See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316714796

Doctoral Dissertation. Title: A mixed methods study of online course facilitators'

perceptions of mobile technology, design, and TPaCK affordances

Thesis · March 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29276.39044

CITATIONS READS

2 10,249

1 author:

Helen Teague
Eastern Washington University
12 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wikipedia rewrite of the TPACK technology Framework-Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE) TPACK special interest group (SIG) View project

Facilitating Participatory Partnerships II View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helen Teague on 07 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pepperdine University

Graduate School of Education and Psychology

A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF ONLINE COURSE FACILITATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY, DESIGN, AND TPaCK AFFORDANCES

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Learning Technologies

by

Helen Louise Teague

March, 2017

Jack McManus, Ph.D. – Dissertation Chairperson





ProQuest Number: 10590840




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10590840

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
This dissertation, written by

Helen Louise Teague

under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to
and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Doctoral Committee:

Jack McManus, Ph.D., Chairperson

Kay Davis, Ed.D.

Paul Sparks, Ph.D.

© Copyright by Helen Teague (2017)

All Rights Reserved

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................x

VITA ............................................................................................................................................ xiii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiv

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

Background and History: The Growth of Mobile Technology in Online Learning .....................1
Need for Research ........................................................................................................................7
Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................................8
Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................................10
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................12
Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................................12
Operational Definitions ..............................................................................................................14
Delimitation ................................................................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Background and Related Literature .............................................................................17

Overview ....................................................................................................................................17
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals Researched .................................19
Conceptual Framework / Theoretical Focus ..............................................................................20
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge .......................................................................20
Socio-cultural Learning: Constructivism in Online Courses .....................................................29
Socio-cultural Learning: Constructivist Peer-to-Peer Learning in Online Courses ................... 31
Socio-cultural Scaffolding......................................................................................................... 34
Designing for Mobile Technology ............................................................................................ 37
Shared Elements of the Three Fields ......................................................................................... 41
Summary of Core Findings from Relevant Studies................................................................... 43
How Current Research Differs From Previous Studies .............................................................44
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 3: Research Methodology.................................................................................................47

Restatement of Research Questions ...........................................................................................47

Rationale and Assumptions for Mixed Methods Research Design ............................................48
Researcher’s Role .......................................................................................................................48
Site and Subject Selection ..........................................................................................................49
Data Collection Instruments .......................................................................................................51
 v

Validity of Survey Instrument: Phase 1 – Pilot Study.............................................................. 55

Phase 2 – Administer Survey and Gather Survey Responses .................................................... 58
3-Part Data Collection: Phase 3 – Qualitative Interviews ......................................................... 59
Interview Questions ....................................................................................................................60
Procedures for Research Study Validity- Interview .................................................................. 61
Proposed Interview Questions ....................................................................................................62
Modified Interview Questions ....................................................................................................63
Managing and Recording Data .................................................................................................. 65
Data Analysis Procedures – Interviews ..................................................................................... 66
IRB Protection of Subjects ........................................................................................................ 71
Chapter Summary ...................................................................................................................... 73

Chapter 4: Results ..........................................................................................................................75

Restatement of Research Questions .......................................................................................... 75

Description of Participants ........................................................................................................ 76
Findings from Phase 2: Quantitative Survey Results ................................................................ 77
Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1.......................................... 77
Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Design Practices ............. 82
Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Design Designs .............. 86
Findings from Phase 3 Qualitative Interview Results ............................................................... 89
Restatement of Qualitative Interview Questions ....................................................................... 91
Interview Questions ................................................................................................................... 91
Codes Resulting from the Qualitative Interviews ......................................................................93
Results from Interviews.............................................................................................................. 93
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: Online Course
Facilitators’ Perception of TPaCK Integration ........................................................................ 93
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK & Facilitator’s
Link Checking & Resource Investigation ................................................................................94
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK & Facilitator’s
Knowledge of Interactive Software & Innovative Technology .............................................. 95
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK & Facilitator’s
Assistance with Technology Work-Arounds .......................................................................... 96
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Facilitator’s Design
Scaffolding through Feedback Personalized to Specific Learners........................................ 102
Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 3: Facilitators’ Use and
Design for Mobile Technology ............................................................................................. 105
Summary of Research Findings ............................................................................................... 106
Findings Related to Literature .................................................................................................. 107
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 111

Chapter 5: Summarization and Discussion of Results from Research.........................................114

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................114
Summary of the Study: Overview of the Issues ...................................................................... 114
Restatement of the Research Questions ................................................................................... 115
Synopsis of the Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................115
 vi

Review of Methodology .......................................................................................................... 116

Strengths of the Study ............................................................................................................. 117
Implications .............................................................................................................................. 117
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 118
Implications from the Study .....................................................................................................121
Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................................. 123
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 125

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 130

APPENDIX A: Example of Landscape Post............................................................................... 155

APPENDIX B: TPACK Assessment, Koh, et al., (2014) ........................................................... 156

APPENDIX C: Informed Consent ...............................................................................................157

APPENDIX D: Authorization for Use of Survey Instrument ..................................................... 159

APPENDIX E: IRB Approval Letter .......................................................................................... 160

APPENDIX F: Koh et al. (2014) Survey Questions Post Pilot Study ........................................ 161

APPENDIX G: Koh et al. (2014) Survey Readability Report .................................................... 162

 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Research Questions Addressed in Qualitative Interviews .............................................. 93

 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Future of digital learning .......................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: The components of the TPaCK framework ................................................................... 23

Figure 3: Frequency distribution of TPaCK sse by online course facilitators .............................. 79

Figure 4: Frequency distribution of supplemental course design activities by online course

Facilitators ..................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 5: Frequency Distribution of Design Characteristics by Online Course Facilitators ........ 87

 ix

DEDICATION

“We drink from wells we did not dig”

-Deuteronomy 6:11

Twenty years ago, my Dad first discussed with me, my participation in Pepperdine

University’s EDLT program, just in its formation, thanks to the innovative foresight of his

colleague and weekly tennis opponent, Dr. Jack McManus. It took seventeen years for my vision

to match Dad’s vision. Both of my parents strongly supported education as a means for

vocational ministry and public service. They lived by the concept of Caring, Serving, and

Excelling. They encouraged me to begin and continue in their Caring, Serving, and Excelling

concept. During the completion of this degree, my mother experienced a stroke and passed to

heaven. Her encouragement, passion for excellence, and red pen, always at the ready, were

sorely missed. My daughter, Amelia, took the cheerleader baton from my mother and encouraged

me to continue this purposeful path.

My Dad has remained stalwart in his support. He encouraged me and never said ‘I told

you so’ when I told him he was right in his original vision, of twenty years ago.

Dad, you and Mom dug the well and prayerfully set the foundation. I am still working on

the building.

With gratitude~~Helen
 x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research study is the result of the support and collaboration of many key people. My

parents possess the indefatigable belief that research and education are vital. They first saw the

potential of this degree. My daughter, Amelia, supported me with humor and frequent rounds of

conceptual discussion, proofreading, and culinary treats.

Dr. Eric Hamilton was the GSEP Program Chair at the time of my admission. Dr.

Hamilton was consistent in his encouragement and attendance at my preliminary defense. Dr.

Hamilton has an appreciation of what he has described as my “eclectic creativity.” Working on

his research team has brought relevance to theoretical concepts of my courses.

My Dissertation Chair, Dr. Jack McManus, taught me to daily choose the long view of

achievement and the importance of continually looking forward to the innovative horizon. He

also introduced me to Rose’s Enchanted Object concept of technology and Schumpeter’s

economic theories. I am stronger because of Dr. McManus’ influence. Dr. Kay Davis,

dissertation committee member, taught me through her example to embrace the empowerment of

owning my research. Also on my dissertation committee, Dr. Paul Sparks’ presented the work of

Marshall McLuhan, John Kotter, Henry Jenkins, Clay Shirky, and many other innovators in an

open and Socratic teaching forum, both online and onsite. His leadership during our cadre’s trip

to Singapore provided an introduction to the National Institute of Education, research center for

Dr. Joyce Koh of Singapore’s National Institute of Education. Dr. Koh gave permission for me to

use her survey and provided encouragement during my research.

Gratitude to Dr. Linda Polin who allowed me to audit her Learning Theory class. Dr.

Polin’s masterful architecture of coursework made relevant the theory and research of Papert,

Vygotsky, Kafai, Wenger, Duckworth, Mishra and Koehler’s TPaCK. Dr. Polin convened class

virtually in Minecraft and this modeled place-independence for teaching and learning.
 xi
Dr. Charlie Runnels was the first person my mother called upon my acceptance into the

EDLT program. Dr. Runnels and Amy Jo served as my honorary parents during key visits to Los

Angeles. They reminded me that all research work needs to reflect improvements for students

first and foremost.

Dr. Farzin Madjidi, honors the legacy of George and Helen Pepperdine. In our ethics

class, he reminded us of the Pepperdine’s quest to give until there was nothing left. My EDLT

Cohort cadre-C19, helped bring collegiality and commiserative support to this endeavor. Thank

you also to Molly Gonzales, Antha Jordan Holt, and the “Scholadivas.”

I am very grateful for the prayers and support of my high school classmates, Pam

Marschke Worrell, who supported me by attending my preliminary defense. Rachel Sanders, my

high school tennis partner, made several trips to Los Angeles including a late-night run to El

Cholo’s restaurant on Western Avenue. Lori Price Felt completed many LAX pickup runs and

encouragement walks on the Manhattan Beach pier.

Special gratitude for the generous scholarship support from the Associated Women for

Pepperdine and a private trust in Frisco, Texas.

Special acknowledgement and gratitude to Christie Dailo, GSEP Associate Program

Director whose expert organization skills kept me on track regarding deadlines and degree

requirements. Thank you also to Carlos Jimenez, Manager of APA Clearance.

Special acknowledgement with gratitude to Francine Wargo, of PBS Learning Media

who provided continual encouragement and support during the data collection portion of my

research. Francine’s help in recruiting my study participants yielded a rich participant pool from

which I learned. Special thanks to Lori Brittain, Senior Director, Business Operations at Public
 xii

Broadcasting Systems for her support and approval to utilize PBS TeacherLine information.

Both Francine and Lori allocated time to visit with me personally onsite at PBS headquarters.

Special thanks to the following people who served on my pilot study and/or as intercoder

participants: Dr. Cecelia Boswell, Gayle Perilloux Clement, Dr. Scott White, Amelia Wildman,

Jennifer Frazier, Francine Wargo, Dr. Joyce King, Hiroo Kato, Dr. Marisa Beard, and Steven

Chapman of EDLT Cadre 20. Your insights, constructive comments, attention to detail, and

encouragement helped my study toward pinpoint precision and eventual success.

Acknowledgement and gratitude to my mentors: Dr. Jerilyn Pfeifer, Dr. Chantrey Fritts,

and Dr. Karen Barlow. Thank you to Dr. Charlie Pruett, Director of the Pruett Gerontology

Center in Abilene, Texas. Dr. Pruett patiently endured my absences from PGC and encouraged

me through conversation, instruction, and prayer. I have learned to be a better worker and

manager because of his example.

I’m grateful for the support I received from the Saturday tennis group, especially my

coach Diane King, Tiffany Wagstaff, and, honorary team captain, Dr. Bill Teague.

Special acknowledgement with gratitude to the 33 study participants and among them,

the 12 interview participants who gave their time and shared their expertise during the study. The

interview participants gave rich and thorough descriptions of their practice. Collectively, the

interview participants represented over 170 years of online course facilitation tenure. They gave

615 minutes of conversation and insight into the very best practices for co-creating online

learning communities oriented toward strengthening professional practice. Thank you for

teaching me and letting me learn from you.

 xiii

VITA

EDUCATION

2017 Ed.D Pepperdine University

Learning Technologies Malibu, CA

1985 M.Ed. Curriculum & Instruction Abilene Christian University

Abilene, Texas

1983 B.B.A. Business Management Abilene Christian University

Abilene, Texas
Abilene Christian University
1996 Other: Educational Administration
Abilene, Texas
certification

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

2013-Present Research Assistant, Dr. Eric Hamilton

Pepperdine University, West Los Angeles, CA

2013-Present Pruett Gerontology Center, Program Manager

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX

2005-Present National Online Course Facilitator

PBS TeacherLine, Arlington, VA

1997-Present Educational Professional Development Consultant

Our Overnight Planning System, LLC, Abilene, TX

2008-2012 Coordinator, Women’s Health

Hendrick Medical Center, Abilene, TX

1992-2005 Teacher, Department Chair, Vocational Coordinator,

District Technology Trainer
Abilene Independent School District, Abilene, TX

1990-1991 Assistant Editor

Fort Worth Parent, newsmagazine, Ft. Worth, TX

1988-1990 Adult Education Instructor

San Diego School District, San Diego, CA

1986-1988 Assistant to the Administrator

San Diego Christian Foundation, La Mesa, CA
 xiv

ABSTRACT

The increase in mobile technology options for students in post-secondary, continuing education

influences how instructors design and implement courses, specifically online courses (Sözcü,

İpek, & Kınay, 2016). Much of the current research addresses technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge (TPaCK), course design, and/or mobile technology as separate topics. There

is limited research addressing the combination of TPaCK, design, and mobile technology from

the course instructors’ perspective. The mixed methods study addressed design for online,

mobile learning with a new layer of the TPaCK instructional framework in three phases.

Phase 1 involved a pilot study of a survey that measured TPaCK, lesson design practices,

and design perceptions. The pilot study responses informed Phase 2. In Phase 2, the survey was

given to 33 current online course facilitators from PBS TeacherLine, an online continuing

education course provider. Responses were gathered. In Phase 3, a qualitative interview designed

to understand online course instructors’ perceptions of their use of mobile technology, design

decisions, and the TPaCK, instructional framework was conducted with a random sample of

twelve people from the survey participant pool. The threefold data collection process allowed for

a triangulation of the findings, which heightened construct validity and comprehensive

understanding.

In Finding 1, 100% of the online continuing education course facilitators integrated

TPaCK in their courses through the use of mobile and digital tools. In Finding 2, 100% of the

online continuing education course facilitators made dynamic and innovative mobile and digital

design decisions through the creation of supplemental course content. In Finding 3, 92% of

online continuing education course facilitators utilized mobile technology in their online courses

through an innovative inclusion of both mobile devices and mobile apps. Five conclusions

resulted from the study and are discussed. The study contributes to existing literature by
 xv

providing a 6-point effectiveness checklist, with the acronym “SCROLL” to operationalize for the

professional development of pre-service and current online course facilitators.

Keywords: mobile technology, mobile learning, scaffolding, socio-cultural learning, constructionism,

instructional design, professional development, adult education, TPaCK
 1

Chapter 1: Study Introduction

Background and History- The Growth of Mobile Technology in Online Learning

The research study proposed to use a mixed methods approach of a quantitative survey

instrument to measure online course instructors’ use of the TPaCK instructional framework and a

qualitative interview to measure online course instructors’ specific use of mobile technology in

their online courses.

Online education continues to provide a growing and preferred educational option for

students of all ages (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016; Scoble, Israel, & Benioff, 2014;

Sher, Williams, & Northcote, 2015). Online education provides new technology options for

content through the expanding availability of open source libraries of information (Flood, Heath,

& Lapp, 2015) and also the obliteration of field dependent tethers.

Online education courses, known by the terms virtual learning, distance education, or

e-learning courses, offer an advantageous option for teachers and students. Specifically,

software, apps, and online learning systems influence the pedagogical and instructional practices

of teachers. Encompassing virtual learning, distance education, and e-learning, online education

courses delivered over an internet connection are offering advantageous learning options for

students. Graber’s (2014) premise asserts, “No form of technology has changed the face of how

education is delivered to students as dramatically as online education” (p. 173).

Nicholas Negroponte (1996) observed, “Computing is not about computers anymore. It is

about living” (p. 6). The greatest concern of the top technology companies is “being where

people will spend most of the time online” (Scoble et al., 2014, p. 16). People interact with

technology and personalize it in social ways (Nass, Steuer, & Tauber, 1994). During the 2017

Super Bowl LI, 27.6 million tweets were posted to the Twitter hashtag #SB5164 (Perez, 2017).
 2

Facebook reported that 64 million people posted 240 million interactions on Facebook with over

90% of the interactions occurring over mobile devices (Perez, 2017).

Field dependence is “the tendency to rely on external referents, while field-independence

is the tendency to rely upon internal referents” (Sözcü et al., 2016, p. 189). Graber’s premise

(2014) is applicable to mobile technology and mobile learning. The global market for mobile

learning reached a sales total of $5.3 billion in 2012 (Pande, Thankare, & Wadhai, 2017). The

sales forecasts of the explosive growth of global are projected to increase to $12.2 billion by the

end of the 2017 (Pande, Thankare, & Wadhai, 2017).

The emergence and dominance of mobile learning is an explosive innovation in

educational technology. Mobile technology reimagines and redefines educational opportunity

away from field-dependent spaces of learning (Sözcü, İpek, & Kınay, 2016). Mobile technology

disrupts field and place dependency to include learning from any WiFi-connected space. With

increases in mobile device storage capacity, continuous WiFi is being disrupted as well.

Embodying Negroponte’s claim, mobile devices are abundant and ubiquitous. They have

enormous potential to facilitate ever-present access to learning materials, and to enable learners

“to perform authentic activities in the context of their learning” (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013, p.

76). Contextually authentic learning is necessary because students in secondary and post-

secondary education prefer “here and now” learning (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013, p. 26).

A large number of learners prefer mobile technology (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013; Scoble

et al., 2014). For instance, of the 400 million Instagram users, 90% are younger than 35 years

(Duggan, 2015). Even students as young as elementary school are proficient with mobile

technology (Muir, Callingham, & Beswick, 2016). Over 90% of middle school students use

technology (Muir et al., 2016). Empirical research studies indicate that use of mobile devices to

access learning and curriculum materials is common among graduate level learners (Hamm,
 3

Drysdale, & Moore, 2014, Traxler, 2009). Learning institutions recognize the need to define

strategies for e-learning and mobile learning (Tseloudi & Arnedillo-Sánchez, 2016). These

strategies outline ways in which students and faculty access course content online using a mobile

device on a safe and secure network.

Although mobile devices have tethered options for connectivity, learning with mobile

technology is different from desktop-tethered eLearning (Traxler & Lally, 2016). Courses

featuring mobile technology are more learner-centered rather than instructor-led. Mobile

technology affords learning that is more contextual, (Scobel, Israel, & Benioff, 2014),

impromptu, cooperative, and innovative (Looi et al., 2016; Sung, Chang, & Liu, 2016). Learning

with mobile technology is also more portable and flexible (Johnson, Becker, Estrada, &

Freeman, 2014; Rashid-Doubell, Mohamed, Elmusharaf, & O'Neill, 2016; Sher et al., 2015).

Learning with mobile devices is most often referred to as mobile-learning. However, the

terms, mLearning, one-to-one learning, and handheld learning are also used. A comprehensive

definition of mobile learning remains elusive (Berking, Haag, Archibald, & Birtwhistle, 2012;

Chen, Hsu, & Doong, 2016; El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). This is because mobile learning

involves many situations and conditions (Fulantelli, Taibi & Arrigo, 2015; Tseloudi & Arnedillo-

Sánchez, 2016). These situations include learning sites with mobility affordance tools

(Kukulska-Hulme, 2010; Manches, Phillips, Crook, Chowcat, & Sharples, 2010) outside of the

traditional classroom (Compton, 2016; Torrisi-Steele, 2008). Mobile learning combines various

locations, social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices (Crompton, 2013).

Mobile technology devices include wearables, smartphones, tablets, personal digital

assistants, eBooks, and notebooks (Scobel et al., 2014). They also include leading-edge business

delivery modes such as robots (Eguchi, 2015), unmanned aerial vehicles, i.e. drones (Huggard &

McGoldrick, 2016; Morris, 2015) and flybots (Morris, 2015). In educational settings, the
 4

majority of mobile technology devices include Apple iPads, Android tablets, Android

smartphones, iPhone smartphones, ebooks, and wearables.

The most used mobile device is the smartphone. In 2012, the number of cell phone units

surpassed the world’s population (Scobel et al., 2014; Statista, 2016). From home, business, and

public networks, 89% of US adults access news and information via their mobile devices

(Knightfoundation, 2016). In the 9 years since its market debut, the smartphone epitomizes

ubiquitous, “enchanted object” status described by Rose in his book of the same name (Rose,

2014). Forecasts of global cell phone users through 2016 exceed two billion and approach three

billion users by 2019 (eMarketer, 2016; Pramis, 2013).

In 1916, Dewey wrote, “the method of teaching is the method of an art, of action

intelligently directed by ends” (p. 200). Over 100 years since Dewey’s statement, mobile

technology is an emerging equivalent of those “ends”. The emergence of cloud computing

technology has further enhanced the demand for mobile learning applications. Mobile learning

supports “multiple entry points and learning pathways” (So, 2009, p. 217). Mobile technology

changes the landscape of online instruction. It facilitates sequenced learning beginning with

teacher-centered instruction and proceeding to learner-centered learning and culminating in

learner-driven learning (Bevan, Gutwill, Petrich, & Wilkinson, 2015; Duckworth, 1972; Tseloudi

& Arnedillo-Sánchez, 2016).

