, (

iv)

enab

le st

uden

ts to

rem

ain

focu

ssed

for l

onge

r per

iods

of

time.

Whi

ch, i

f any

, of t

hese

do

you

thin

k is

an

outc

ome

of le

arni

ng th

roug

h th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n? P

leas

e of

fer a

brie

f exp

lana

tion

or e

xam

ple.

Que

stio

n 7

is d

raw

n fr

om a

stud

y by

Atte

wel

l’s (2

004)

whe

re te

ache

rs w

ere

aske

d to

refle

ct o

n th

eir b

elie

fs to

war

ds th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f IC

T in

enh

anci

ng

the

lear

ning

out

com

es fo

r the

lear

ner.

The

parti

cipa

nts w

ill b

e as

ked

to

com

men

t on

thes

e fin

ding

s in

the

cont

ext o

f the

Pie

rSim

Sim

ulat

ion.

RQ

1,

RQ

3

254

# It

em

Rat

iona

le (S

ourc

e/in

tent

ion)

R

elat

es

to R

Q #

8

Sele

ct th

e st

atem

ent f

rom

the

list b

elow

whi

ch b

est r

eson

ates

with

you

r bel

ief o

f the

pot

entia

l im

pact

of t

he P

ierS

im B

usin

ess I

slan

d si

mul

atio

n on

the

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s?

I b

elie

ve th

at th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n sh

ould

not

repl

ace

tradi

tiona

l tea

chin

g pr

actic

e.

Que

stio

n 8

asks

par

ticip

ants

whe

ther

they

bel

ieve

that

the

sim

ulat

ion:

re

plac

es, c

hang

es, i

nteg

rate

s, en

hanc

es o

r tra

nsfo

rms t

each

ing

prac

tice

(Pee

raer

& V

an P

eteg

em, 2

012;

Sca

rdam

alia

& B

erei

ter,

2003

). Th

e re

spon

se

to th

is q

uest

ion

can

also

be

map

ped

to th

e le

vels

of t

he T

each

er P

rofe

ssio

nal

ICT

Attr

ibut

es F

ram

ewor

k (N

ewho

use

et a

l., 2

002)

.

RQ

1,

RQ

3,

RQ

4

I bel

ieve

that

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion

is w

orth

inve

stig

atin

g to

exp

lore

alte

rnat

ive

teac

hing

pr

actic

e.

I b

elie

ve th

at th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n ef

fect

ivel

y in

tegr

ates

ICT

into

the

exis

ting

curr

icul

um.

I b

elie

ve th

at th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n tra

nsfo

rms t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

pra

ctic

e.

25

5

App

endi

x D

: R

espo

nses

to S

urve

y It

em 6

Tab

le D

1:

Sum

mar

y of

resp

onse

s to

Item

6 (n

=15)

Item

St

rong

ly

Dis

agre

e n

(%)

Dis

agre

e n

(%)

Neu

tral

n

(%)

Agr

ee

n (%

) St

rong

ly

Agr

ee

n (%

) (a

) I a

m c

omfo

rtabl

e w

ith th

e te

chni

cal a

spec

ts o

f the

Pie

rSim

B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n.

0 (0

.00%

) 2

(13.

33%

) 1

(6.6

7%)

10 (6

6.67

%)

2 (1

3.33

%)

(b)

I am

com

forta

ble

in n

avig

atin

g th

roug

h 3-

D v

irtua

l spa

ces.

0 (0

.00%

) 1

(6.6

7%)

0 (0

.00%

) 12

(80.

00%

) 2

(13.

33%

) (c

) I a

m a

ble

to e

xpla

in E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s con

cept

s and

map

th

ese

to th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n.

0 (0

.00%

) 1

(6.6

7%)

0 (0

.00%

) 12

(80.

00%

) 2

(13.

33%

)

(d)

I enj

oy te

achi

ng E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s thr

ough

the

Pier

Sim

B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n.

0 (0

.00%

) 2

(13.

33%

) 2

(13.

33%

) 6

(40.

00%

) 5

(33.

33%

)

(e)

I am

aw

are

of IC

T as

a G

ener

al C

apab

ility

and

its o

rgan

isin

g el

emen

ts w

ithin

the

Aus

tralia

n C

urric

ulum

for E

cono

mic

s and

B

usin

ess.

0 (0

.00%

) 0

(0.0

0%)

0 (0

.00%

) 7

(46.

67%

) 8

(53.

33%

)

(f)

I thi

nk th

at te

achi

ng w

ith th

e Pi

erSi

m B

usin

ess I

slan

d Si

mul

atio

n re

pres

ents

a m

ore

effic

ient

way

of t

each

ing

Econ

omic

s and

Bus

ines

s.

0 (0

.00%

) 2

(13.

33%

) 3

(20.

00%

) 9

(60.

00%

) 1

(6.6

7%)

(g)

I am

con

cern

ed w

ith th

e w

orkl

oad

impl

icat

ions

of t

each

ing

with

the

Pier

Sim

Bus

ines

s Isl

and

Sim

ulat

ion.

0

(0.0

0%)

4 (2

6.67

%)

7 (4

6.67

%)

4 (2

6.67

%)

0 (0

.00%

)

256

Tab

le D

2:

All

resp

onse

s to

Item

6 b

y ite

m (n

=15)

R #

6a

6b

6c

6d

6e

6f

6g

11

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

21 A

gree

A

gree

A

gree

A

gree

St

rong

ly A

gree

A

gree

A

gree

32

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e 41

Neu

tral

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e 52

Dis

agre

e D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e D

isag

ree

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e A

gree

6

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

7 D

isag

ree

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e A

gree

N

eutra

l N

eutra

l 81

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

91 A

gree

A

gree

A

gree

N

eutra

l A

gree

D

isag

ree

Neu

tral

102

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Neu

tral

11

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

12

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

13

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e 14

A

gree

A

gree

A

gree

St

rong

ly A

gree

St

rong

ly A

gree

A

gree

D

isag

ree

151

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Not

es to

Tab

le D

2

1.

Inte

rvie

w S

ubje

cts

2.

Prof

ile (s

ee S

ectio

n 6.

9)

TEACHERS INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF … · 2019-08-26 · Teachers’ interpretation...

Documents

Transcript of TEACHERS INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF … · 2019-08-26 · Teachers’ interpretation...