Mobile technology includes a myriad of applications (apps) to carry messages. Mobile

apps are the “secret sauce” (Scoble et al., 2014, p. 16) that connects the technology of devices

with the pedagogy of learning. Because of customization and flexibility, students prefer mobile

technology (Liu, 2007; Scobel et al., 2014). University students prefer online courses accessible

with mobile tech via Smartphones (Korucu & Usta, 2016; Liu, 2017; Sher et al., 2015). As they

progress to full-time employment, students rely on their facility with mobile technology. A 2016
 5

employment study found fully 89% use technology, especially downloaded apps for continuing

education and scaled up productivity (Overton & Dixon, 2016).

The goal of telecommunications remains as a conveyance of technology between people.

Previously, telecommunication effectiveness meant improving the technological tool itself. For

example, a faster modem meant better communication and therefore a better experience. The

means by which “the effectiveness and impact of person-to-person telecommunications” (Short,

William, & Christie, 1976, p. vi), is re-imagined in the mobile arena. Embodying Negroponte’s

assertion, mobile devices are abundant and ubiquitous. They have enormous potential to

facilitate ever-present access to learning materials, and to enable authentic, personalized

instruction for learners (Martin & Ertzberger, 2013) with an emphasis on contexts and higher-

order critical thinking (Scobel et al., 2014). Today, a faster network connection and an expansive

data plan are desirable, but learning requires more than geeky tools and “gee-whiz” gadgets. The

arrival of mobile technology necessitates new, ubiquitous Web 2.0 platforms, new instructional

messaging methods (Kent, Laslo, & Rafaeli, 2016), and expanding repositories of open

educational resources (OERs).

Additionally, mobile technology and online education render some instructional methods

and educational technology unnecessary or obsolete. This cycle of new entrants and exits in the

innovative of mobile technology echoes Schumpeter’s (1943) premise of transformative

“creative destruction” (p. 81). Transforming the process of learning online with mobile

technology demands disruptive solutions (Christensen, 2013). Educational institutions customize

and re-engineer their learning management systems and content delivery platforms to reach the

app-driven, smartphone student culture. Educational agencies garner funding to develop and

maintain mobile infrastructure and applications for learning (Marcus-Quinn & Cleary, 2016;

Stuart & Triola, 2015).

 6

Post-secondary faculty are often required to provide the full array of instruction, design,

delivery, and administration of online content. Further, they are expected to stay current with the

latest mobile technology options and apps. Within online education and mobile education, there

is a lack of data on the technological, pedagogical, content knowledge and learning design

methods used by online instructors in continuing education. How to collect and codify the skills

needed to teach online requires new models and new approaches for educational, professional

development. Research to determine to what extent continuing education online instructors use

TPaCK and make design decisions in their courses would add to the current body of literature.

As technology devices became smaller and faster, the mediating effects in teaching and learning

became an important research focus (Gunawardena, 1995; Richardson, Swan, Lowenthal, & Ice,

2016). Instructors with the greatest personal satisfaction and positive student reviews accept

technology and are adept at utilizing technology as a medium for instruction (Allen et al., 2016;

Gunawardena, 1995; Richardson et al., 2016; Rose, 2012; Song & Yuan, 2015).

Discussions on the future trends and impact of online learning increasingly include the

affordance of mobile technology. Mobile Learning has implications for online, as well as

classroom, course design and delivery (Marcus-Quinn & Cleary, 2016; Winters & West, 2013).

How to define and codify the skills needed to teach online requires new models and new

approaches for educational, professional development. Within online and mobile education there

is a lack of published research on the technological, pedagogical, content knowledge and

learning design methods used by course instructors in higher education (Marcus-Quinn &

Cleary, 2016; Salifu, 2014).

Improved educational technology use by professors in post-secondary education

continues to be a priority for technology-mediated instruction (Allen et al., 2016; Marcus-Quinn

& Cleary, 2016). However, teachers in post-secondary education are reluctant to embrace online
 7

education or include mobile technology (Hamilton, 2016; Lucas, 2015). They see online courses

as an increase in their workload (Bainbridge, Melitski, & Zahradnik, 2015); inferior to traditional

courses (Lucas, 2015); and associated with for-profit colleges who are not accredited (Lucas,

2015; Natale, Libertella, & Doran, 2015). Some faculty simply resist changing their teaching

practices (Lucas, 2015; Sheninger, 2014).

Need for Research

The growth of mobile technology continues to impact online instruction. A research-

based, integrative approach to the practice of teaching with mobile technology that is less tool

specific and more clearly defined and systematic is needed (Marcus-Quinn & Clearey, 2016;

Shuler, Winters & West, 2013). As the number of online courses increases (Brenton, 2015), there

is a need to provide professional development models and methods for online course instructors.

Online instruction and mobile technology have changed the design needs of online teachers.

Online continuing education faculty are often required to provide the full array of instruction,

design, delivery, and administration of online content. Further, they are expected to stay current

with the latest mobile technology options and applications (apps). The combination of a design-

focused technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge skill set is effective for online

instructors in higher education and continuing education.

Educational institutions must respond to the growing demand for online courses accessed

by mobile technology. Without a strong TPaCK, design, and mobile technology background,

online educators will not be able to keep up with the current and future demands for online

courses. Professional development that reflects current continuing education instructors’ best

practices, combined with technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, instructional

design and mobile technology, emerges as a promising approach to prepare all faculty. Because
 8

this study connected online instructors’ insights into the ways in which they design lessons for

mobile technology integration, it also adds to the relational literature.

Statement of Problem

Expenditures for educational, professional development remain a budgetary necessity.

Schools must spend time and money to incorporate mobile learning into their technological

infrastructure so the specific return on investment benefits must communicated clearly (Marcus-

Quinn & Cleary, 2016). Expenditures are prioritized based on the mutual benefit to instructors and

students. However, “there is money available if it can be obtained” (Teague, B. 1965, p. 57). The

fourth quarter (Q4) of 2015 reflected $1 billion in investments in technology. This was a 300

percent increase in the Q3 of 2015 investment of $295 million. Although the Q3 spending was the

lowest of 2015, Q4 investment still outpaced the $474 million raised in Q2, and $694 million raised

in Q1 (Hustad, 2016). The most successful recipients of funding dollars will anticipate and combine

innovative trends with research-based methods.

Technology initiatives are often focused on getting mobile devices into the hands of

learners absent the training in how to use it to improve learning outcomes is sidelined. It is not an

issue of more technology inventory. Indeed, in a 2015 PBS TeacherLine study, (Figure 1), 81%

of teachers have access to at least one PC or laptop (PBS TeacherLine, 2015).

Much is expected of the educator who teaches online with digital and mobile technology.

As online course options continue to increase, more professors must adopt design features to

create and upload their course content. An incentivized, systematic process or standard to present

to instructors remains elusive. Curriculum, in the form of content modules or comprehensive

online courses, requires new foundations in teaching with technology. Unfortunately, a

standardized, theoretical professional development model has not been designed to support

online instructors’ needs. As a result, the unique needs of online instructors are seldom addressed
 9

in the educational, professional development options offered by their institutions’ instructional

technology department (Downing & Dement, 2013; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Marcus-Quinn

& Cleary, 2016).

Figure 1: The Future of Digital Learning, Used with permission from PBS Learning Media.

Understanding the instructional practice of continuing education, online teachers will

help to create more cost-effective and aligned professional development protocols. It will also

offer pertinent clues to incentivize teachers. What remains to be discovered is how teachers in

purely online course environments use TPaCK, and mobile technology to maximize their

students’ learning. Instead of accepting Daniel Willingham’s (2016) claim that “It’s time to

admit we don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to educational technology,” (para. 1), a

new combinatory approach of TPaCK, design, and mobile technology offers an answer. To date,
 10

the researcher has been able to find little published research that shows the combined impact of

instructors’ mobile learning device use, TPaCK, and design in online courses for continuing

education.

Statement of Purpose

The increase in mobile technology options in post-secondary, continuing education

influences how online instructors design their courses. Much of the current research addresses

mobile technology, course design, and technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge

(TPaCK; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koh, Chai, Hong, & Tsai, 2014; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as

separate topics.

There is limited research addressing the combination of mobile technology, TPaCK, and

course design from the course instructors’ perspective. The researcher was unable to find any

published research that shows any generalized processes that emerge when online teachers reflect

on their mobile technology use, TPaCK instructional framework, design decisions in their courses.

The purpose of this mixed methods study addressed online instructors’ perceptions of their

online course design with new layers of mobile technology and the TPaCK instructional

framework. The study proposed three phases. Phase 1 conducted a pilot study and recruited

current online course facilitators in adult, continuing education. The online course facilitators

were known as facilitators in their instructional role and this term will be used when referring to

this group. The Phase 1 pilot study drew on the work of a 2014 research study in Singapore. The

study proposed to gather data with the same survey, A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of

design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014). The study proposed a different

location and different study participants and gave the survey to current continuing education

online course facilitators in the United States. In Phase 2, after minimal modifications from the
 11

pilot study, the 2014 Koh et al. survey was given to current online course facilitators in the

United States and responses were gathered. In Phase 3, a qualitative interview designed to

understand online instructors’ perceptions of their TPaCK integration and course design for

mobile technology access was given to randomly selected participants from the survey

population.

The dissertation research studied how teachers use mobile technology, the TPaCK

framework, and design considerations in their online courses. The research measured the occurrence

of these factors among online teachers in a continuing education environment to form a deliverable

of methods for dissemination in educational, professional development. The study adds to the

current literature in the field of educational technology in three ways. First, this dissertation

research provided evidence of the inclusion of mobile technology by online course facilitators.

Secondly, the dissertation research provided evidence demonstrating online teachers’ perceptions

of their TPaCK use in the online courses they facilitate. Third, the dissertation research provided

evidence of the instructional design activities of online teachers. The resulting information can

be used in future educational professional development initiatives in post-secondary, continuing

education, and higher education. This dissertation addressed the combinatory benefits of a new

online teaching approach that integrates mobile technology, TPaCK skills, and course design

characteristics. It is intended for implementation into online post-secondary, continuing

education, and higher education course methodology. One method of implementation will be a

cost-effective webinar series delivered in a self-paced format for course instructors. Another

method of implementation will be an educational, professional development module deployed at

faculty professional development sessions. These are not the only avenues of implementation.

There are benefits in the study results for decision makers who are interested in saving time and

money in professional development training and who seek ways to increase performance.
 12

Research Questions

The central research question addressed in this study is:

• How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design, and the TPaCK instructional framework to improve online
course content?

The Sub-questions addressed in this study are:

1. How do selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical and

content knowledge in their online courses?

2. To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile technology access?

3. To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their online

courses?

Significance of the Study

Research offers new insights for teaching and learning. Mishra and Koehler’s seminal work

on the TPaCK instructional framework attracted more than 2,000 citations on Google scholar in

2014 (Ritzhaupt et al., 2016). Studies since 2014 including the framework number an additional

4,100 citations. Research citations address curricular design decisions of online teachers, and those

who utilize mobile technology. However, all these research studies exist in separate silos. Few, if

any, studies combine online teaching methods with mobile technology affordances.

Applied research is needed to address the combinatory factors of teachers’ use of mobile

technology, design practices, and the TPaCK instructional framework. On a macro level, the results

of the study provide justification for the allocation of institutional dollars to follow the areas of

greatest promise. On a micro level, the results of the study allow the study participants to better

prepare for mobile learning which benefits learners enrolled in their online courses. This research

offers a new perspective and understanding of the innovative teaching practices that result when

online teachers combine TPaCK domains, design, and mobile technology. It is possible that the
 13

results of this study can be operationalized for multiple applications in continuing education, higher

education, and K-12 institutions.

The results of the study offer cost-effective options for planning and implementing online

learning options mediated by mobile technology. First, the results of the study support the

educational institutions’ administration with a cost-effective, research-based professional

development option of outcome-based TPaCK and design characteristics to prepare faculty to

teach online courses with mobile technology. Secondly, the results of the study may improve

faculty performance in creating more learner-centered approaches in the online courses they

teach. The learner-centered approach is a combination of TPaCK skills and design principles

optimized for online learning with mobile technology. The researcher has not found a similar

model that combines these characteristics. The results of the study provide a template of targeted

skills in mobile technology, TPaCK, and course design for cost-effective professional development

of online faculty beyond the initial site selected for the study.

Operational Definitions

For the purpose of clarity in the study, definitions of terms are assigned as follows:

1. Content Knowledge (CK) - “Content knowledge is knowledge about the actual subject matter that

is to be learned or taught…knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational framework,

knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and approaches toward

developing such knowledge” (Shulman, 1987, p. 9-13).

2. Distance Education – Distance Education is “the electronic delivery of programs or courses”

(Zhang & Xu, 2015, p. 14).

3. Mobile Learning – Helen Crompton’s definitions for mobile learning as “learning across

multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices”

(Crompton, 2013, p. 4) was used.

 14

4. Mobile Applications (apps) – Ailie Tang’s use of ‘app’ as an abbreviation for mobile

applications with the definition of mobile applications as “software applications designed to

run on smartphones, tablet computers and other personal mobile devices” (Tang, 2016, p. 224)

was used.

5. Online Courses - The Sloan Consortium’s definition of an online course is “a course where 80

percent of more of the content is delivered online (with) typically no face-to-face meetings will be

used (Allen et al., 2016, p. 7).

6. Online Education/Distance Education/ELearning – Scardamalia’s 2002 definition of “an

intentional process of teaching learning in which physical space separates facilitators and students…

Students and online course facilitators communicate through various media and an education

organization exists to design, facilitate, and evaluate the educational process” was used (p.145).

7. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) – Shulman’s definition of pedagogical content

knowledge as “the most regularly taught topics in one’s teaching area, the most useful

representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and

demonstrations…the ways of representing and formulating the subject matter that make it

comprehensible to others” was used (1987, p. 9).

8. Scaffold – Scaffolds are learning supports that a mentor can provide to help learners achieve

beyond their original capacity (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

9. Technology Knowledge (TK) – Koehler and Mishra’s definition of technology knowledge as

“understanding information technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in their

everyday lives, to recognize when information technology can assist or impede the achievement of a

goal, and to continually adapt to changes in information technology” was used (2009, p. 64).

10. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) - Koehler and Mishra’s definition of technological

content knowledge as “an understanding of the manner in which technology and content influence
 15

and constrain one another” (2009, p. 65) was used.

11. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) - Koehler and Mishra’s definition of TPK is “an

understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are used in

particular ways” (2009, p. 65) was used.

12. Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) – Koehler & Mishra’s definition

of TPACK as an “emergent form of knowledge that goes beyond all three ‘core’ components (to)

the interactions among content, pedagogy, and technological knowledge” (2009, p. 66) was used.

Assumptions

To reiterate, the dissertation research centered on the perception by selected online,

continuing education teachers of their use of mobile technology, the TPaCK instructional

framework, design activities, and use of online lesson plan practices. The study was limited to a

single, continuing education institution headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. This institution has

provided online education courses since 1990. This institution was selected as it has an online

faculty who reside across the United States and who are representative of educators who have

transitioned from onground, face-to-face classroom to online course design and facilitation.

One of the assumptions of the research was that respondents would volunteer their time to

complete the survey and subsequent interview. Also, the researcher expected that respondents

would be candid as they completed the survey. Finally, the intention of this research relied on

respondents’ detailed replies to open-ended interview questions for rich data gathering. Although

the main objective of the research was reached, it was anticipated that the researcher would make

some choices and boundaries, or delimitations that would also be present.

Delimitation

The study collected data from one organization only: a homogeneous group of online course

facilitators in the United States. This group of course facilitators currently participate in an
 16

institutional culture that prioritizes regular professional development in online teaching methods.

The faculty receive regular professional development in instructional methods and edTech

innovations, although not specifically addressing TPaCK. Consistent professional development

infuses the faculty within an experiential learning (Dewey, 1938) and socially mediated culture

(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Riel & Polin, 2004) that places an importance on the need for online

learning. While this was not a limitation for the quality of teaching that the faculty provided to

learners, it probably skewed research results toward more positive responses than would be found

among a combination of onground and online faculty. The researcher has been a member of the

instructional faculty of the proposed target population since 2005.

Chapter Summary

The research study addressed how online, mobile learning can be optimized by

combining mobile technology best practices with the TPaCK instructional framework and lesson

design considerations in a new eLearning blueprint for learner-centered instruction. This research

points to new, cost-effective protocols for professional practice. The researcher has not found any

empirical studies that address the combined inclusion of the TPaCK instructional framework,

design, and mobile use protocols to online instruction in either global or domestic settings. This

study sought to deductively and inductively research the processes by which continuing

education faculty manage their online environment and construct student-centered learning

experiences with mobile technology. There is a validated survey that quantitatively examines

teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between design activities and TPaCK usage (Koh et al.,

2014). The survey had been administered to teachers in a K-12 face-to-face setting in Singapore.

This chapter concludes by proposing a disruptive innovation for improvement: use a combination

of methods to measure the usage of the TPaCK instructional framework, design abilities, and

mobile technology use among online, continuing education faculty.

 17

Chapter 2: Background and Related Literature

Overview

Presented in this chapter is a summary of empirical research from peer-reviewed

scholarly sources in academic literature and a review of the current literature regarding the best

mix of socio-cultural theory and instructional frameworks for teachers’ professional

development and continuing education. Professional development has many definitions

depending on the context. Developing or improving competence is central to professional

development endeavors (Rudenko et al., 2016). Bernard (2009) described professional

development as “opportunities for professional growth as a basis for increasing teacher

knowledge and changing current teaching practice in order to increase student achievement” (p.

11). In previous economies, it was possible for people to have a finite ending point to their

educational pursuits with professional development that “enhanced job related skills” (Boyarko,

2009, p. 11).

Understanding online learning, mobile technology, the TPaCK instructional framework, and

design characteristics are foundational for teachers’ in continuing education. Continuing education

is a bridge between classroom learning and authentic employment practice (Rasi & Poikeia, 2016;

Ross-Gordon, Rose, & Kasworm, 2016). Traditionally, continuing education functioned on the

periphery of the educational continuum (Ross-Gordon et al., 2016; Scull, Thorup, & Howell,

2016). In 1991, Paulo Freire advocated for the institution of “Permanent Education” as an agile

approach for teachers’ professional development (Saul & Saul, 2016). Freire’s Permanent

Education involves five principles. First, the teacher’s own practice is central. Secondly, the

teacher’s reflection on daily practice is necessary. Third, teaching practice is recursive and

requires systems to nurture it. Fourth, teachers continue to build their pedagogical practice

through “curriculum reorientation” (p. 64) while in the classroom. In the fifth principle in
 18

Freire’s Permanent Education approach, teacher education contributes to and enhances the

teacher’s campus community.

Freire’s Permanent Education started with teaching practice as a starting point. It then

uncovered the “fragments of theory…involved in the practice of each teacher” (Saul & Saul,

2016, p. 63). The mediating factor in Freire’s Permanent Education are socio-cultural

“education groups” and “teacher collectives” (Saul & Saul, 2016, p. 64). The purpose of these

groups was to analyze and discuss teaching practices in a recursive cycle of action-reflection-

action (Saul & Saul, 2016). According to Freire (Saul & Saul, 2016), while in education groups,

teachers experience best practices that they could return to their schools and initiate on their

campuses.

This chapter presents current, empirical research on socio-cultural learning theories,

design characteristics (Koh et al., 2014), and the TPaCK instructional framework (Koehler &

Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the following sections in this chapter, specific

literature about the TPaCK instructional framework within the worldview of socio-cultural

learning are reviewed. Additionally, this chapter references research in socio-cultural theory and

empirical research on effective lesson design components. Online course instructors need to

implement socio-cultural learning theories and instructional design components in their courses.

This chapter discusses the implications of the current research for professional development in

continuing education.

The researcher made every effort to represent seminal works in the field. Also included

are recent, empirical studies in the application of these theories from books and peer-reviewed

journals. Research in the area of online learning with mobile technology in higher education and

teachers’ continuing education is presented in this chapter.

 19

Some of the studies in this chapter represent research combining aspects of both post-

secondary and K-12 education. When studies reference learning ecosystems that are completely

online or blended, these distinctions are noted. Because of the dynamic nature of online learning

and online instruction, both empirical research from peer-reviewed journals and additional

literature sources such as websites were used. Distinctions between these sources are noted.

This chapter also references both the seminal works of the PCK instructional framework

by Lee Shulman (1987) and the TPaCK instructional framework by Punya Mishra and Matt

Koehler. The researchers alternate the listing of their names in their research studies so some

source notation will reference Mishra & Koehler and Koehler & Mishra, respectively. This

chapter references both quantitative and qualitative research studies of the perception of teachers

in post higher education, continuing education and K-12 education as they use the TPaCK

instructional framework.

Literature that pertains to a general overview of the principles of instructional design is

included in this chapter. A distinction is made between teachers serving as designers of content

as a secondary aspect of their vocation versus as full-time work. Scholarly literature sources

include books and articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals Researched

Research databases including EBSCO, EDLIB, ERIC, ILLIAD, and ProQuest were

accessed through the Pepperdine University online library, the Abilene Christian University

Library, the library at the College of William and Mary, and Google Scholar to provide a range

of scholarly sources. Resources included those found through snowball searching to find similar

references. Search terms included: (a) TPaCK, alone and in combination with online learning,

higher education, continuing education, and K-12, theoretical framework; (b) online learning,

alone and in combination with higher education, continuing education, and, K-12, instructional
 20

strategies, United States, and statistics. Titles and sources that were unavailable through inter-

library loan were acquired. The researcher accessed materials from respected online learning

organizations, reports from the U.S. Department of Education (2010), and internal documents

from PBS TeacherLine.

Conceptual Framework / Theoretical Focus

The socio-cultural learning theories used in this study are constructivism and

constructionism woven throughout online instructors’ design and lesson plan practices.

Constructivism facilitates peer-to-peer knowledge sharing network is online teachers’ use of

scaffolding, reflection, iterative processes in their online course design.

An instructional framework, socio-cultural learning, and design in online courses

mediated by mobile technology form the conceptual framework and theoretical focus of this

chapter. The proposed study’s instructional framework is the technological content and pedagogical

knowledge (TPaCK) by Michigan State researchers Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler as an

extension of Lee Shulman’s (1987) seminal research on teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy and

content knowledge (PCK) by adding the affordance of technology. TPaCK originally was

constructed for use in post-secondary education and both Shulman’s PCK and Mishra & Koehler’s

TPaCK analyze the interrelated components that promote effective teaching practices.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

TPaCK is the collective acronym for the combination of technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge that teachers blend to provide student-centered instruction (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005a; Koehler & Mishra, 2005b; Koh et al., 2014; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Mishra

and Koehler (2006) extended extend Shulman’s (1987) seminal work connecting pedagogy and

content knowledge. Shulman’s research (1987) integrated both content knowledge and

pedagogical knowledge to more fully represent and support the complexity of effective teaching.
 21

Shulman’s research established that high-quality teachers use two domains, content knowledge,

and pedagogical knowledge to promote meaningful learning. Content Knowledge (CK) is

curricular subject matter knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is how to teach

content.

Previously these concepts were considered separate, but Shulman emphasized the

blending of content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge (PK). Shulman combined the

two constructs in the acronym of PCK. Shulman described PCK as the “understanding of how

particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse

interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction” (1987, p. 8). Knowledge of the

pedagogy inherent in the teaching process is represented as PK (Shulman, 1987). Perhaps the

most straightforward of the framework’s components is content knowledge (CK). When

combined, pedagogy and content knowledge (PCK) is reflected in teachers’ instructional

decisions. As teachers group content, standards, and key facts together, they consider the best

sequencing for curriculum pacing. They also think about how and when to present curriculum in

ways that meet students’ learning needs (Shulman, 1987). Finally, they consider best practices

for re-teaching content that is not mastered by students.

Examples of pedagogical content knowledge include project-based learning, the pacing

of instruction, curriculum compacting, assessment strategies, and the process of differentiating

content for the abilities and interests of all learners. For example, in College Prep Math, one

component of a teacher’s Content Knowledge (CK) would be knowing how to multiply matrices.

The PK would include knowing how to explain this knowledge to a student by using

conversational language and applying the correct mathematical symbols and phrases in a step-

by-step progression. Teachers’ pedagogical techniques include an understanding of what makes

mathematical concepts easy or difficult to learn for students. Shulman asserted that effective
 22

instructors have a unique and specialized pedagogy and content knowledge (PCK) that sets them

apart and is unique and highly qualified (Mishra & Koehler, 2009).

Using Shulman’s work as a foundation, a framework was developed to address the

addition of teachers’ technological skill (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a; Koehler & Mishra, 2005b;

Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and fused the additional component of technology to Shulman’s

pedagogy and content knowledge (PCK). The TPaCK instructional framework extended

Shulman’s theory of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) with a specific affordance for

effective teaching with technological knowledge (TK) and technological content knowledge

(TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a; Koehler &

Mishra, 2005b; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The resulting TPaCK instructional framework

connected technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in seven categories of instructional

practices (Koehler & Mishra, 2005a; Koehler & Mishra, 2005b; Koh et al., 2014; Koh, Chai,

Wong, & Hong, 2015; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The seven categories of TPaCK are:

Technological Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK),

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK),

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content

Knowledge (TPaCK).

The TPaCK model highlights interactions between and among the PCK, TCK

(technological content knowledge), and TPK (technological pedagogical knowledge)

components. Context is the connecting component. TPaCK provides a context for the dynamic

and fluid nature caused by frequent updates of technology and content presentation. The attribute

categories of Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge are not “mutually exclusive”

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1042). Context is the connector. TPaCK is “grounded in the

context of practice” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 100). In the most effective instructional
 23

environments, both online and face-to-face courses, the TPaCK attributes are interconnected

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The intersecting boundaries of these three domains forms the

interplay of TPaCK (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The components of the TPaCK framework. Reproduced by permission of publisher, http:// tpack.org

TPaCK corrals the special kinds of knowledge needed to organize instruction (Koehler &

Mishra, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2005b; Mishra & Koehler, 2009). TPaCK reflects seven types

of knowledge demonstrated by instructors as they adroitly integrate technology into pedagogy

and content curriculum (Koehler, Greenhalgh, Rosenberg & Keenan, 2017). Technological

Knowledge (TK) is an extensive understanding of technology tools and resources. With

technological knowledge, all the hardware gadgets are repurposed as beneficial classroom

learning catalysts. Each technology tool has “affordances and constraints, potentials and

problems” (Mishra & Koehler, 2009, p. 15).

 24

Online instructor/facilitators with emerging Technological Knowledge (TK) know how

to navigate through a catalog of tools or an online inventory of hardware. Yet, that is not the

complete picture. Technological Knowledge (TK) is knowing which tools to configure in the

best infrastructure. Technological Knowledge (TK) is understanding cross-platform applications

and capabilities. Online instructor/facilitators with growing TK skills also know when and how

to work with the information technology (IT) specialist and how to describe inevitable

technology issues. They use a “systematic approach” (Hilton, 2016, p. 68) to increase and

maintain the technical competence needed to stay up-to-date for students. One of the best

advantages of TK is its capacity to know which tools to use to create a personal connection with

more learners than with traditional face-to-face classrooms communication. This is especially

significant in online courses. Online course instructor/facilitators achieve personal connection

with learners through voice-to-text apps, short video for check-in, individualized emails, and

personalized discussion board posts.

In the technological, content knowledge (TCK) domain is the knowledge about how

course content needs to be delivered using technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). Technological content knowledge (TCK) represents the mutual relationship

between emerging technology and teaching subject-matter content. For example, in teaching

geometry, a foundational technology was the overhead projector with rolling transparency film

to teach theorems. TCK understanding would now include whiteboards, document cameras, and

teacher and student created videos, and video capture tools to teach theorem concepts. TCK is

“discipline specific” (Spires, Wiebe, Young, Hollebrands & Lee, 2012), matching the most

appropriate and cost-effective technology tools to teach curricular concept mastery. Thinking

about TCK and its application with various new media and technology tools might shape

conversations about future institutional use.

 25

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) refers to the understanding of how teaching

and learning can change when technology is used in particular ways (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) refers to the teacher’s ability to know how to use

technology for instructional purposes. TPK primarily entails both a familiarity of hardware,

software and how they can be used in teaching and learning. TPK also includes teachers’

understanding of how their instruction might change as a result of using a specific technology.

Teachers must consider not only how to teach curricular concepts to students but also

how to provide instruction in the technology being used. Examples of TPK include when to use

an online or social media resource, how to create a formative or summative online quiz, and how

to effectively reply to a learner’s email, or when cross-platform facility is needed between the

Windows and Mac operating systems and among different web navigational browsers. Yet this

knowledge alone is insufficient without deep subject matter knowledge.

TPaCK reflects the pedagogical changes in content delivery from just-in-case learning to

just-in-time learning (Duderstadt, 1997; Koh & Divaharan, 2011). The U.S. Department of

Education uses the TPaCK skill set as an assessment option in its Race to the Top grants program

(Department of Education, 2010). The collective cluster of skills in instructor’s lesson plans may

be identified and assessed in concrete rubrics (Koehler et al., 2017). However, TPaCK is not

confined as a rubric assessment tool. It is “an understanding that emerges from interactions

among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge… underlying truly meaningful and deeply

skilled teaching with technology” (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013, p. 66). A slightly modified

rendering of the TPaCK acronym with a lowercase letter “a” reflected more precisely the

connecting and inclusionary focus of the word “and” (Keenwe & Agumba, 2015; Lin, Chai, Si &

Lee, 2014) and is often expressed in research published after 2014.

 26

Examples of content knowledge needed for online courses reflect dates, facts,

vocabulary, and concepts combined with technology tools and mobile apps. Merely uploading

scanned copies of content notes or an instructor’s published research robs the learner of the

social media conveyance of the current Web 2.0. It negates the pedagogy knowledge of online

course content delivery and without considering this aspect, learning online will be stunted.

Knowing how to deliver content using optimal methods for knowledge transfer to course

participants is the pedagogical goal of TPaCK. Using TPaCK skills in an online course reflects

content knowledge but also knowing where this information resides online, how it is sequenced

and how much is delivered at one time. Successful technological content knowledge involves

“sequencing and chunking of materials” (Song & Yuan, 2015, p. 732) in ways that invite

discussion and limit cognitive overload.

In an example of putting all the TPaCK components together, an online teacher must

know the pedagogy (technology/pedagogy knowledge) of combining shorten subject matter

content bursts and abbreviated hyperlinks (technology/content) for the best rendering on a

mobile device screen. S/he must know how to craft a concise and engaging discussion prompt or

reply to a learners’ discussion forum post (pedagogy/technology/content/) and when to comment

to add depth to an online class discussion board or real-time synchronous discussion

(technology/pedagogy/content). TPaCK is a necessary framework to measure online teaching

and learning because it captures what teachers currently do to increase student engagement

(Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Successful teaching and learning online occurs through the instructor’s combinatory use

of the TPaCK instructional framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The

TPaCK instructional framework applies the theoretical concepts of constructivism and

constructionism in online course design mediated with mobile technology. One example
 27

combining TPaCK with constructivist and constructionist learning theories would be online

discourse between instructor and learners on the design and eventual production of an avatar-

infused video. The avatar-video becomes not only a way to connect content components but also

a way to think, discussion and create a learning artifact Reflecting about the video presentation,

expression, concise language script, and digital storytelling components vaults the video to a

“rich artifact” (Koehler et al., 2017, p. 40). Learning online and with mobile technology is

enhanced by course content that is multimodal in its constructionist design and promotes

constructivist “in-situ improvisation and …sharing and creation of student artefacts [sic] on the

move” (So, 2009, p. 217).

The application of TPaCK for online education continues to grow (Archambault, 2016;

Archambault & Barnett, 2010). As a conceptual model to measure the interplay between

instructional components in learning, TPaCK has been the focus of many empirical research

studies. TPaCK studies occur in K-12, face-to-face settings (Gomez, 2015; Jen, Yeh, Hsu, Wu,

& Chen, 2016; Koh et al., 2014), higher education (Archambault, 2016; Archambault, & Barnett,

2010; Archambault & Crippen, 2009), and blended learning environments (Watson & Murin,

2014; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2013). These studies indicate that TPaCK is a

valid strategy to measure the knowledge instructors need to facilitate learning with technological

components. However, these studies did not give the fullest picture of how instructors used

TPaCK in their lesson plan practices and lesson design practices (Dobozy & Campbell, 2015;

Koh et al., 2014). The methods used by instructors would create blueprints of practice for others.

Kozma (1994) suggested that educators should stop debating the issue of whether

technology and media influence learning. Kozma argued that educators should instead begin to

think about “In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for

particular students, tasks, and situations?” (p. 18). Adding the technology layer to Shulman’s
 28

PCK offers one way to answer Kozma’s question. TPaCK combines and interconnects all the

separate components of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009;

Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The convergence of the TPaCK domains mirror the relational and

interrelated aspects of Bloom’s Revised Cognitive and Affective Taxonomies (Koh, Chai & Tsai,

2010). Context is important within the TPaCK domains. Dissecting each component of the

TPaCK reveals its ineffectiveness as a stand-alone instructional delivery means. The domains

need their combined synergy. Examples of TPaCK applied to online education require relational

interplay between not only content itself, but how contest is presented, discussed and applied in

an online environment accessed with mobile technology.

Since its inception in 2006, over 300 TPaCK studies have included assessments for

measuring its combined skill sets (Abbitt, 2011; Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Archambault &

Crippen, 2009; Koh et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2009). The assessments featured in these studies

reflect features of self-reporting and performance-based activities to measure teachers’ use of the

seven domain skills. Research to determine new understandings of the perceptions of instructors

in completely online course environments and how they use TPaCK and design for online and

mobile technology would add to the current body of literature.

Addressing specific questions referencing TPaCK, design dispositions, and lesson plan

practices, a research team led by Dr. Joyce Hwee Ling Koh (2014) compiled, distributed, and

statistically validated a Likert-scale survey for 201 Singaporean teachers. The survey addressed

perceptions of TPaCK, the teachers’ design dispositions, and lesson plan practices with six

questions each for TPaCK, Design Dispositions, and Lesson Planning Practices.

Of particular interest was the inclusion of design dispositions in the survey instrument. The

research team defined “design dispositions” as “orientations towards design” (Koh et al., 2014,

p. 1). The research team included design dispositions because they believed that these two
 29

constructs are necessary partnering agents for teachers’ implementation of TPaCK. Design

dispositions reveal how teachers utilize and “manoeuver [sic] their TPaCK throughout lesson

design as well as the outcomes of their lesson design efforts” (Koh et al., 2014, p. 3). The 2014

Koh et al. research team labeled design dispositions with six criteria: “open to new experiences,

exploration of conflicting ideas, comfortable with uncertainty, deviating from established

practice, experiencing occasional failures, and seeking to turn constraints into opportunities”

(Koh et al., 2014, p. 7).

Socio-cultural Learning: Constructivism in Online Courses

Online course instructors in continuing education build on the premise that learning precedes

skill development (Vygotsky, 1978). Constructivist learning is context-based. Constructivist,

conceptual learning occurs through active involvement of the student as a “learner, co-instructor,

peer evaluator, a producer of knowledge, a consumer of knowledge, an evaluator, and a self-

assessor” (Bull & Patterson, 2016, p. 257). The learner maintains personal autonomy and control

over learning. Learning is personal growth (Bull & Patterson, 2016).

In constructivist learning mediated by technology, curriculum takes precedence over the

infusion of technology (Bull & Patterson, 2016). Technology does not drive the curriculum, in

fact, “the ultimate technical goal is to make the technology transparent to the user” (Berge, 2008,

p. 410). Learning is “an information processing activity” (Bandura, 1986, p. 51) that involves

“reciprocal interactions among behaviors, environmental variables, and personal factors such as

cognition.” Digital learning must provide a variety of delivery experiences to provide a rich

learning experience and resources available to all learning anytime and anywhere.

Online course content design reflects socio-cultural constructivist cycle. A socio-cultural

constructivist cycle is present when online instructors recursively design and compose

supplemental course content and beta-test that content, share it, tinker with it and refine it, and
 30

share it again. In this recursive cycle, the constructivist educator “must adopt the role of facilitator

not content provider” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 447). Online course instructors take on the role identity of

a More Knowledgeable Other navigating a Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978).

With the implementation of specialized instructional practices for an online course

environment, online instructors and course participants take on the role of More Knowledgeable

Other role (Vygotsky, 1978). The comingling of online course instructor and online learner, each

participating as More Knowledgeable Others results in the emergence of a peer-to-peer, knowledge

sharing network.

An online course facilitator could create a video, podcast, interactive poll, avatar persona

in Minecraft, or another teaching artifact. However, this activity alone does not rise to the

constructivist benchmark. It is not creating a product that embodies constructivist learning.

Learning occurs as part of an interrelated, iterative process (Dunn & Larson, 1990). This process

requires peer-to-peer discussion, instructor feedback, and both the instructor and learners’

“knowledge of past experience,” according to Freire (as cited in Saul & Saul, 2016, p. 63).

The dynamic nature of mobile technology reflects a need for frequent adaptive thinking.

Each upload of course content occurs in a fail-fast environment. For example, an online

instructor discusses content with peer instructors and then customizes an online discussion post

in a content management system (CMS). Beyond the posting mechanics, instructors discuss with

other instructors how to convey an engaging tone, how to time the post for learners’ best

response, and when to supply a nudge to move the discussion forward. Iterative discussion time

is essential because, on average, implementation requires 20 separate instances of practice with

the number of repetitions increasing along with the complexity of the skill taught (Joyce &

Showers, 2002).
 31

Constructivist discussions occur when course instructors discuss their understanding of

course content, how they accomplish an assigned task, and discuss forum threads to include

learners’ posts. In the process of translating content for online courses, teachers think about what

they create, tinker, design, and revising their ideas into course content modules. They acquire

knowledge and increase their skill level. Reimagining content for online course delivery, observing

the effectiveness of the design, reflecting, and peer discussions are manifestations of constructivism

in online environments.

Intentional and experiential learning and an atmosphere encouraging trial-and-error are

alternatively affirming and confusing. Confusion is part of the iterative cycle, and it is a building

block of learning (D’Mello, Lehman, Pekrun & Graesser, 2014). However, too much tension,

confusion, and cognitive overload in an online course can be detrimental. This may be a factor in

the low-completion rate of MOOCs (Belanger & Thornton, 2013; Daniel, 2012; Jacobsen, 2017).

Socio-cultural Learning: Constructivist Peer-to-Peer Learning in Online Courses

Although Do-It-Yourself (DIY) is a culturally popular term, online educators can design course

activities that reflect a peer-networking spirit of Do-With-Each-Other (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen,

2009). Peer-to-peer relationships guide knowledge co-creation and pedagogical concept knowledge

(Shulman, 1987). Peer networking activities that foster socio-cultural learning include engaging in

collaborative tasks, peer review, offering and receiving assistance, giving feedback, challenging others’

contributions, and exchanging information (McLoughlin & Luca, 2000). For example, the online

educator and course participants bring a set of content knowledge and problem-solving and solution-

finding pedagogy that benefits others. Learners are open to articulating their experience (Dean, Harden-

Thew, & Thomas, 2017; Malone, 2014).

Online course instructors/facilitators/designers nurture a supportive peer network and

sociocultural learning through course content that reflects the intersection of technological,
 32

pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPaCK). Further, online course instructors/facilitators/

designers can acknowledge and plan for mobile tech access. Students go “in and out” of their

interaction with technology (Sølvberg & Rismark, 2012), and design instructional modules to

accommodate this type of access. There are many ways to achieve this goal, but some examples

of planning for mobile tech access include the use of graphics optimized for mobile viewing,

short podcasts of content, QR-coded content pages, and shortened URLs of content.

For example, online facilitators leverage constructivist, peer-network attributes by

designing a writing sample assignment with a peer editing forum submission space. Course

learners upload their completed writing assignments and download a peer learners’ submission.

As they receive comments from peers, revise, and rewrite, course learners increase their ability

to become Vygotsky’s (1978) More Knowledgeable Other for each other. Their growing peer-to-

peer relationship structure increases agility, enhances innovation (Ito, 2012), and demolishes

silos of isolation. Curriculum content is internalized and enculturated for deep learning

(Ritchhart, 2015). Peer-to-peer collegial conversations online produce evocative learning

experiences (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Guskey & Passaro, 1994).

Online educators also interchange with the role of student and inhabit a “teachers as

learners” role (Shulman & Sherin, 2004, p. 1). PBS TeacherLine uses the term Learner to refer

to course participants and this term will be used in the remainder of this dissertation.

By immersing themselves in the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in

the design and construction of online course content, course facilitators return to the role of

learners. They re-learn their course content through the lens of how to present it in the most

effective way for their students to integrate. Occupying the shared online learning course portal,

all are learners connecting with online content and each other. They co-intentionally recreate and

direct their learning (Freire, 1996).

 33

Walther (1992) addressed the social aspect of technology in comparison studies of face-

to-face and computer conferencing groups. Technology was a means to communicate but the

message it carried through it was important. As technology became smaller and faster, its

mediating effects in teaching and learning became an important research focus (Allen et al.,

2016; Gunawardena, 1995; Richardson et al., 2016; Song & Yuan, 2015). Instructors must

become “adept at utilizing technology as a medium for instruction in face-to-face settings”

(Gunawardena,1995, p. 165). Doing so will increase their satisfaction with technology and by

extension, in online course facilitation (Gunawardena, 1995).

Instructor presence in online environments emerged as an important indicator of student

learning (Arbaugh, 2008; Boston et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2016; Swan et al., 2008; Wang

& Antonenko, 2017). Instructor presence, along with Cognitive presence and Social presence,

forms the components in Communities of Inquiry (Arbaugh, 2008; Boston et al., 2009;

Richardson et al., 2016; Riel & Polin, 2004; Swan et. al., 2008).

The instructor’s presence involves more than choosing the type of technology (Chen,

Lattuca, & Hamilton, 2008; Wang & Antonenko, 2017). The instructor’s online course design

and implementation of a variety of activities are predictors of student success in learning

(Neumann & Neumann, 2016; Swan et al., 2012). In online courses, talking is typing. Talking

things over occurs in synchronous chats and asynchronous discussion forums, threaded

discussions (Collison, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000), and text-messaging (DuVall, Powell,

Hodge, & Ellis, 2007). Interactions can include games (Chen, 2012) and simulations (Teague,

Pruett, & Wee, 2016). Interactions also include digital storytelling (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010;

Teague & Pruett, 2016) and digital music sharing and composition (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014).

Further, these activities include student and teacher-created videos (Hamilton et al., 2015), social

media (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014), and VoiceThread (Borup, West, & Graham, 2012).
 34

Socio-cultural Scaffolding

In this dissertation, the term scaffolding (Pea, 2004; Wood at al., 1976) is used to

describe the support affordances provided for autonomous online learners. Online course

instructors and learners align with Rogers’ Adopter Classification System (2010) which specifies

stages of innovation infiltration. These stages are Knowledge, Persuasion, Decision,

Implementation, and Confirmation. Participants also can be categorized according to Rogers’

roles of Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards (2010). Online

course participants may also have varying levels of online technology and mobile technology

experience. Online course instructors typically have a mix of participants comprised from

Rogers’ five classifications of adopters (2010). Course participants can simultaneously be at

differing levels on Rogers’ Adopter Classification System for technology, pedagogy, and content

knowledge.

Online course instructors can decrease learners’ confusion by providing scaffolds such as

Landscape Posts, discussed previously and quick responses by instructors (Teague et al., 2016).

Another effective scaffold is to design content for learner mobility and viewing on different

mobile devices (Wang et al., 2010). Additional scaffolds used by online course instructors are

trouble shooting Help tutorials, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for various technological

operations. These operations can be as basic as how to upload a photo through and along a

continuum of how to record and embed a video response within the course forums. Help tutorials

may reside in a separate course Help Forum or online video channel such as YouTube. Scaffolds

may take many forms: Tutorials videos or completion steps in Help Forums, Frequently Asked

Questions (FAQs), and online office hours where the online instructor is available for real-time

conversation. The scaffolding of tutorial and FAQ support is valuable to ease cognitive overload

and possible “rage-quitting” (to borrow a gamer term).

 35

In both onground and online courses, social learning precedes development (Vygotsky,

1978). While interacting with online course content, learners’ experience their version of the

Zone of Proximal Development, which is the space between what they can do alone and what

they can do with coaching, guidance, and/or assistance from a More Knowledgeable Other

(Vygotsky, 1978). Attempting to solve complex problems without the provision of support

linkages can be an unproductive exercise in failure. In an online course, More Knowledgeable

Others provide successful navigation through the Zone of Proximal Development. One way they

do this is through the creation of engaging prompts and landscape posts in online discussion

forums.

Landscape Posts are a constructivist instructional affordance promoted by Collison et al.

(2000). Landscape posts are constructivist summaries that reflect many voices in the online

course and “clarify and give a sense of direction and place learners at the center of a dialog”

(Collison et al., 2000, p. 186). Landscape posts encourage online course learners to think more

deeply about content topics and extend the application of course concepts and continue the

online discussion. These landscape posts are clarifying summaries that point learners toward new

content application and analysis (Collison et al., 2000). Online course instructors at PBS

TeacherLine write weekly Landscape Posts. Landscape posts include course learners’ previous

discussion forum responses to forward the online dialogue (Collison et al., 2000). Typically, a

landscape post will feature three to four course learners’ insights. Online course instructors

weave direct quotes from learners’ insights into the landscape post narrative (Figure 4). Each

learner sees how the collective information from course colleagues can be used in their class, and

by sharing through the rich discussion, others can sense how implementation of the concepts can

also occur in their classes as well as in other subject areas. Often this leads to suggestions on

further study.
 36

Online course instructors craft landscape posts in online courses to strengthen social

presence and community cohesion (Riel & Polin, 2004) among learners. Online discussions tend

to be self-reflective (Means et al., 2010). Landscape posts are a constructivist teaching method

that expands online course participants’ views beyond themselves and their own posts.

Landscape posts are a component of the online instructor training at PBS TeacherLine, the site of

the research.

Landscape posts are one instructional method for online course instructors to model

reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983). Another way to encourage course dialogue is through

instructors’ use of engaging discussion forum prompts. Engaging discussion forum topics

encourage reflective thinking, interaction and both reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action

among course participants. Online course participants include both instructors and learners.

Online course participants serve as tools for collaborative learning (Cook, 2010; Kearney,

Schuck, Burden & Aubusson, 2012). Learning alone is bereft of “thought and stream of

language” (Bruner, 1990, p. 143). Conversely, interacting in the online discussion forum helps to

decipher meaning (Dunn & Larson, 1990).

Language is a social tool that is crucial to social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). The online

course discussion forum, whether asynchronous or synchronous, is a place where everyone

shares a desire to construct meaningful dialog, a “web of meaning” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 100)

together and alongside each other. As they participate in online discussion forums, online course

participant instructors and learners engage in “iterative dialogue” (Laurillard, 2002b, p. 144).

Iterative dialogue must occur between participants. It cannot occur in isolation. Iterative dialogue

involves a 2-part discourse of theoretical concepts and practical application from experience

(Laurillard, 2002b). Iterative dialogue synergistically connects theoretical, practical, (Laurillard,

2002b) and experiential learning (Dewey, 1938).

 37

Iterative dialogue and the development of thorough concept mastery is integrally tied to

the communicative interactions with More Knowledgeable Others who navigate the Zone of

Proximal Development between what is unknown and what can be learned (Vygotsky, 1978). At

the beginning of the online course, course instructors serves the dual roles of More

Knowledgeable Other (Vygotsky, 1978) and System Convener (Wenger, Fenton-O'Creevy,

Hutchinson, Kubiak, & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).

Systems conveners are passionate communicators with a persisting, entrepreneurial spirit

who establish new insertions of input (interventions) among people from different groups

(Wenger et al., 2015). Systems conveners respect existing boundaries in organizations but invite

participants to extend beyond them and reach for innovations. They survey different locations in

the landscape of groups where an intervention could increase the learning capability of the whole

system. System conveners “honor the existing accountability of stakeholders to their contexts,

including regimes of competence, the agendas and expectations of organizations involved,"

(Wenger et al., 2015, p. 102).

Designing for Mobile Technology

Dewey (1938) concluded that people do not learn from experience; rather, people learn

from stretching back to reflect on past experiences and stretching forward to incorporate their

experience. Dewey’s conclusion has application to designing instructional content for online,

blended, and mobile learning. Design that encourages constructivist online discourse has been

shown to increase learning (Vo, Zhu & Diep, 2017). Design that encourages learners to

demonstrate their understanding through constructionist product making enhances their learning

(Vo et al., 2017). Using mobile technology as a clicker to complete quizzes approaches neither

constructivist nor constructionist principles for learning. Learners may use mobile technology to
 38

formulate more detailed and reflective feedback leading to concept integration (Laurillard, 2012;

Vo et al., 2017).

Reflection is also intertwined in design thinking either explicitly (Laurillard, 2012;

Resnick, 2007) or implicitly through beta-testing and troubleshooting (Papert, 1980). Instructors

and learners in online courses mirror the actions of the Reflective Practitioner (Schon, 1983).

Reflection has also been cited as essential to the technological and content knowledge

instructional practice (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Schon (1983)

identified two forms of reflection that are needed for deep learning: reflection-in-action and

reflection-on-action. Although Schon’s work addressed professional situations, it also applies to

educational situations because learners reflect on their learning progress in online forums and

make application to their personal practice in the world beyond the virtual course portal.

Reflection-in-action occurs during the online course. Examples of reflection-in-action in

online courses are self-assessment checks for factual understanding, course participants’

assessment of their growing facility with technology, and reflections of the refinement or change

in teaching and learning practices. Reflection-in-action is fundamental, but it must be combined

with teachers’ attention to identifying learners’ growing scholarship, cogent insights, and

collaborative action (Blackburn, Robinson, & Kacal, 2015). More research is needed on the

effects of reflection-in-action and ways that teachers in online course environment prompt

learners to engage in reflection-in-action (Blackburn et al., 2015).

Reflection-on-action refers to culminating or summative evaluation at the end of an

online course. Reflection-on-action includes not only an evaluation of course mechanics such as

technology connectivity but also on the potential attainment of learning goals and expectations.

Metacognitive reflection occurs through many avenues, but especially in online course

discussion forums. Educators are “minds-on” and engaged with their ideas (Duckworth, 1972,
 39

2009). Intertwined with each navigated obstacle is an invitation to reflect metacognitively.

Reflection is essential to connecting pedagogical theory (Shulman, 1987) and design thinking.

Course participants practice the dual tasks of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action by

thinking about what they create, tinker, design, and revising their ideas into course content

modules. In the process of translating content for online courses, course participants, both

instructor and learner, acquire new knowledge and increase their own skill level. Reflection is

essential to mitigating revision (Benkler, 2006), understanding practice (Kreber & Cranton,

2000). When other learners reflect and then comment, ask questions, and offer additional

perspectives in discussion forums, learning is transformed into a ‘commons-based peer-

production’ (Benkler, 2006). The reflective peer production cements deep learning.

Specific socio-cultural constructionist competencies transform design thinking from an

abstract concept to a design thinking skill set for an online teacher. Keywords in the design

process are Collect, Design, Build, and Troubleshoot (Buechley & Qui, 2013). Barr, Harrison, &

Conery (2011) quantified design thinking in five parts: prototype product construction, prototype

beta-test, beta-test results analysis, debugging of problems, and design refinement. Imagination is

an important factor in design thinking. Resnick (2007) gave double emphasis to Imagination in his

six-step design process: Imagine, Create, Play, Share, Reflect, and Imagine.

Laurillard (2000a, 2012) asserts that teaching for design thinking is process-oriented and

iterative, or able to be applied repeatedly. Laurillard’s iterative cycle of design thinking in

instruction concentrates on circular cycles of design, redesign, and reflective practice.

Constructionism also advocated design thinking as its primary, pedagogical focus (Kafai, 2006).

The redesign aspect of design thinking echo’s Constructionism’s key distinguishing component

of tweaking and tinkering (Papert, 1980), which is the adaptive thinking requirement of design.
 40

Design thinking mediates online course construction and course facilitation through

iteration, repeated testing, and cyclical processing (Koh et al., 2014; Laurillard, 2000a, 2012;

Plattner, Meinel, & Leifer, 2010; Resnick, 2007). It shares features of rapid prototyping (Brown,

2014) through tinkering (Papert, 1980) and fail-fast application.

The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPaCK) survey A survey to examine

teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014) with design

dispositions and lesson plan practices questions emphasizes constructivist principles of discovery

learning and solving authentic problems in collaborative constructs. Teachers embody socio-

constructivist practices through Freire’s action-reflection-action cycle from Freire’s Permanent

Teacher Education (Saul & Saul, 2016). The Permanent Teacher Education benchmark of action-

reflection-action occurs when teachers think about what they create, tinker, design, and revise

their ideas into course content modules. In the process of translating content for online courses,

teachers acquire knowledge and increase their own skill level. Their professional growth returns

with them to their classrooms, both onsite and online and this is a richer experience than just

learning where to point and click (Polin & Moe, 2015).

Online course design involves the ways that content is presented to course participants

(Wang, Xiao, Callaghan, & Novak, 2010). Online course facilitators often receive course

curriculum materials from an institutional Learning and Development department or team.

Examples of course management systems include Moodle, Coursera, Blackboard, Canvas, Web-

CT (Mitropoulou & Nickmans, 2007; Vovides & Sanchez-Alonso, 2007). The curriculum

content materials are bundled as a full course in a Content Management System. A curriculum

guide may or may not be included in the course transfer. The Content Management System

functions synonymously as the textbook and curriculum guide for face-to-face classroom
 41

teachers, but it does not provide needed curriculum pacing and scaffolding needed for learner-

centered instruction (Vovides et al., 2007). This is because 70% of Learning and Design

professionals are not proactive in understanding how individuals in their organizations learn

(Overton & Dixon, 2016). Moreover, 29% of learners find online content uninspiring (Overton &

Dixon, 2016).

To meet the needs of their students, faculty must engage online course participants and

use design-thinking principles to craft customized learner-centered and learner-directed

instruction and customized instructional message design (Lohr, 2011; Wang & Shen, 2012).

Instructional message design involves “the manipulation and planning of signs and symbols that

can be produced for the purpose of modifying the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor behavior”

of people (Wang & Shen, 2012). Online course instructors know their online course participants.

By prompting course participants for reflection, prototyping, and combining and recombining

concepts, online teachers embody a spiral design process (Bruner, 1990). Ideally, design thinking

intertwines with an online course facilitators’ need to utilize technology, pedagogical, and

content knowledge to provide Just-in-Time resources and pedagogical support for students

(Novak, Patterson, Gavrin & Christian, 1999). Just-in-Time teaching and resource involves

taking static content and reimagining it online as an engaging, personalized scaffold. Polin &

Moe (2015) refer to this type of teaching as “improvising for instruction” (p. 18). Hyperlinked

call-outs, Help Tutorials, and Landscape Posts are examples of online, customized scaffolds.

Shared Elements of the Three Fields

Effective teaching requires complex layering of intentions, instructional approaches

skills, techniques, and. As noted in the previous section, designing learning for student

engagement is central to the choice and deployment of technology in the best practices of
 42

teachers. Therefore, a deeper examination of activities common to both fields of study will be

useful in understanding how to prepare and strengthen faculty to meet students’ needs.

Technology mediates student engagement. Pedagogical applications for using technology

in student instruction continues into its fourth decade. Technology is an essential consideration

that influences both the skills needed by educators and the lesson delivery options to students.

“Though not all teachers have embraced these new technologies for a range of reasons-including

fear of change and lack of time and support- the fact that these technologies are here to stay

cannot be doubted” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1023).

Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPaCK) addresses the larger,

interdisciplinary affordance of technology on instruction and learning. Instructors should know a

variety of tools that engaged students. However, they often piggy-back off their own engagement

with technology tools when choosing the appropriate technology for students (Muir et al., 2016).

Both teachers and students need to have a wide-variety of technology tools and strategies at their

disposal. Teachers’ knowledge of how to interweave digital, multimedia, and web technologies

in their planning can open provide innovative avenues for student engagement and participation.

The result of teachers’ planning for multimodality can lead to more autonomous experiences for

students. It echoes Dewey’s (1927) idea of an “associative and continually changing collective

experiences, in support of critical and active learning” (Lee, 2008, p. 140).

TPaCK highlights the complex nature of effective teaching with technology. Lesson

design that incorporates the multimodality of technology, is one channel through which teachers

embody the intertwined components of TPaCK (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). Teachers in

face-to-face classrooms and online course arenas draw on design decisions to best position

curriculum content for student engagement. However, a “dominant theory” (Kimbell, 2011, p.

18) to categorize design features has not clearly emerged.

 43

Summary of Core Findings from Relevant Studies

Dynamic student engagement emphasizes constructivist principles of sociocultural

learning in collaborative constructs and constructionist principles of creating new learning

products in an unfolding dialogue with others. Mobile learning has increased student

engagement and students’ learning autonomy (Sheninger, 2014). Students use mobile technology

in meaningful knowledge co-creation. Marc Prensky’s (2001) prediction about student learning

is certainly true today, “students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to

teach” (p. 1). Since they are not the students that instructors were designed to teach, instructors

must learn to design their teaching to meet students’ needs.

Learners in online courses have a facility in using and familiarity with mobile

technology. There is little research however, that records how online course facilitators can

design lessons to optimize student engagement with mobile technology. In fact, some educators

see online courses and mobile technology as threats to their instruction (Lucas, 2015; Sheninger,

2014). Some of the threats perceived by faculty are fear of change, lack of time, lack of support,

silo-based mentality, and lack of collaboration (Korucu & Usta, 2016; Lucas, 2015; Sheninger,

2014; Swist & Kuswara, 2016). Ineffective professional development opportunities are another

reason for reason that faculty do not adapt to online courses and mobile technology. Those

instructors who are inquisitive and open-minded regarding new approaches with technology

often find that faculty training options for integrating digital and mobile technology fall behind

their demand (Wyatt, Dopson, Keyzerman, & Daugherty, 2014).

Many surveys that assess teachers’ perceptions of TPaCK relate to teachers’ knowledge

of technology, content subject areas and related pedagogies but the teacher’s design processes

have been underrepresented (Koh et al., 2014). The Koh, et al., (2014) TPaCK survey, A survey

to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their
 44

relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) includes a section to

measure what the research team labeled the design dispositions of teachers. The 2014 Koh et al.

survey addressed the void in the current literature of the TPaCK framework combined with

design choices. The 2014 Koh et al. research team found that the Singaporean teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions (orientations towards design) and lesson design practices

(approaches used for lesson design) enhanced TPaCK in the face-to-face classroom. Koh et al.

(2014) recommended further studies to continue verification that design dispositions and lesson

design practices have directly impacted teachers’ perceptions of the TPaCK instructional

framework.

The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPaCK) survey from the Koh et al.

(2014) study pairs teachers’ use of the TPaCK coupled with design decisions. Teaching with

educational technology and the designing learning activities are complementary activities since

both contain iterative cycles (Laurillard, 2002a, 2012) and reflective practice (Schon, 1983).

Combining TPaCK and design decision characteristics will make a difference in instructors’

professional development because these characteristics can be combined and taught as a skill set.

This skill set may also obliterate teachers’ resistance to utilizing online and mobile technology

affordances because it will first focus on the successful actions that prompt student engagement.

Socio-cultural learning principles in Vygotsky’s social-constructivism and the TPaCK

instructional framework are also transferable for employees in other fields. Applying socio-

cultural learning principles benefits continuing online education initiatives featuring mobile

technology that are prevalent in healthcare, banking, and sales.

How Current Research Differs From Previous Studies

TPaCK is the acronym for the collective framework that a teacher should have regarding

the use of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra
 45

& Koehler, 2006). However, the TPaCK framework does not specifically address teachers’

design activities nor the inclusion of mobile technology. There is an absence of studies

examining how instructors design for the affordances of their students’ mobile technology and

implement their own technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. TPaCK is a robust

subject of research (Ritzhaupt, Huggins-Manley, Ruggles, & Wilson, 2016), but these studies

omit the combination of instructors’ design activities and mobile technology affordances. The

Koh et al., (2014) research team addressed the combined frameworks of TPaCK and design but

did not address mobile technology affordances or query online instructors.

The primary new knowledge contributed by this study is new checklist for teachers in

online continuing education to self-assess their technological, pedagogical, and content

knowledge (TPaCK), their instructional design activities, and their use of mobile technology.

Most studies focus on each component individually but not a cohesive group. The study answers

what next steps in instruction regarding TPaCK inclusion, particularly mobile technology are

needed, where learners are conceptually, how they should proceed, and when the TPaCK skills

are enacted (Grandgenett, 2008). The study adds new, combinatory research to the small amount

existing literature in post-secondary continuing education, on the integration of TPaCK

framework with design considerations and add the affordance of mobile technology. Currently,

there are many studies of each component individually among varying grade classifications, but

none that the researcher can find that address all three in the area for instructors in post-

secondary, continuing education.

Mobile devices will continue their supremacy and therefore the need for multimedia

online course content. More research is needed on instructional content message design for

mobile learning (Wang et al., 2010). The study adds a new, cost-effective approach for

educational professional development in the online continuing education arena, combining the
 46

TPaCK theoretical framework, acknowledging the design decisions that course facilitators

routinely make for technology in general and mobile technology specifically. A succinct, yet

comprehensive skill set from the research in this study is a cost-effective way to provide

educational, professional development in the post-secondary arena, where such opportunities for

professional development usually do not occur. Combining these separate domains would

leverage the pedagogical considerations preferred by course facilitators with the popularity of

students’ use of mobile technology and result in greater performance and stronger morale for

course facilitators who see the acknowledgement of their efforts.

Chapter Summary

This chapter addressed teaching practices in online continuing education courses with mobile

technology affordances. The socio-cultural theories of Constructionism and Social Constructivism,

and the TPaCK instructional framework are foundational for instructors in online courses with

mobile technology.

Online learning with mobile technology fits appropriately within the sphere of the socio-

cultural learning theory (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2014). Constructivist collaboration occurs through

scaffolded learner-directed discussion posts, peer-review, peer-discussion, instructor feedback,

and improved professional practice. Design by course instructors for effective online learning

trajectories include peer-to-peer interaction, iterative practice, and authentic learning.

 47

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter describes the mixed methods research methodology to assess how online

course instructors combine mobile technology, design principles, and the TPaCK instructional

framework in their online course content. A mixed method research methodology was chosen to

accurately describe quantitatively and qualitatively the skill set used by the online course

facilitators. This study sought to contribute to the growing body of research and interest in

measuring the integration of essential skills for continuing education faculty who teach courses

online. The skill set that emerged from the research illustrated how online course facilitators in

continuing education used the TPaCK instructional framework in their course facilitation. The

skill set that emerged also illustrated how online course facilitators made design decisions for

supplemental course content and configured content for mobile technology use.

The methods presented in this chapter include the restatement of research questions,

research design, data collection, subject selection and recruitment, pilot study, and human

subjects’ considerations.

Restatement of Research Questions

The central research question addressed in this study is:

• How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design, and the TPaCK instructional framework to improve online
course content?

The Sub-questions addressed in this study are:

1. How do selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical and

content knowledge in their online courses?

2. To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile technology access?

3. To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their online

courses?
 48

Rationale and Assumptions for Mixed Methods Research Design

This study utilized a mixed methods research design to collect, analyze, and combine

both quantitative and qualitative research data (Creswell & Plano, 2013). A sequential

quantitative and qualitative data collection (Gay & Airasian, 1996) with equally weighted results

was chosen as the most appropriate means to explore selected online educators’ use of the

TPaCK instructional framework and the choices they make for supplemental course content

design, and mobile technology considerations. Quantitative data from the Koh et al, (2014)

survey and qualitative interview data were collected, and analyzed by the researcher in keeping

with Creswell’s principles (2014). The results of the research are reported in Chapter 4.

Researcher’s Role

Dewey concluded that it was necessary for teachers to have a “profound and accurate

acquaintance with the subject in hand” (1916, p. 165). The researcher-as-practitioner benefits

from confidence, open-mindedness, unity of purpose, and intellectual thoroughness (Dewey,

1916). Some researchers (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) view the role of the researcher as dualistic,

positivist, or separate from the research process. However, recent researchers have taken the

stance that the researcher’s role is integral and interactive (Carter & Little, 2007). Further, they

posit that the researcher is often a stakeholder in the object under study specifically and the field

of practice in general (Darlaston-Jones, 2007).

The researcher’s occupational choices reflect learner engagement, educational

technology, community organizing, and innovative solutions to institutional issues. The

researcher’s longest work experience has been 25 years in education in California and Texas.

Leveraging student interest and engagement with online learning, the researcher’s students were

in the first in Texas to produce, post, and maintain vocational ePorfolios online. For eight years,

the researcher was an educational technology, professional development presenter for Classroom
 49

Connect in El Segundo, California. In this role, she facilitated professional development

experiences emphasizing inquiry and learning alongside teachers in 42 states. After working in

hospital administration for four years, the researcher returned to education as a Program Manager

of a Gerontological research center at a private university in Abilene, Texas. The researcher also

served as a Research Assistant at Pepperdine University. Since 2005, the researcher has served

on the online faculty of PBS TeacherLine, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. The common

themes of learner engagement, innovative educational technology, and collegial interactions are

included in the work history and in her researcher role.

Site and Subject Selection

The study collected data from online course facilitators in a continuing education and

professional development environment. The site selection for the proposed study is the online

portal known as PBS TeacherLine. Since 1990, PBS TeacherLine delivers online graduate and

continuing education courses for adult learners. PBS TeacherLine offers more than 80 graduate

level instructor-facilitated online courses for educators. PBS TeacherLine has a growing library

of self-paced courses. A network of 45 PBS stations across the United States and several

countries worldwide distribute the online course content. Online courses span the curriculum

areas of Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Instructional Technology, Instructional

Strategies, Science, and Social Studies/History. Although PBS TeacherLine’s physical location

is in Arlington, Virginia, all work by the course facilitators is accomplished in asynchronous

online courses.

Typically, educational, professional development workshops or program are less than 14

hours and often fail to increase student learning or change teaching practices (Gusley & Yoon,

2009; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). PBS TeacherLine online courses

typically span a six-week period. Approximately 30-50 hours are needed to complete required
 50

course work. Because of this time investment, there is an opportunity for course facilitators and

adult learners to cultivate a peer-to-peer network, unlike the typical professional development

workshops or programs of much shorter duration.

Subject participants in this study included members of the teaching faculty of PBS

TeacherLine. PBS TeacherLine uses the term Facilitator as the naming convention to refer to

their online course faculty. As previously stated, the researcher has served as a PBS TeacherLine

facilitator since 2005. The term Facilitator is used in the remainder of this narrative. All work by

the course facilitators is not place-dependent on a centralized, onground location, rather, all

course facilitation and design work is accomplished online.

Employment criteria to facilitate courses for PBS TeacherLine require a multi-faceted

selection criteria process. PBS TeacherLine facilitators must attain exemplary status on instructor

evaluations in their previous teaching location. They must have an earned Master’s Degree from

an accredited university. A majority of current course facilitators have earned the Ed.D. or Ph.D.

designation. PBS TeacherLine online course facilitators must have 18 university hours in their

content teaching field and submit previous employment supervisor recommendation letters in

order to facilitate courses. Prospective facilitators must also complete an online facilitation,

training program with periodic evaluations after employment.

Current PBS TeacherLine facilitators must participate in required staff development

sessions offered four times per calendar year as well as moderated peer-to-peer discussion board

sessions. PBS TeacherLine facilitators participate in systematic evaluation by the Course

Manager during their course administration. Facilitators must score in the 90th percentile in

course participant summative evaluations. There are over 60 active PBS course facilitators.
 51

Data Collection Instruments

Data was collected in a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview. Surveys are

reliable measures to assess teachers’ integration of TPaCK components (Schmidt et al., 2009).

The study administered the quantitative survey instrument A survey to examine teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014). The Koh research

team used the capitalization of all letters in the acronym and this format is used when referencing

their survey.

The 2014 Koh et al. study bundled the TPaCK instructional framework with teachers’

design dispositions and lesson plan practices in their survey, and it is the only study that the

researcher can find with this combination. The Koh research team created a survey instrument

was created, implemented, and validated by the research team of Joyce Hwee Ling Koh of

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Ching Sing Chai, also from Nanyang Technological

University; Huang-Yao Hong of Singapore National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan; and

Chin-Chung Tsai of the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei (2014).

This study proposes to deviate from the Koh et al. original participant group and location. Instead of

face-to-face classroom teachers in Singapore, this study queried a participant group of online course

facilitators in continuing education based in the United States.

The 2014 Koh et al. quantitative survey received clearance issued by the Institutional

Review Board by the Nanyang Technological University. Then, the research team validated their

survey. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to at least .90 for each value (Koh et al., 2014, p. 5).

The researchers in the 2014 Koh et al. study used the structural equation model to analyze their

data. Structural equation modeling is a statistical methodology for analyzing, estimating, and

testing variables in a network, usually through an illustrated path diagrams (Suhr, 2006).
 52

Structural equation modeling usually requires a theoretical model and variables that can be

measured (Suhr, 2006).

The 18-question, psychometrically validated survey contains six questions each to

analyze the criteria of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPaCK), design

dispositions, and lesson plan practices. The survey’s six TPaCK items came from the Meaningful

Learning survey previously validated (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2011) with Singapore teachers. The

2014 Koh et al. survey itself was an extension of Jonassen, Howland, Marra, & Crismond’s

Meaningful Learning dimensions (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis

established the validity/reliability of the 18-question Likert-scale survey instrument developed

and administered by the Koh et al. (2014) research team. The 2014 Koh et al. TPaCK survey

measures responses on a 7-point Likert scale. Dr. Joyce Koh gave permission for the use of this

survey with the PBS TeacherLine faculty (Appendix C). Dr. Koh expressed interest in viewing

the results of the survey administration and resulting interview data.

The 2014 Koh et al., TPaCK survey measures relationships between three variables:

1.) the theoretical factor of TPaCK

2.) the behavioral factors of design dispositions

3.) the lesson planning practices.

All three theoretical frameworks discussed in Chapter Two are included in the research

instrument. The survey also includes ordinal scope question and statements relating to design

thinking (Appendix B).

The 2014 Koh et al. survey reflects the central research question of this study

which is: How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design, and the TPaCK instructional framework to improve online course

content? The 2014 Koh et al. survey reflects the sub-questions of this study which are:
 53

(a) How do selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical, and content

knowledge in their online courses? (b) To what extent do online teachers’ design content for

mobile technology access? (c) To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in

their online courses?

Specifically, the central research question and sub-question #1 is addressed in

questions from the 2014 Koh et al., TPaCK survey instrument labeled TPACK1 – 6 which are:

• TPACK1 – I can formulate in-depth discussion topics about the content knowledge and

facilitate students’ online collaboration with appropriate tools (e.g. Moodle Platform,

Google Sites).

• TPACK2 – I can craft real-world problems about the content knowledge and represent

them through computers to engage my students.

• TPACK3 – I can structure activities to help students to construct different

representations of the content knowledge using appropriate ICT tools (e.g. Graphic

Organizers, Surveys).

• TPACK4 – I can create self-directed learning activities for the content knowledge with

appropriate ICT tools (e.g. Blog, Webquest).

• TPACK5 – I can design inquiry activities to guide students to make sense of the content

knowledge with appropriate ICT tools (e.g. simulations, web-based materials).

• TPACK6 – I can design lessons that appropriately integrate content, technology and

pedagogy for student-centered learning.

Research subquestion #2 of this study are addressed in the 2014 Koh et al. survey

questions labeled LDP1-6 and DD1- DD6 which are:

• LDP1: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I start by considering a few

lesson ideas.
 54

• LDP2: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider several lesson ideas

to see if they adequately address learners’ needs before choosing one idea.

• LDP3: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I allow conflicting lesson

ideas to coexist until I feel that I have adequately understood the learning problems.

• LDP4: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I continually refine my lesson

ideas as I develop new understandings throughout the design process.

• LDP5: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider the consequences of

adopting particular lesson ideas before working out details.

• LDP6: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I am prepared to completely

change my lesson ideas if needed.

• DD1 – I am comfortable with the presence of uncertainty.

• DD2 – I am open to new experiences.

• DD3 – I am comfortable to explore conflicting ideas.

• DD4 – I am comfortable to deviate from established practices.

DD5 – I am comfortable with occasional failures from trying out new approaches for

course modules.

• DD6 – I am constantly seeking to turn constraints into opportunities

Although questions labeled TPACK6, DD1, and DD2 were removed from analysis by the

Koh research team in the original 2014 Koh et al. survey administration, this study included

them. This is because the questions correspond to the socio-constructionist theoretical principle

of tinkering and tolerance of uncertainty. Interview data gathered from PBS TeacherLine course

facilitators informed sub-questions #3.

Initially, the 2014 Koh et al. survey instrument’s administration occurred among

secondary ICT teachers. The study implemented two deviations for data collection from the
 55

2014 Koh et al. survey administration. First, the survey was administered to a group of American

educators. Secondly, the educators are online course facilitators from PBS TeacherLine, a

national, online professional development, continuing education institution. This deviated from

the 2014 Koh et al. study which was administered to 201 information and communications

technology (ICT) teachers in Singapore who teach in face-to-face classroom settings.

Likert scales feature declarative statements and ask participants to agree or disagree with

them on an incremental scale (Gray, 2010). One weakness of Likert scales is that participants

tend to self-report at unreliable levels. Likert-scale surveys are primarily used to measure

preferences and attitudes (Gray). Additional methods are needed for a complete assessment and

balance, and this will occur through an interview of subjects in Phase 3.

Data collection in this dissertation added twelve qualitative, semi-structured interviews to

learn more about online, continuing education teachers’ perception of their TPaCK and

supplemental course design use and if this use extends to mobile technology tool utilization in

their courses. This deviates from the 2014 Koh et al. study which collected data solely from the

survey and did not collect data from qualitative interviews.

Validity of Survey Instrument: Phase 1 – Pilot Study

The research procedures of the study followed a systemic inquiry through a three-phase

approach. In Phase 1, the researcher completed a pilot study. The pilot study was a preliminary

test to validate the dependability, content validity, and reveal any areas of improvement of the

survey questions (Creswell, 2014) prior to the administration with the participant pool. The

researcher randomly chose the data of September 8, 2016 for the pilot study.

Immediately before the pilot study, the researcher keyed the survey questions from the

2014 Koh et al. survey, along with introductory and concluding communication pieces into the

Qualtrics Online Survey Software Platform. As a means of procedural scaffolding, (Huang, Wu

 56

& Chen, 2012), the researcher created a QR-code and personalized survey URL for ease of

access and mobile accessibility (Ferguson, Mentzelopoulos, Protopsaltis, & Economou, 2015).

QR-code stand for Quick-Response Code (Lee, Lee, & Kwon, 2011). These are extensions of

bar-code technology and can be read by specialized software on mobile phones and computers

(Shin, Jung & Chang, 2012). QR-codes increase the ease of survey access and interactivity with

scans taking an average of 8 seconds versus 24 and 82.5 seconds each for typing short and

weblinks (Lo, Coleman & Theiss, 2013). QR-codes do not inhibit the reflection skill needed for

survey completion and they may encourage participation and reflection (Chen, Teng & Lee,

2011; Fuegen, 2012; Lo et al., 2013).

A subset of seven people, which was 10% of the researcher’s intended survey pool, were

chosen for a pilot study. While a survey pilot was proposed with the current PBS Learning

Media Project Manager, the Facilitation Manager, and three previous PBS TeacherLine Course

Facilitation Coordinators, a slight variation occurred in the pilot study. The pilot study was

conducted with the current PBS Learning Media Project Manager and six participants.

Participants reflected various locations in the United States. Participants resided in Virginia,

Louisiana, Texas, and California. The six pilot study participants were online education

professionals with experience as online course facilitators who also had course content design

experience or as continuing education online course students who also had course content

instructional design experience.

Pilot study beta-testers received an anonymous survey link for the quantitative survey, A

survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their

relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014).

The pilot test participants were asked to complete the survey and evaluate the survey question
 57

language, the way Qualtrics rendered the survey questions through various browsers and

operating systems, the accuracy of the survey link, and the QR-code.

Specifically, the pilot study participants were given seven tasks. First, they beta-tested the

operability of the survey link and the QR-Code on Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Internet Explorer

internet browsers and mobile phone models. Second, they scrutinized the survey instructions for

readability and understanding. Thirdly, they scrutinized the survey questions for clarity. Fourth,

they scrutinized the survey question language for cultural, regional, gender, or racial bias. Fifth,

they assessed if the question prompt was thorough enough for adequate answers from

respondents. Sixth, they assessed the relevance of the question to what was being measured.

Finally, the beta testers recorded the length of time they needed to complete the survey. The pilot

test survey administration was collected in a separate section in the Qualtrics survey platform.

The pilot study participants sent their responses to the seven tasks to the researcher by email.

The beta- testers’ recommendations were collected in a Google Document. All information

gathered from the pilot study was reviewed and considered. The researcher worked with the

Dissertation Chair to correct typographical errors and modifications of question wording. Only

three minor modifications were made to the 2014 Koh et al. survey questions with the approval

of the Dissertation Chair

First, the digital examples in questions TPACK 3, TPACK 4, and TPACK 5 were

adjusted to more closely reflect online course activities. In the second modification, the letters

for the acronym “ICT” used in the original 2014 Koh et al. wording were deleted from TPaCK-

related questions #1-6 and LDP-related questions 7-12 since ICT is not an acronym of the PBS

TeacherLine course nomenclature and it was not known whether the survey participants would

be familiar with the acronym. Third, the word “students” was replaced with the word “learners”

to reflect PBS TeacherLine nomenclature. The 2014 Koh et al. survey questions and the
 58

readability report of the survey language, as rendered after the pilot study, are found in Appendix

E and F, respectively.

Phase 2 – Administer Survey and Gather Survey Responses

In Phase 2, the researcher administered the survey and gathered the responses. Data

collection began following the pilot test on September 12, 2016 and was completed on October

30, 2016. Initially, the researcher proposed to request access to the current PBS TeacherLine

email database in order to reach the study’s maximum effectiveness standards (Gray, 2010). In

an advantageous research development, the PBS TeacherLine project manager sent an email to

the 67-member facilitator database of current and on-hiatus facilitators. The project manager’s

aegis asked for interested facilitators’ participation. Further, it requested that potential study

participants email the researcher at her Pepperdine email address. The researcher then sent

informed consent information in separate reply emails to the interested online course facilitators

(Abstract B). The emails offered an invitation to participate in the study with a list of the

proposed research objectives. The emails concluded with an invitation requesting facilitators to

indicate their willingness to participate in the 2014 Koh et al. quantitative survey and potential

follow-up interview through a reply to the informed consent email. As a second contact outreach,

the researcher posted a global request to the facilitators’ collective discussion forum. All PBS

TeacherLine course facilitators are auto-subscribed to this forum.

The researcher downloaded the data collected from the survey at Qualtrics to an Excel

spreadsheet file. At this point, the data was checked and organized to correlate to the research

questions. The researcher checked the dataset for minimum and maximum values. For example,

values less than one and greater than seven would indicate a possible data entry error. Results of

the U.S. online teachers’ survey and the 2014 Koh et al. survey were compared.
 59

3-Part Data Collection: Phase 3 – Qualitative Interviews

For Phase 3, the researcher systematically gathered information in qualitative interviews

of participants randomly selected from the initial respondents. Qualitative interviews explore

narratives of richer expression (Rallis & Rossman, 2012; van den Beemt & Diepstraten, 2016)

and allow for “views and opinions from participants” (Creswell, 2014, p. 190). Qualitative

interviews expanded the snapshot of data gathered from the 2014 Koh et al. survey. An interview

phase was initially proposed to allow the researcher to verify indications from the Koh et al.

(2014) survey instrument and boost a richer, fuller narrative from respondents. For this reason,

Phase 3 interviews occurred during the latter part of Phase 2.

The interviews supported the findings of the survey results and provided more insight

into the specific ways in which online course facilitators integrated the TPaCK instructional

framework, design principles, and mobile technology. The interviews revealed useful insights

into online facilitators’ combinatory processes of TPaCK, design activities, and mobile

technology affordances. The interview explained in more detail the specific ways that online

instructors designed online learning experiences, the affordance they give to mobile technology,

and their perceptions of their own inclusion of the TPaCK instructional framework components.

One advantage of qualitative interviews is the deriving of a “meaning-making system that

makes sense out of the chaotic mass of perception and experiences” (Gubrium & Holstein, 1995,

p. 33). Interviews also provided time to explore, in greater depth, the online course facilitators’

perceptions of their utilization of the TPaCK instructional framework. Interviews also addressed

the affordance of mobile technology in the lesson plan practices and design considerations of the

online course facilitators. The qualitative interviews with the online course facilitators provided

concentrated focus on the research questions. The interviews employed the option of follow-up
 60

questions. The emphasis on research questions and follow-up questions yielded rich descriptions

through online course facilitators’ illustrative narratives (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004).

Interview Questions

Open-ended interview questions (Richards & Morse, 2013; van den Beemt &

Diepstraten, 2016) were used in the interviews since participants prefer to give verbal responses

(Gray, 2010) and are inclined to give extensive and richer responses to them (van den Beemt &

Diepstraten, 2016). Open-ended interview questions were asked to give more insight into the

specific ways in which online course faculty integrate mobile technology, the TPaCK

instructional framework, and their design decisions for supplemental course content.

Specifically, the interview questions addressed both participants’ understanding of their

“dimensions of experience” (Richards & Morse, 2013, p. 30) with TPaCK, course component

design, and mobile technology inclusion. Interview questions sought the “views and opinions

from participants” (Creswell, 2014, p. 190). The researcher followed Creswell’s (2014) interview

protocol that features seven components. These components are as follows: heading, interviewer

instructions for standardization, questions, question probes, area for responses, concluding

statement of gratitude, and document log. The researcher conducted the interviews and engaged

in reflection-in-action (Schon, 1983). Following the interviews, the researcher wrote a short

reflection to record her attitudes and reactions (Doucet & Mauthner, 2008). These reflections

charted possible bias or assumptions made by the researcher that may have affected

“interpretation of the respondents’ words, or how she may later write about the person” (Doucet

& Mauthner, 2008, p. 405).

The researcher used interview question probes, when possible during the interview.

Interview question probes use participants’ answers to extend responses, show interest or ask

clarify questions (Creswell, 2014; Dane, 2011; Gray, 2010). Both verbal and non-verbal question
 61

probes were proposed, approved by committee, and used. Verbal probes are classified into three

categories: attention probes, conversational management probes, and credibility probes (Rubin &

Rubin, 2011). Attention probes encourage the conversational partner to elaborate and speak at

length (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Online interviews pose challenges for the researcher to signal

attention or for interviewees to see the researcher taking notes. To address this challenge, overt

attention prompts such as “This is great stuff” and “I want to write this down” (Rubin & Rubin,

2011, p. 140) signaled interest and attention. Non-verbal attention probes include question wait-

time, leaning forward to show interest, taking notes as the interviewee speaks, and alternately

nodding, and looking back to the interviewee after taking notes (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).

Examples of conversational management probes included statements such as “That

reminds me, I wanted to ask you about…” (Dane, 2011, p. 231). Another example of a

conversational management probe used in the study was “Could you go back to something I

missed” (Rubin & Rubin, 2011, p. 141). Credibility probes were used to check for understanding

when interviewees referred to dates, people, acronyms, or situations that were unfamiliar to the

interviewer (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Although question probes are supposed to be used

cautiously (Rubin & Rubin, 2011), they served a purpose in the resulting interview protocol of

the study. In the study, the use of question probes added a personalized component to the

conversation. Personalization and conversational affordances were deemed necessary by the

researcher, especially since interviews occurred online through the Skype interface.

Procedures for Research Study Validity- Interview

Qualitative validity procedures check and edit the accuracy of the research findings

throughout the research process (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative validity occurred through

procedures that assessed the semi-structured interview questions for trustworthiness,

authenticity, and credibility (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative validation also occurred through
 62

editing for accuracy, interpreting themes and descriptions, coding data, checking all data

transcripts, and organizing data for analysis (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative reliability through a

pilot study assured interview consistency (Creswell, 2014). A pilot test was completed with two

people who represented 17% of the potential interview participant pool. In the pilot test, a

validation check occurred with two colleagues who looked at the interview questions a colleague

who also checked the dataset and its organization. First, to maintain reliability, the researcher

presented the interview question, sub-questions, and question probes to two colleagues from the

survey pilot test who were familiar with TPaCK, course design characteristics, online courses,

and mobile technology. The colleagues assessed whether there was a match between the

interview questions and the intent of interview. Next, a third colleague who has conducted

research interviews was asked to examine the proposed interview questions, sub-questions and

question probes for leading, confusing language, cultural responsiveness, and gender neutrality.

Proposed Interview Questions

For the preliminary proposal and the pilot test, the researcher initially proposed the following

questions to guide the interviews:

1. Do you access the online course you teach with a mobile device? Please elaborate.

2. Please describe the last time you combined mobile technology within your course content.

Did anything occur that you did not expect? Please explain.

3. Have you designed any course components to maximize mobile technology? What did you

design? For example, have you created a QR-code or shortened a link for students to access

content from a mobile device?

4. Clay Shirky (2008) described new media content as “Publish, Then Edit.” Have you

experienced incidences of “Publish, Then Edit”? Please elaborate.

5. Do you ever use mobile apps in your course? What are the features of the app(s) you use?
 63

6. How have your learners responded when you have added mobile technology/apps in your

course?

7. Please reflect on what techniques do you use to integrate technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge in your course.

8. Is there anything else you would like to share?

Since interviews were to be completed online through the Skype platform, the researcher

sought to enunciate each question clearly and paused to emphasize the key words in each question.

The researcher also continually asked participants if the Skype transmission remained clear. Based

on information gathered during the pilot study, the proposed interview questions were modified

slightly and two questions checking Skype transmission were added. Two questions regarding

acknowledgement and years as a PBS TeacherLine course facilitator were also added.

Modified Interview Questions

1. Thank you for your participation in this interview. How is the Skype transmission? Can

you see and hear all right through the Skype interface?

2. Are you aware that we are doing an interview as part of my dissertation research and that

you are being recorded?

3. Approximately, how many years have you served as a PBS TeacherLine online course

facilitator?

4. The next set of questions address mobile technology: Do you access the online course you

teach with a mobile device such as iPhone, iPad, Android phone… (If yes, then “Please

elaborate.” If no, then go to Question 5.)

5. Have you designed any course components to maximize mobile technology? For example,

have you created a QR-code or shortened a link for your learners to access content from a

mobile device? (If yes, then “Please elaborate.” If no, then go to Question 8.)
 64

6. What did you design?

7. Have you added content and referred to accessing it with mobile technology?

8. Do you ever use mobile apps in your course and, if so, what are the particular features of the

app(s) you use?

9. Please describe the last time you combined any type of mobile technology within your

course content. Did anything occur that you did not expect? Please explain.

10. How have your learners responded when you added mobile technology/apps in your course?

11. Author Clay Shirky (2008) described new media content as following a “Publish, Then

Edit” cycle. Have you experienced incidences of “Publish, Then Edit” in your PBS

TeacherLine courses? Please elaborate.

12. Please reflect on what techniques you use to integrate technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge in your course.

13. Is there anything else you would like to share?

After the first interview, the researcher also composed the following introductory script. This

script was pasted into the Skype chat box prior to the interview. The researcher read this script, with

verb tense changes to reflect real-time administration, at the beginning of the interview:

Thank you for sharing your time for our interview today, (date) at (time and time

zone). I will initiate the Skype call to you and we will check our connection and we will

have some time to get acquainted before the interview. Your identity will remain

confidential and will not be revealed. A pseudonym will be used for identification

purposes. I will listen and take notes while you speak. I will also use active listening

pauses to give you time to complete your thoughts and so I don’t interrupt you. You

may notice more formality than familiarity in my tone and this intentional to maintain

objectivity and avoid leading. We can take a break at any time that you indicate, should
 65

you need that. If we are disconnected, I will initiate one call back through Skype. If this

callback is unsuccessful, I will send an email to you to reschedule. In this way, we

won’t waste a lot of time with transmission. Looking forward to speaking with you.

Managing and Recording Data

Measures were implemented to maintain security and reliability. Handwritten interview

notes were taken as a back-up plan in case of unexpected, technological issues (Creswell, 2014).

Pseudonyms were assigned to interviewees and used in the transcription process and in the

researcher’s notebook. Interviews were recorded as “camrec” files using Camtasia video capture

software. All transcript “camrec” files were produced to mp4 files immediately following the

interviews while the researcher and the interview participant waited. This procedure was an

added check to make sure that recordings were not affected by transmission difficulties or errors

by the researcher. The interview files were transferred to a Samsung portable storage device. The

researcher’s notes from all interviews were included in notebook.

Reliability of data was implemented in three rounds. In Round 1, communication with the

participant served as a further check for accuracy and clarity. Using the playback feature of

Camtasia, the first interview (G7) was transcribed immediately following the interview and

emailed to the participant for review prior to additional interviews. The first interview participant

(G7) read the transcript and replied with comments through email. The researcher edited the

interview transcript for accuracy and noted the typographical errors found by the participant.

Based on the researcher’s review of the transcript, additional examples of the Kindle Fire,

and tablet mobile technology devices were added to interview question four. In question eight,

based on the review of the G7 transcript, the researcher added an additional example of the

facilitators’ checking and composing email in their courses for the rest of the interview

participants.
 66

Round 2 commenced with the remaining eleven interviews. The researcher listened to

the audio recordings of the communication immediately following the interview and made notes

to add to the notes taken during the interview. Every effort was made to begin transcription

within 1-4 hours of the interview. While transcribing, the researcher added notes relating to her

impressions, the ideas repeated by participants, the emerging themes, and connections to

literature. After all of the interviews were transcribed, the researcher combined all of the

transcripts into one digital file. The researcher read analyzed the combined file to identify

commonalities, emerging themes, and nascent conclusions made from the totality of the data.

Because using the playback feature of Camtasia took between 5-7 hours to complete, the

researcher transcribed all the remaining interviews into Microsoft Word documents using either

TranscriberPro or Scribe digital transcription software. Both of these transcription tools allowed

the researcher to use hotkeys to more quickly stop, playback, and restart the interviews. Each of

the interviews #2-11 took an average of 3-5 hours to transcribe.

Speech-to-text features were considered and beta-tested by the researcher in interview #6

and #7, but they proved reliable only in regards to the rendering of the researcher’s voice and

unreliable to the participant’s voice. This actually became more time-consuming so the

researcher discontinued their use.

Data Analysis Procedures – Interviews

Qualitative coding is the “process by which segments of data are identified as relating to

or being an example of a more general idea, instance, theme or category” (Levin & Silver, 2014).

Coding addresses what the data reveals and ultimately may point to the need for additional data

gathering (Charmaz, 2008). Data analysis methods uncovered useful insights from online course

facilitators’ use of the data analysis of online teachers’ combinatory usage of mobile technology

affordances, design decisions, and the TPaCK instructional framework.

 67

Because the researcher had only assumptions of what the data may reveal, open coding

processes (Glaser & Strauss, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) were proposed and implemented

instead of a priori coding. A priori coding (Creswell, Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007) was not

proposed or implemented because it begins with preset codes which might become too confining.

The researcher preferred to let the themes emerge from the quantitative and qualitative interview

data. Themes did emerge and are explained in specific detail in Chapter 4.

A combination of content analysis and constant comparison formed the context of the

design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Data was revisited and compared following a constant

comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). The researcher also used memo writing

(Charmaz, 2008) continuously in the research process. Memo writing has been described as “the

methodological link, the distillation process, through which the researcher transforms data into

theory” (Lempert, 2007, p. 245). Memo writing keeps researchers engaged and with “minds-on”

(Duckworth, 1972, p. 217-233). Among examples of memo writing components are anecdotal

information from interviews, ideas that occur to the researcher, questions that arise for the

researcher, sequential timelines from the interview discourse, accounts, speculations, possible

conclusions, and emerging patterns.

Inductive content analysis was proposed, approved by committee, and implemented for

the interview data. Content analysis on qualitative material “attempts to identify core

consistencies and meanings” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). Constant comparison occurs when switching

back and forth between interview data and empirical literature. This process continued until the

researcher, under the Chair’s supervision, determined that concept saturation was reached.

The researcher used HyperRESEARCH™ coding software, a text analysis tool for

evaluating and interpreting interview conversations. The researcher used initial coding and line-

by-line coding (Charmaz, 2008) and created a code book in HyperRESEARCH™ with an
 68

electronic back-up. The code book and back-up were kept separate from both the data transcripts

and the field notes.

The researcher first transcribed addressing codes that corresponded to the research

question and sub-questions. Then the researcher utilized inductive reasoning to transcribe again

and in so doing, create a codebook of emerging words, patterns, and themes resulting from the

interviews (Braun & Clark, 2006; Creswell & Plano, 2013). The researcher gathered thick

descriptions (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) from the

interview narratives. The researcher engaged in reflection-on-action (Schon, 1983) by thinking

about the interview process, the study participants, and the emerging data themes.

The researcher heard and used playback features at least six times on each recorded

interview file. Each resulting transcript read at least twice before it was sent to the interviewee.

Further readings of the transcripts continued and typographical errors corrected. The researcher

analyzed the interview transcripts at least six times per each to generate codes and themes that

answered the question, ‘what is happening here?’ (Charmaz, 2006). Working back-and-forth

between analysis of field notes, reflective summaries and interview themes, an emerging

storyline developed (Doucet & Mauthner, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The researcher added two codes to the emerging Hyper-RESEARCH™ codes to reflect

ongoing efforts at accuracy and narrative. A code labelled “Quotes” was added to harvest quotes

that the researcher deemed significant from the interviewees. Timestamps were added and

checked to the original recorded file for accuracy. A code called “Mistakes/Typos” was added to

catch typographical errors that the researcher missed during the initial transcription and

proofreading. The researcher corrected the typographical mistakes in the transcripts.

To evaluate the rigor and enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative data, Lincoln and

Guba's (1985) criteria were proposed and approved by the dissertation committee. These criteria
 69

include credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability. Credibility in qualitative

research studies was established through peer-checking and interrater reliability (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Interrater reliability is the consistency judgments regarding data (Creswell, 2014).

To achieve interrater reliability, from October 31, 2016 through November 9, 2016, the

researcher asked two experienced researchers to view the codebook and code the transcript of

participant with the pseudonym Q17. The resulting coded transcripts were compared and

discussed. Also, the researcher asked one peer-examiner reviewed the coded transcripts and the

resulting codebook in Hyper-RESEARCH™ and provided feedback. One feedback discussion

was conducted via Skype and short recorded videos from the peer-examiner and online through

Google Docs. Two feedback discussion were conducted through email and Google Docs.

Discussions with the experienced researchers and peer-examiner determined, with slight

modifications, that the data had been coded accurately. This practice of peer-review, discussions

and implementation of slight modifications established inter-rater reliability (Gray, 2010).

To ensure study validity, strong validation methods and procedures added quality and

emphasis to data analysis (Onwuegbuzie, & Collins, 2007). “Member checking” allowed

participants to analyze a draft of the final report of themes to check for accuracy (Creswell,

2014). Member checking occurred online through the email exchanges and transcript sharing

with participants. Transcripts were returned for review for interviews #1-10. Four interviewees

returned their transcripts with typographical errors to that the researcher corrected.

To verify that codes and themes developed by the researcher were valid, two study

participants, G7 and Q17, received a full transcript and summary of their coded interviews. They

were asked to verify whether the codes derived from their interviews reflect their point of view

and are a good fit (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Conversations followed

with the participant reviewers and their comments and their feedback were considered. The peer
 70

reviewers verified that the distilled themes accurately reflect the spirit and intention of the

interviews. Peer debriefing gave an external check of bias that may have occurred in the data

analysis process. Peer debriefing was accomplished by sharing the data and ongoing analysis

with two senior colleagues. The researcher reviewed and considered all feedback. Both

dependability and conformability was achieved via the researcher’s field notes and post-

interview summaries.

Member checking also occurred with the PBS Learning Media Project Manager, through

email and onsite at PBS TeacherLine headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. A summary report of

thematic classifications and empirical research correlations was shared onsite with senior

administration at PBS TeacherLine headquarters on November 15, 2016. During the onsite visit,

the researcher shared thematic classifications with twenty-five PBS TeacherLine management

officers and senior staff. Identification of the subject participants, either from the survey group or

the interview group was not shared. Study participants were identified only by pseudonyms.

Both member checking opportunities were well-received with opportunities for further

discussions planned. The researcher received a request to share copies of the dissertation with the

PBS Learning Media Project Manager and senior administration. The dissertation will be made

available to study participants and peer-reviewers.

Data triangulation is one method to “balance out any of the potential weaknesses in each

data collection method” (Gray, 2010, p. 36). Data triangulation converges data and provides

greater insight than would be obtained by using either type of survey data or interview data

separately (Creswell & Clark, 2011; Gray, 2013; Richards & Morse, 2013). The three

converging data sources in the research study were the 2014 Koh et al. survey, the video

interviews, and the transcript analysis based on empirical literature from the field. The depth of

these data sources provided accurate data triangulation (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Clark, 2011;
 71

Gray, 2013; Richards & Morse, 2013). Inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and contradictory

perspectives emerging from pilot study participants, peer interview review, member checking,

and peer debriefing were discussed with survey participant raising the issue and every effort was

made to correct the issue. No inconsistencies or contradictory viewpoints that differed from the

emerging themes were discovered.

The entire research process was supervised by the researcher’s Dissertation Chair.

Regular email and Skype communication continued with the Dissertation Chair. The researcher

created a video summarizes the data collection process for the Dissertation Chair. The researcher

reported and shared results of the validation methods, and both the survey data and the semi-

structured interviews with her Dissertation Committee. Pertinent themes were highlighted.

Correlations to the literature review in Chapter Two because of the participant data in the study

are included in Chapter 4. Suggestions for further research are included in Chapter 5.

IRB Protection of Subjects

Research studies involving human subjects must have protective and ethical practices in

place (Rallis & Rossman, 2012); consequently, universities and organizations who receive

federal funds must comply with these standards. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) monitors

compliance with ethical standards and categories of research classification (Rallis & Rossman,

2012). The IRB functions under the themes of individual autonomy, privacy, and harm (Rallis &

Rossman, 2012). The researcher has completed the CITI Human Subjects Training course for

Social-Behavioral- Educational-Human Subjects Training.

There are four different research classifications which are non-human subject research,

exempt research, expedited review, and research involving protected groups. This study falls

under the 45CFR 46.101(b) Institutional Review Board as Exempt status because it involves no
 72

more than minimal risk to subjects and only involves human subjects who are able to act as

“independent agents” (Rallis & Rossman, 2012, p. 63).

The study participants all served as online course facilitators from PBS TeacherLine at

the time of data collection and data analysis. PBS TeacherLine course facilitators are

independent contractors on at-will contracts. Participation in this study was voluntary and there

was very minimal risk to any participant. Identifying data such as participant names, online

courses taught, and the state they reside was removed. As described earlier in this chapter, for

both the survey and the interview, each participant was given an alphanumeric code to replace

their name on the survey and the interview transcripts.

The online course facilitators who served as participants met the designation of subjects

who can act as independent agents and who can give informed consent. An informed consent

form assured participants that their personal, identifying information would be protected (Rallis

& Rossman, 2012). Before data collection, informed consent forms were emailed to participants

and described the purpose of the study, and the participants’ rights and limited risks during the

study (Appendix C). The informed consent also gave participants the option to “opt-out” of the

study. Following the informed consent acceptance, each participant received an individualize

email generated by Qualtrics that included a link and a QR-code to access the online survey.

The study procedures themselves, as proposed, involved participation in an online survey

questionnaire with randomly selected members of the target population asked to also participate

in an interview. There was minimal possibility of physical or mental harm to the participants.

Identifying data such as participant names and online course numbers were removed. The state

of residence for the qualitative interview participants was noted for classification purposes

because it became significant to the researcher. For both the survey and the interview, each

participant was assigned an alphanumeric code to replace their name on the survey and the
 73

interview transcripts. The alphanumeric code was used to reference the human subjects in the

upcoming Chapter Four and any potential future presentations or correspondence regarding data

finding. Identifying data was removed from cover sheets, post-it-notes, digital file names, and/or

digital back-up files with names, email addresses, Skype usernames, and/or telephone numbers.

As a further means of protecting subjects, the researcher transcribed the interviews, and

created, and maintained the codebook. To preserve confidentiality in coding, identifying

information had alphanumeric codes as pseudonyms. The researcher kept the codebook and the

interview transcripts in separate locations. All research documents and records were stored in

locked cabinets. Data will be stored securely in this manner for five years. These measures of

confidentiality and data security will provide security that identifiable information will be

protected in the unlikely event that data is compromised.

The Institutional Review Board application was submitted on July 22, 2016. Exempt

review was granted on August 15, 2016. The IRB protocol ID# 16-07-341 (Appendix D).

Chapter Summary

This chapter summarized the methodology for a study to determine the perceptions of

online course facilitators in continuing education. Of specific focus are the instructional design

choices that online course facilitators make to include mobile technology and the use of the

TPaCK instructional framework during their online course administrations. A mixed methods

design of a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative interview was proposed in preliminary

proposal and accepted for the research study by the researcher’s dissertation committee.

The study utilized a mixed methods approach of a quantitative survey and a qualitative

interview. To achieve this approach, the researcher explored how online course facilitators

perceived their use of mobile technology, their instructional design decisions, and their use of

TPaCK instructional framework. The study further proposed a research design in three phases.
 74

Phase 1 conducted a pilot study on the survey instrument called A survey to examine teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014) and one the interview

questions. Phase 2 gathered survey responses from online, continuing education course

facilitators. Phase 3 randomly selected 12 participants from the survey pool of online course

facilitators and completed in-depth Skype interviews with them.

Concrete findings from the survey, statistical analysis, and interview content analysis were

applied to the problem of how to prepare continuing education instructors to teach in online

environments mediated with mobile technology. The research findings add best practices to

limited research in the field of online education and online learning in continuing education.
 75

Chapter 4: Results

I’d like for (learners) to think of me more as ‘one of’ rather than ‘outside of.’

- Facilitator F6, interview, October 5, 2016

This study sought to contribute to the growing body of research and interest in assessing

the integration of essential skills for continuing education faculty who teach courses online.

This chapter describes the results of the quantitative survey and the qualitative interview. It

begins with a description of the study participants. This chapter includes the answers to research

questions which are re-stated below. The researcher sought to “intentionally attend to the

perspectives, attitudes, and beliefs that shape(d) the research study” (Paulus, Lester, & Dempster,

2014, p. 13) in order to understand the data.

Results of the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews are included. The interview

participants were considered by the researcher as “constructors of knowledge in collaboration”

(Gubrium & Holstein, 1995, p. 4) with the researcher. Participants’ quotes from twelve semi-

structured interviews that illustrate the methods that online course facilitators use to integrate

mobile technology with the TPaCK instructional framework are included. The chapter concludes

with a summary of the themes that emerged from both the survey and interviews.

Restatement of Research Questions

The central guiding research question addressed of the study was:

• How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design principles, TPaCK, to improve online course content?
The sub-questions of the study were:

1. How do selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical and content

knowledge in their online courses?

2. To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile and digital technology
access?

3. To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their online

courses?
 76

Description of Participants

The participant pool consisted of PBS TeacherLine online course facilitators. Initially in

the first three days following the request from the PBS TeacherLine Program Manager, 18 online

course facilitators responded. An additional 16 participants responded either to the request and/or

to an announcement posted to the facilitators’ collective-community forum. At that time, due to

the virtual nature of PBS TeacherLine, the researcher had never met the PBS TeacherLine

Program Manager, PBS Facilitation Manager, or the online course facilitator participants in

person. Although, virtual collaboration occurred previously in the facilitators’ community of

practice discussion forums, introductions with participants occurred during the Skype interview

After incorporating feedback from the survey and interview pilot tests, the researcher sent

study participants an informed consent email through the Qualtrics platform. The email

contained an anonymous survey link and QR-code generated by Qualtrics. Participants were

asked to complete the survey within one week. Participants were assured that their personal

identity would not be released in the dissertation. Participants who had not completed the survey

during this time frame were sent an automatically generated email from the Qualtrics platform.

In case this reminder might have been delivered to participants’ spam filters, the researcher send

a follow-up reminder email after two weeks.

The final total sample population was 34 respondents out of 67 people in the Facilitation

Manager’s database. This was a 51% response rate. By October 31, 2016, there were a total of 33

completed surveys, a 97% survey completion rate. One respondent began but did not complete

the survey and was not included in the final participant count.

Although specific location information was not collected, the researcher confirmed that

all current course facilitators in the Program Manager’s database were located across the United
 77

States. The survey responses were completed anonymously using the Qualtrics platform.

Identifying information was not kept either by the researcher or through the Qualtrics platform.

Findings from Phase 2: Quantitative Survey Results

Phase 1 of the study tested the usability of the survey instrument through a Pilot Test, with

seven qualified persons as described in more detail in Chapter Two. Three minor modifications

to the survey were identified from the pilot study participants and revised in collaboration with

the Dissertation Chair.

Phase 2 of the study addressed the results from the administration of A survey to examine

teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK; Koh et al., 2014). The survey sought to

answer the central research question and two of the three sub-questions. The following

information represents the results of the data collection for Phase 2.

Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1

The central research question and sub-question #1 were addressed in questions labeled as

TPACK1 – 6 of the 2014 Koh et al., survey. Specifically, the central research question and sub-

question #1 is addressed in questions labeled TPACK1 – 6 which are:

• Survey Question 1- TPACK1 – I can formulate in-depth discussion topics about the

content knowledge and facilitate students’ online collaboration with appropriate tools

(e.g. Google Sites, Moodle Platform).

• Survey Question 2- TPACK2 – I can craft real-world problems about the content

knowledge and represent them through computers to engage my students.

• Survey Question 3- TPACK3 – I can structure activities to help students to construct

different representations of the content knowledge using appropriate ICT tools (e.g.

Mindmaps, Wiki).
 78

• Survey Question 4-TPACK4 – I can create self-directed learning activities for the content

knowledge with appropriate ICT tools (e.g. Blog, Webquest).

• Survey Question 5-TPACK5 – I can design inquiry activities to guide students to make

sense of the content knowledge with appropriate ICT tools (e.g. simulations, web-based

materials).

• Survey Question 6- TPACK6 – I can design lessons that appropriately integrate content,

technology and pedagogy for student-centered learning.

Survey questions #1-6 were completed by 33 participants. Survey results from the

positive choices of “Strongly agree”, “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” were combined and

represented on the graph with the word “Yes.” The negative choices of “Strongly disagree,”

“Disagree,” and “Slightly disagree” were combined and represented with the word “No.” The

results of the online course facilitators who responded with “Neither agree or disagree” are

combined and represented as “Neither” (Figure 4).

Survey questions #1-6 asked the 33 online course facilitators to consider a reflection-on-

action (Schon, 1980) from past courses they facilitated. Survey questions #1-6 addressed the

online course facilitators’ perception of the ways in which they integrated TPaCK categories of

technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in their online course facilitation.

Survey Question #1 (TPACK1) addressed the course facilitators’ ability to prompt and

promote communication and collaboration online. Survey Question #1 (TPACK1) was

completed by 33 participants with 100% of the participants answering in the affirmative choices

of “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” (Figure 3).

 79

A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design

practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge

Yes: 33
TPACK 1 - I can formulat in-depth discussion topics about content and 100%
help learners' with appropriate tools.

Yes: 33
TPACK 2 - I can craft and represent real-world problems that relate to 100%
course content in order to engage learners.

TPACK 3 - I can structure activities to help learners construct different Yes: 33

representations of content knowledge using appropriate technology 100%
tools.

Yes: 29
TPACK 4 - I can create self-directed learning activities for content
88 %
knowledge with appropriate technology tools.
Neither: 1 .03%
No: 3 .09%

TPACK 5 - I can design inquiry activities to guide learners to make Yes: 29

88 %
sense of content knowledge with appropriate technology tools.
Neither: 1 .03%
No: 3 .09%

Yes: 32
TPACK 6 - I can design lessons that appropriately integrate content, 97 %
technology, and pedagogy for learner-centered learning.
Neither: 1 .03%

0 10 20 30 40

Yes Neither No

Figure 3: Frequency Distribution of TPaCK Use by Online Course Facilitators (n = 33). Adapted from “A survey to examine
teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK)” by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai (2014). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education. Volume 34(5) pp. 7. Copyright 2014 by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai. Reprinted with permission.

Responses to survey questions #1-6 may indicate online course facilitators’ positive

comfort level with discussion forums and troubleshooting technology issues arising from the use

of online tools. The survey findings for survey question #1 are supported by the interview

responses to interview question #12. This interview question invited participants to elaborate on

what specific techniques they used to integrate technological, pedagogical, and content

knowledge in their online courses. Specific interview responses are listed later in this chapter.
 80

Survey Question #2 (TPACK2) queried online course facilitators’ aptitude to include

real-world scenarios into authentic instruction. Survey Question #2 (TPACK2) was completed by

33 participants with 100% of all participants answering in the two highest criteria of affirmation

of “Strongly agree” and “Agree,” (Figure 3). Because of the rich experience and tenure of all the

study participants, these responses may indicate online course facilitators’ positive comfort level

with guiding learners to make connections to their professional practice. This practice mirrors the

emphasis in empirical literature on Adult Learning Theory (Knowles, 2014) on the importance of

connecting course activities to the learners’ professional practice.

Survey Question #3 (TPACK3) addressed the course facilitators’ skill at structuring

activities to achieve greatest learning retention and avoiding cognitive load. Survey Question #3

(TPACK3) was completed by 33 participants with 100% of all participants answering in varying

degrees of affirmation of “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” (Figure 3). These

responses may indicate the online course facilitators’ ability to combine technology and content

knowledge (TCK) with pedagogical knowledge (PK) while adopting the constructivist identity of

the More Knowledgeable Other (Vygotsky, 1978) discussed in Chapter 2. The emphasis in

Survey Question #3 (TPACK 3) encourages multiple representations of data. This fits with the

need for educators to have as many ways to present content as students need to master concepts.

Survey Question #4 (TPACK4) addressed online course facilitators’ ability to construct

activities to promote the self-direction of their learners. Survey question #4 (TPACK4) was

completed by 33 participants with 29 participants (88%) answering in varying degrees of

affirmation, of “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” (Figure 3). One participant,

(.03%) answered “Neither agree nor disagree.” One participant answered “Slightly disagree” and

two participants answered “Disagree” for a total range of .09% of negatively scaled responses

(Figure 3). The strong trending of positive responses may indicate that a majority of online
 81

course facilitators’ combine specific technology and content knowledge (TCK) skills for

instructional models such as Blogs and Webquests with the pedagogical knowledge (PK) of the

constructivist More Knowledgeable Other (Vygotsky, 1978) and guide on the side (Koskey &

Benson, 2017) discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Survey Question #5 (TPACK5) contains the first mention of design skills of online

course facilitators. Survey Question #5 (TPACK5) was completed by 33 participants with 29

participants (88%) answering in varying degrees of affirmation with the choices “Strongly

agree,” “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” (Figure 3). One participant, (0.03%) answered “Neither

agree nor disagree” Two participants answered “Slightly disagree” and one participant answered

“Disagree” for a total range of .09% of negatively scaled responses. These responses may

indicate that most of the online course facilitators’ self-report that they value the abstract

pedagogical knowledge (PK) of inquiry-based learning and that the course facilitators can

combine specific technology and content knowledge (TCK) skills.

Survey Question #6 (TPACK6) specifically addressed the combination of TPaCK skills

with design skills (Figure 4). Survey Question #6 (TPACK6) was completed by 33 participants

with 32 participants, (97%) answering in varying degrees of affirmation with the choices of

“Strongly agree,” “Agree,” and “Slightly agree” (Figure 3). One participant, (.03%) answered

“Neither agree nor disagree.” These responses may indicate the ease with which most of the

online course facilitators navigate between the TPaCK instructional framework and design on

behalf of their learners. Responses to these questions may also signal the participants’ comfort

with serving as an instructional designer with supplemental course content in their courses.

The survey findings for survey questions #1-6 were supported with three interview questions,

(#2, #4, and #7) that requested specific examples from twelve randomly selected interview

participants. The interview responses are discussed later in this chapter.

 82

Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Design Practices

The central guiding research question and sub-question 2 sought to understand online

course facilitators’ lesson design practices (LDP). These questions were addressed in the 2014

Koh et al. survey questions #7-12 labeled LDP1 – LDP6 which are:

• Survey Question #7 - LDP1: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I start by

considering a few lesson ideas.

• Survey Question #8 - LDP2: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider

several lesson ideas to see if they adequately address learners’ needs before choosing one

idea.

• Survey Question #9 - LDP3: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I allow

conflicting lesson ideas to coexist until I feel that I have adequately understood the

learning problems.

• Survey Question #10 - LDP4: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I

continually refine my lesson ideas as I develop new understandings throughout the design

process.

• Survey Question #11 - LDP5: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider

the consequences of adopting particular lesson ideas before working out details.

• Survey Question #12 - LDP6: When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I am

prepared to completely change my lesson ideas if needed.

Survey questions #7-12 asked 33 online course facilitators to engage in reflection-on-

action (Schon, 1980) and to consider their supplemental course content design activities. Survey

questions #7-12 were completed by 33 participants. Survey results from the positive choices of

“Strongly agree,” “Agree”, and “Slightly agree” and the negative choices of “Slightly disagree,”

“Disagree,” and “Strongly disagree” were combined in the representation. The results of those
 83

who chose to respond with “Neither agree nor disagree” are represented with the word “Neither”

(Figure 4).

Survey Question #7 (LDP1) highlighted the lesson design practice of distilling the best

approach to showcase new content for learners. This question infers that there are a myriad of

instructional approaches available to online course facilitators and seeks online course

facilitators’ perceptions of their ability to choose the best option for course content delivery.

Survey Question #7 (LDP1) was completed by 33 participants (Figure 4). Of all 18 survey

questions, this question had the most variation of responses. The majority of 29 participants

(88%) answered in varying degrees of positive affirmation. One participant, (.03%) answered

“Neither agree nor disagree.” One participant each answered “Slightly disagree,” “Disagree,”

and “Strongly disagree” for a total of three participants (.09%) who answered in varying degrees

of disagreement. Participants who disagreed or remained neutral may have considered that PBS

TeacherLine courses are pre-populated with course content modules and that they do not design

the lesson itself but supplemental lesson content through the use of apps and other digital tools

and software. Additionally, rather than “playing with a few lesson ideas” as stated in the survey

question text, the participants who supplied neutral or negative responses may have reacted

negatively to the use of word “playing.” The survey participants may have interpreted the word

“playing” in the context of “frivolous” instead of a productive aspect of iterative design. The

results of this survey question prompted the researcher to ask specific questions in the interview.

The specific interview questions probed for specific design processes and design tasks.
 84

A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design

practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge

Yes: 29
Survey Question #7 - LDP1: When designing a technology-enhanced 88%
lesson, I start by considering a few lesson ideas. Neither: 1 .03%
No: 3 .09%

Survey Question #8 - LDP2: When designing a technology-enhanced l Yes: 31

esson, I consider severallesson ideas to see i f they adequately 94%
address learners’ needs before choosing one idea. No: 2 .06%

Survey Question #9 - LDP3: When designing a technology-enhanced Yes: 25

lesson, I allow conflicting lesson ideas to coexist until I feel that I have 76%
Neither: 4 12%
adequately understood the learning problems. No: 4 12%

Survey Question #10 - LDP4: When designing a technology-enhanced Yes: 32

lesson, I continually refine my lesson ideas as I develop new 97%
Neither: 1 .03%
understandings throughout the design process.

Survey Question #11 - LDP5: When designing a technology-enhanced Yes: 30

lesson, I consider the consequences of adopting particular lesson Neither: 2 .06% 91%
ideas before working out details. No: 1 .03%

Survey Question #12 - LDP6: When designing a technology-enhanced Yes: 32

lesson, I am prepared to completely change my lesson ideas if Neither: 1 .03% 97%
needed.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Yes Neither No

Figure 4: Frequency Distribution of Supplemental Course Design Activities by Online Course Facilitators (n = 33). Adapted
from “A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)” by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai (2014). Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education. Volume 34(5) pp. 7. Copyright 2014 by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai.
Reprinted with permission.

Survey Question #8 (LDP2) addressed individualizing instruction (Figure 4).

Survey Question #8 was completed by 33 participants with 31 participants, (94%) who answered

in varying degrees of affirmation. One participant, (.03%) answered “Slightly disagree” and one

participant answered “Disagree” for a total of .06% negative responses. The survey question

responses may reflect the online course facilitators’ ability to apply Knowles Adult Learning

Theory (2014) model of connecting course activities to the learners’ professional practice.
 85

Survey Question #9 (LDP3) related to the lesson plan practice of considering conflicting

lesson ideas (Figure 4). Survey Question #9 (LDP3) was completed by 33 participants. Although

responses to the question still reflected the majority opinion, this question had the least number

of positive range of response with 25 participants (78%) answering in varying degrees of

affirmation. Four participants, (12%) chose the neutral response of “Neither agree nor disagree.”

Survey Question #9 (LDP3) also contained the greatest concentration of disagreement among the

participants with four participants, (12%) who answered “Disagree.” This may reflect survey

participants’ view that since their online course is pre-populated with content modules, it is

unnecessary to consider conflicting lesson ideas.

Survey Question #10 (LDP4) addressed iterative lesson design (Figure 4). Survey

Question #10 (LDP4) was completed by 33 participants with 32 participants (97%) answering in

varying degrees of affirmation. One participant, (.03%) answered “Neither agree nor disagree.”

Such a strong positive response may indicate a correlation between online course facilitators’

comfort level with the constructionist principle of tinkering and tweaking (Papert, 1980) and the

necessary trail-and-error process inherent in iterative design (Al-Nassar, 2017). Trial-and-error

and iterative design are discussed in more detail in the literature review in Chapter 2.

Survey Question #11 (LDP5) considered the ability of online course facilitators to design

lessons with the goal toward knowledge transfer (Wiggins, 2010) as stated in more detail in

Chapter 2. Survey Question #11 (LDP5) was completed by 33 participants with 30 participants,

(91%) who answered in varying degrees of affirmation (Figure 4). Two participants, (.06%)

answered “Neither agree nor disagree” and one (.03%) participant answered “Disagree.” The

strong number of positive responses may reflect PBS TeacherLine’s professional development

emphasis on building a socially mediated culture to encourage knowledge transfer.

 86

Survey Question #12 (LDP6) alludes to the importance of iterative design for knowledge

transfer (Figure 4). This question was completed by 33 participants with 32 participants, (97%)

who answered in varying degrees of affirmation. One participant, (.03%) answered “Neither

agree nor disagree.” The preponderance of responses in the positive range may indicate the

online course facilitators’ acceptance of and tolerance for the constructionist principle of

tinkering (Papert, 1980) as discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Since the participants’

responses to Survey Question #12 (LDP6) also hint at their comfort with interim failure, the

researcher chose to include a question addressing productive failure in later interviews #3-12.

Survey Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Design Designs

Research sub-question #2 of this study relates to questions that the 2014 Koh et al.

research team labeled as “design dispositions” and labeled as DD1- DD6 which are:

• Survey Question #13 DD1 – I am comfortable with the presence of uncertainty.

• Survey Question #14 DD2 – I am open to new experiences.

• Survey Question #15 DD3 – I am comfortable to explore conflicting ideas.

• Survey Question #16 DD4 – I am comfortable to deviate from established practices.

• Survey Question #17 DD5 – I am comfortable with occasional failures from trying out

new approaches for course modules.

• Survey Question #18 DD6 – I am constantly seeking to turn constraints into opportunities

Survey questions #13-18 asked 33 online course facilitators to reflect on their

temperament or disposition, toward design (DD). Survey results from the positive choices of

“Strongly agree,” Agree,” and “Slightly agree” and the negative choices of “Slightly disagree,”

“Disagree,” and “Strongly disagree” were combined in the bar chart representation. The results

of those who responded with “Neither agree or disagree” are represented as “Neither” (Figure 5).
 87

A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson

design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical
content knowledge

Survey Question DD1 – (#13.) I am comfortable with the Yes: 29

Neither: 1 .03% 88%
presence of uncertainty.
No: 3 .09%

Yes: 33
Survey Question DD2 – (#14.) I am open to new 100%
experiences.

Survey Question DD3 – (#15.) I am comfortable to explore Yes: 32/32

100%
conflicting ideas.

Yes: 32
Survey Question DD4 – (#16.) I am comfortable to deviate 97%
from established practices. Neither 1 .03%

Survey Question DD5 – (#17.) I am comfortable with Yes: 33

occasional failures from trying out new approaches for 100%
technology-enhanced lessons.

Yes: 32
Survey Question DD6 – (#18.) I am constantly seeking to 97%
turn constraints into opportunities. Neither 1 .03%

0 10 20 30 40

Yes Neither No

Figure 5: Frequency Distribution of Design Characteristics by Online Course Facilitators (n = 33). Adapted from “A survey to
examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)” by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai (2014). Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education. Volume 34(5) pp. 7. Copyright 2014 by J.H.L. Koh, C.S. Chai, H.Y. Hong, & C.C. Tsai. Reprinted with
permission.

Both Survey Question #13 (DD1) and Survey Question #14 (DD2) addressed

complementary ideas of uncertainty and novelty (Figure 5). Survey Question #13 (DD1)

addressed comfort with uncertainty. It was completed by 33 participants with 29 participants

answering in varying degrees of affirmation. One participant chose the neutral response “Neither

agree nor disagree.” Three participants chose the negative response “Slightly disagree.”

Since Survey Question #14 (DD2) addressed openness to new experiences which are

fraught with uncertainty, the researcher predicted that the results would be similar. However, this

prediction was disproved. Survey Question #14 (DD2) was completed by 33 participants with
 88

100% who answered in varying degrees of affirmation. These responses may indicate that online

course facilitators’ willingness to explore new technology advances. It may also indicate that

facilitators’ are adept at figuring out applications for new technology tools. However, online

course facilitators may not view their skill as “openness” since they already possess an overall

familiarity with tinkering with technology tools. Since these two survey questions and survey

questions #10, #12, and #16 addressed tinkering, the researcher decided to include an interview

question to probe deeper into the distinctions surrounding online course facilitators’ perceptions

of newness, novelty, and uncertainty.

Survey Question #15 (DD3) asked participants about their ability to explore multiple

viewpoints. Survey Question #15 (DD3) was completed by 32 participants (Figure 5). One

participant did not complete this question. All participants, (100%) answered in varying degrees

of affirmation with 42% choosing “Strongly agree” and 42% choosing “Agree” and 12%

choosing “Slightly agree”. These responses may indicate the facilitators’ depth of practice to

closely read learners’ multiple views in discussion forums. These responses may also point to the

facilitators’ ability to synthesize learners’ views when they create landscape posts (Collison et

al., 2000) described in more detail in Chapter 2.

Survey Question #16 (DD4) asked participants to gauge their tendency to depart from

customary procedures. Survey Question #16 (DD4) was completed by 33 participants with 32

participants, (97%) who answered in varying degrees of affirmation (Figure 5). One participant

answered “Neither agree nor disagree.” As discussed previously in this chapter, these responses

may indicate the facilitators’ comfort with trial-and-error and tinkering (Papert, 1980). Deviating

from established practices promotes a pattern of learning new technological tools and processes.

Survey Question #17 (DD5) did not allude to concept of productive failure as Survey

Question #12; it directly asked for facilitators perceptions of their acceptance of “occasional
 89

failure.” Survey Question #17 (DD5) was completed by 33 participants with 100% of

participants who answered in varying degrees of affirmation (Figure 5). These responses are

consistent with results to questions #12 – 14. These questions also found high levels of

facilitators’ resilience and their acceptance of the benefits of the constructionist principle of

tinkering (Papert, 1980) and trial-and-error with technology and new media adoption.

Survey Question #18 (DD6) queried participants view of their own challenges into

opportunities (Figure 5). This skill is vital, especially in the constantly changing arena of

educational technology. Survey Question #18 (DD6) was completed by 33 participants with 31

participants, (94%) answering in varying degrees of affirmation. Two participants, (.06%)

answered “Neither agree nor disagree.” These responses are consistent with the previous design

disposition questions and may highlight the online course facilitators’ aptitude with technology

and new media adoption.

Findings from Phase 3 Qualitative Interview Results

The central guiding research question and sub-question #3 were addressed through

qualitative semi-structured interviews. Qualitative interviews were primarily constructed to

provide detailed insight into the precise ways in which online course facilitators combined the

affordance of mobile access and the use of mobile technology in their online continuing

education courses. The interviews were also intended to provide time to explore, in greater

depth, the online course facilitators’ perceptions of their utilization of the TPaCK instructional

framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

A random sample of 12 individuals comprised the interview pool. The members of the

interview pool were determined from among the survey participants who sent a reply email

indicating their willingness to be interviewed following receipt of the Informed Consent

(Appendix B). Since more than 12 respondents indicated an interview willingness, a random
 90

selection process determined the 12 participants. Initially, randomization was achieved using the

RAND function in EXCEL. The RAND function is an EXCEL generated a set of random, 8-

digit numbers. The last two digits of each number were selected, one at a time, from 01 to 17.

This selection process continued until the 12 participants were chosen. Alphanumeric

pseudonyms were assigned to each interview participant combining their random number with its

corresponding alphabet letter (i.e. G7). Interview participants were informed at the start of the

interview that pseudonyms would be used to protect their privacy. All interview files were saved

with same file protocol: Year/date/participant’s pseudonym.

As a means of notification, each of the twelve interview participants received an email

with instructions to self-select an interview day and time that was most convenient for them

within the range of September 24 – October 10, 2016. Scheduling was managed using the

“YouCanBookMe” desktop and mobile app (https://www.youcanbook.me/) via a personalized

link: https://helenteague.youcanbook.me/. With two exceptions, all scheduled appointments were

kept. One scheduled appointment was a “no-show” and further attempts to reschedule were

unsuccessful. This participant was replaced with the 13th randomly selected participant. One

interview had to be cancelled due to the participant’s evacuation during Hurricane Matthew. This

participant was replaced by another participant.

The researcher conducted and recorded eleven of the interviews over the Skype video

conferencing platform combined with the “record the screen” feature of the Camtasia video

recording software. One interview participant requested to complete the interview with questions

emailed and answers received via email as a health modification at the participant’s request.

Interviews began on September 24, 2016 and concluded on October 10, 2016. One

interview extended passed the October 6th original cut-off date due to hospitalization of a family

member. The twelve interviews totaled 615 minutes of recorded conversation. Ten of the twelve
 91

interview participants held educational positions in higher education and/or K-12 public

education. Four of the participants held Ed.D. or Ph.D. designations. The remaining eight

interview participants held Master’s degrees in either education, library science, or course

specific fields, such as English and history.

During the interviews, participants shared anecdotal information regarding the locations

in which they lived. The researcher noted the state abbreviations only in the field notes notebook

and tallied the results. The interview participants resided in ten states across the United States.

The interview participants had public school and/or higher education teaching involvement. The

variety of state locations reflected not only regional but also a range of different instructional

philosophies, approaches to delivery of curriculum, and experience with educational technology.

Restatement of Qualitative Interview Questions

The following modified qualitative interview questions were described in Chapter 3:

Interview Questions

1. Thank you for your participation in this interview. How is the Skype transmission? Can

you see and hear all right through the Skype interface?

2. Are you aware that we are doing an interview as part of my dissertation research and that

you are being recorded?

3. Approximately, how many years have you served as a PBS TeacherLine online course

facilitator?

4. The next set of questions address mobile technology: Do you access the online course you

teach with a mobile device such as iPhone, iPad, Android phone… (If yes, then “Please

elaborate.” If no, then go to Question 5.)

 92

5. Have you designed any course components to maximize mobile technology? For example,

have you created a QR-code or shortened a link for your learners to access content from a

mobile device? (If yes, then “Please elaborate.” If no, then go to Question 8.)

6. What did you design?

7. Have you added content and referred to accessing it with mobile technology?

8. Do you ever use mobile apps in your course and, if so, what are the particular features of the

app(s) you use?

9. Please describe the last time you combined any type of mobile technology within your

course content. Did anything occur that you did not expect? Please explain.

10. How have your learners responded when you have added mobile technology/apps in your

course?

11. Author Clay Shirky (2008) described new media content as following a “Publish, Then

Edit” cycle. Have you experienced incidences of “Publish, Then Edit” in your PBS

TeacherLine courses? Please elaborate.

12. Please reflect on what techniques you use to integrate technological, pedagogical, and

content knowledge in your course.

13. Is there anything else you would like to share?

The interview data was collected by the researcher and linked to the central research question

and three sub-questions. As discussed in Chapter 3, interviews were conducted, transcribed, and

coded by the researcher. Ten interview participants participated in member checking of

transcribed data. Intercoder reliability measures found that two coders reached consensus among

the application of codes reflecting in the research questions and codes that emerged from the

qualitative interviews of online continuing education course facilitators from PBS TeacherLine.
 93

Codes Resulting from the Qualitative Interviews

In addition to coding procedures discussed in Chapter 3, the researcher listened actively

and intently to the online course facilitators during the interviews. The researcher utilized active

listening, accurate transcription practices, playback and review of the Skype interview videos,

and repeated close reading of the participant reflections. These interview and coding procedures

in the interview transcripts uncovered what Freire described as the “fragments of

theory…involved in the practice of each teacher” (Saul & Saul, 2016, p. 63). The following

codes emerged from the 12 interview discussion narratives and reflect the central research

question and three sub-questions (Table 1):

Table 1.

Research Questions Addressed in Qualitative Interviews (n = 12)

Codes Frequency
RQ1 TPaCK 12/12
RQ1a Design Supplemental Course Content 12/12
RQ1a Landscape Posts 12/12
RQ2 Mobile Design- No 2/12
RQ2 Mobile Design- Yes 10/12
RQ3 Mobile App Use - No 2/12
RQ3 Mobile App Use-Yes 10/12
RQ3 Mobile Use Unexpected Things 10/12
RQ3 Mobile Access & Use In Course-Yes 11/12
RQ3 Mobile Access& Use In Course-No 1/12
Note. (n = 12)

Results from Interviews

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: Online Course
Facilitators’ Perception of TPaCK Integration

The central research question and sub-question #1 reflected online course facilitators’ use

of the TPaCK instructional framework in their online course facilitation, specifically, How do

selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical and content knowledge in

their online courses?

 94

Question prompts relating to TPaCK did not use the TPaCK acronym. Instead the use of

the full representation of the words “technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge” was chosen

by the researcher for clarity. Each of the twelve interview participants replied in the affirmative

when asked if they combined technology skill, pedagogy, and content knowledge in their online

courses for PBS TeacherLine.

The researcher used question probes to explore in more detail how the online course

facilitators specifically combined TPaCK elements. Participant responses revealed the TPaCK

instructional framework was reflected in a variety of specific course-implementation activities.

TPaCK activities by facilitator in course management included facilitator’s link checking and

resource investigation, facilitator’s thorough knowledge of interactive and innovative

technology, and Facilitator’s Assistance with technology work-arounds.

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK &
Facilitator’s Link Checking & Resource Investigation

Facilitator G7 observed the TPaCK instructional framework as integral to course set-up

and lesson presentation, “I think starting with when you’re assigned a course, you’re working

with the technology, making sure that every link works and I always keep a running list of, as I

go, the URL for that particular page” (Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016, 16:30).

Facilitator N14 echoed the embedded nature of TPaCK, “everything’s so embedded in to the

course into the PBS TeacherLine course to begin with your pedagogy, how you’re teaching, how

you’re philosophy of teaching is with the ‘X’ course content or what you know about the course

content” (Facilitator N14, interview, October 4, 2016, 22:12).

The variety of various types of technology represented through the TPaCK components

became a key element of instruction. Facilitator J10 observed the application of TPaCK in a

learner-centered context: “In all of the [PBS] courses, there’s a component where, you know, the
 95

teacher are asked to use technology in some way, shape, or form as part of the class” (Facilitator

J10, interview, October 6, 2016, 12:21).

Facilitators mentioned that they added personalized course content with just-in-time

resources that were socio-culturally constructed by the learners:

When (learners) say, ‘I wish I had more information about so-and-so,’ (or) … looking for

ideas and examples, so, I’m a Google freak, so I will Google and put four or five links to a

topic that they might be interested in. (Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016,

26:50)

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK &
Facilitator’s Knowledge of Interactive Software & Innovative Technology

All facilitators referenced interactive software and innovative technology when asked to

reflect on their integration of the TPaCK instructional framework in their online courses. All

interview participants cited the use of software to increase interactivity such as the use of Avatar

Vokis, iBooks, social bookmarking sites such as Diigo, video tools such as Screencast, subject-

specific software, and speech-to-text software. For example, in referring to the use of innovative

technology tools, Facilitator F6 said:

I have had lots of people that (sic) have said, ‘Ok, what is this?’ ‘I don’t know what it

is’, ‘This is really cool what you’ve done’ … And it ends up that we’ve actually set up

a little Diigo (social bookmarking site) group on the outside where people could post

and share to that group to further share their (new) resources. (Facilitator F6, interview,

October 5, 2016, 29:41)

Facilitator M13 reflected the use of interactive software in an online math course for

teachers’ recertification. “Courses are based on interactive software that encourages exploring

linear equation graphs so that the content is built on that expression of the graph using the

interactive software as a major factor of the course” (Facilitator M13, interview, September 28,
 96

2016, 9:13). One facilitator used innovative speech-to-text software for learner communication

and feedback (Y25, interview, October 10, 2016).

Facilitators were innovators in their exploration and evaluation of new technology tools,

especially mobile apps. The efficiency of the speech-to-text software was an advantage for

Facilitator Y25 who said:

I feel like I’m able to give extensive feedback in my courses because I don’t have to sit

and type…while I’m on my computer I might be reading the discussion forum and I’m

talking in the (voice-to-text software) so I don’t have to write anything down. (Y25,

interview. October 10, 2016, 2:47)

The interviews with participants revealed that included in their professional practice was

the facilitators’ tolerance for uncertainty and their willingness to learn new technology tools and

processes. However, the facilitators did not express a feeling of being enamored with the latest

technology tools, apps, and gizmos. Central to their professional practice was a methodical

process and careful planning. The inclusion of innovative technology was not “as a substitute for

themselves or for their planning, the hardcore planning” (Facilitator M13, interview, September

28, 2016, 25:55).

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1: TPaCK &
Facilitator’s Assistance with Technology Work-Arounds

Interview responses indicated that the online course facilitators integrated the TPaCK

instructional framework through technology assistance, troubleshooting, and work-arounds.

These responses align with the majority of course facilitators’ affirmative survey responses

regarding the acceptance of uncertainty, openness to new experiences, and comfort “with

occasional failures from trying out new approaches for technology-enhanced lessons.” As

Facilitator F6 observed, “I look at it as being more willing to take risks” (Facilitator F6,
 97

interview, October 5, 2016, 19:20). Facilitator Y25 explained comfort with uncertainty and

willingness to apply work-arounds the following way:

Researcher: “So, uh, would you that you're, um, comfortable with trying in the

technology realm, do you think you're comfortable trying work-arounds and tweaking

things and, and trying, um, to fix things that happen inevitably that go wrong?”

Y25: “Yes, um, I'm very comfortable with that I part of it I guess the main reason

is that it has to get done, the work has to get done and you know, and when it comes to

working for someone else like PBS, their reputation is on the line so

because of that I have no problem with the work arounds.” (Facilitator Y25, interview,

October 10, 2016, 17:11)

Decreases in requests for general technology troubleshooting reflect the learners’ ease

with technology. “Five years ago, we may have needed to walk somebody through or provide

directions at the beginning of the course as to put something in the Dropbox” (Facilitator A1,

interview, October 9, 2016, 18:59). Still, wise principles of technology integration permeate the

philosophy of teaching online. “I tell everybody, ‘You need a back-up plan’ no matter what we

learn in our classroom, no matter what we learn online, have a back-up plan” (Facilitator A1,

interview, October 9, 2016, 19:45).

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1 and 2: TPaCK &
Design: Learner-focused Scaffolding Activities

The TPaCK instructional framework and instructional design was integrated in a variety

of specific learner-focused scaffolding activities. As discussed in Chapter One, scaffolding refers

to the supports that a mentor can provide to help learners achieve beyond their original capacity

(Wood et al., 1976). Scaffolding helps learners to integrate content and prepare for new content.

Facilitators’ interview comments related to their perceptions of their TPaCK scaffolding

reflected their ability to use a variety of learning scaffolds. The facilitators’ TPaCK scaffolding
 98

activities included scaffolding through communication to all learners, quick communication

responses and personalized feedback to the learners in their courses, and their design of

supplemental course content.

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Facilitator’s TPaCK
Scaffolding through Quick Communication Response to Learners
As mentioned in Chapter 1, PBS TeacherLine’s guidelines set a facilitator-to-learner

response time at 24 hours, but all the course facilitators said that they provided much faster

response times. Facilitator I9 said:

When teaching math, whether it’s in public school to any age student at the university

level and online classes for PBS, I think that you can’t use just one method; you have to

be able to pull all types of instructional and learning methods so that you can reach a

larger audience. (Facilitator I9, interview, September 28, 2016, 12:23)

Facilitator J10 reflected a similar sentiment toward quick response during the interview.

The facilitator described a modification on the PBS TeacherLine guideline:

You know at PBS (TeacherLine), it was always held to the 24 hours and that’s kind

where I started, but typically it always faster than that. For me, twenty-four hours is a

long time. So, I like to keep it to twelve if I can and you know, if I’m checking in once or

twice a day, that’s not very hard to do. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016,

18:40)

Facilitator H8 linked quick responsiveness to successful online course facilitation, “I

want to get to my people right away” (Facilitator H8, interview, October 4, 2016, 4:05). “One of

the things I did is I always um, put their, their contact information into my contact list…so I can

very quickly contact them” (Facilitator H8, interview, October 4, 2016, 6:20).

Facilitator K11 explained a practice of quick responsiveness that began on the first day of

the course and continued throughout the course which created a consistent pattern of practice:
 99

Especially at the beginning of the course, I try to keep a more constant contact for

learners who are just unfamiliar with the PBS format so that I can get them up and

running and becoming successful in the course…as I’m more confident that the learners

are more confident in what they’re doing and they know how things run, then I may back

off a little and maybe check it in the morning, check it around lunch, and then more in the

evening. (Facilitator K11, interview, September 28, 2016, 14:50)

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1 and 2: Facilitator’s
TPaCK Scaffolding through Communication to All Learners

Online course instructors integrated TPaCK and instructional design components through

scaffolding for overview of major curricular concepts and to “[be] sure that students are aware of

what to expect” (Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016, 16:01).

The refinement of the interview participants’ online scaffolding grew proportionally with

their teaching tenure. “You know, I think it gets easier with time and especially if you’re

teaching some of the same classes ‘cause you get some tips and tricks. (Facilitator J10, interview,

October 6, 2016, 20:05 – 20:25). Facilitator J10 recalled a practice that reflected change and

transformational practice:

I had a hard time with it when I first started facilitating and teaching online because, you

know, you tend to want to be conversational like you might be in an actual classroom

setting and you just can’t do that, uh, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t translate in the same way

so I think it is important to keep things on topic, um, it you’re dealing with things like

assignments, use things like rubric language …and to avoid using your own language …

you know if you’re talking due dates or timeline …just really try to keep things on topic

…and not try to go off in other directions. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016,

20:05 – 20:25)
 100

The progression of technology among groups is described in Rogers’ Diffusion of

Innovation theory (2010). Rogers’ stages follow a growing acceptance of technology on a

continuum from Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards. In

online classes, this progression also occurs and participants may include members from each of

Rogers’ stages. Online course facilitators noted the change among learners and a growing

acceptance of new technology as they progressed through Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation stages

(Rogers, 2010):

When we were introducing some of them, (in previous years), there was frustration on

the part of people, they didn’t, they were having a hard enough time just dealing with the

whole online environment, and so adding anything extra was like, ‘I can’t handle this’

It’s funny because over time it’s changed. (Facilitator F6, interview, October 5, 2016,

14:49)

During the interviews, the online course facilitators discussed their utilization of TPaCK

scaffolding to prevent cognitive overload for learners. Facilitators described a careful monitoring

of their course participants for early signs of frustration or lack of assignment completion. All of

the online course facilitators described the scaffolding practices they used to prevent cognitive

overload for learners. Some of the facilitators adapted methods originally implemented in their

face-to-face instruction. Some of the facilitators tried and continued to improve upon methods

designed specifically for the online course environment. As Facilitator A1 described, “you’ve got

to break things down for them, you don’t want to send out that first announcement that is so

overwhelming that you’re going to scare them” (Facilitator A1, interview, October 9, 2016,

23:12).

TPaCK scaffolding was also used for resource sharing within the course community. As

their online course community grew and flourished, both course facilitators and course
 101

participants shared digital, print, mobile, and audio-visual resources in discussion forums. As

Facilitator J10 remembered during the interview:

Anytime I can share a resource, um, I can cite an app, a tool, it’s well-received, um, and

that’s actually one of the techniques that I use a lot in the discussion because it is so well-

received… you know, I might jump in (to the online discussion) and say, ‘Hey, I see

you’re talking about x, y, and z and here’s a tool that I’ve used’ or ‘Something that you

might want to use with students’ so, definitely you know, I do share things I’ve used

myself. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016, 13:47)

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 1 and 2: Facilitator’s
TPaCK Scaffolding through Communication to All Learners

Online course instructors integrated TPaCK and instructional design components through

scaffolding. Scaffolding occurred during the facilitators’ troubleshooting of potential technology

challenges. All of the interview participants maintained a discussion forum labeled “Help” to

triage learners’ technology issues. A centralized technical support hub also functioned as another

scaffold for learners. Scaffolding occurred in the online course facilitators’ overview of major

curricular concepts, which served the purpose of a discussion forum collecting all the emails

send globally by facilitators to learners which helped to “[be] sure that students are aware of

what to expect” (Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016, 16:35).

The refinement of the facilitators’ online scaffolding grew proportionally with their

tenure as Facilitator J10 recalled,

You know, I think it gets easier with time and especially if you’re teaching some of the

same classes ‘cause you get some tips and tricks…I had a hard time with it when I first

started facilitating and teaching online because, you know, you tend to want to be

conversational like you might be in an actual classroom setting and you just can’t do that,

uh, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t translate in the same way so I think it is important to keep
 102

things on topic, um, it you’re dealing with things like assignments, use things like rubric

language …and to avoid using your own language … you know if you’re talking due

dates or timeline …just really try to keep things on topic …and not try to go off in other

directions. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016, 20:05 – 20:25)

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Facilitator’s Design
Scaffolding through Feedback Personalized to Specific Learners

TPaCK scaffolding was also used in feedback between the course facilitator and

learners. Facilitators’ interview comments relating to their perceptions of their use of TPaCK

scaffolds reflected the intention of facilitators to bridge the curriculum crevasse between content

knowledge and application leading to implementation. Facilitator Y25 replied that TPaCK usage

was reflected in the explanations provided to learners, “to be able to explain how that stuff in

between working with students, between trying it and then refining it, how that was beneficial to

students” (Facilitator Y25, interview, October 10, 2016, 30:22).

Online course facilitators described an awareness of the online environment learning

space that may be lacking in a scripted instruction based environment. The intention toward

understanding learners’ needs and concerns is especially important in the online course

environment devoid of verbal cues. The survey findings for survey questions #8, #12, #13, and

#16 are supported by all interview responses, especially from Facilitators Y25 and I9. As

Facilitator Y25 said, “I don't want to hear my voice [18:44], I want to hear their voice [18:46]…

Everyone has a voice and they're expected to use it [21:43] (Facilitator Y25, interview, October

10, 2016, 18:44, 18:46, 21:43).

Online course facilitators described a heightened sense of their learners’ cognitive

process as it occurs asynchronously. “It’s not impossible to do, but it is more demanding…

You’re looking for clues in anything- the way they do their assignment that let you know that

there’s a real interest in and involvement with the class or (if) they seem reticent and they’re
 103

holding back…Why? What’s Happening? ... what do they need in order for me to get them to

where they should be?” (Facilitator I9, interview, September 28, 2016, 32:46 – 35:21). Tolerance

of and comfort with uncertainty leads to iterative thinking with people who comfortable with

changing on the fly.

Survey question #10 sought to investigate participants’ comfort of refining ideas through

the design process. This was supported through the interview process in responses reflecting

personalized feedback and close reading especially from facilitator I9 and Facilitator G7.

Interview participants said that the majority of the clues for personalized feedback are found

through close reading of discussion forum responses. As Facilitator I9 said, “As an online

instructor, you need to learn how to read what the learner is writing. You have to interpret based

on what you know about that one person and then give them feedback or ask them questions that

gets into what’s really going on in their head (Facilitator 19, interview, September 28, 2016,

33:42). Close, interactive involvement was described by Facilitator G7, “So, the pedagogy part I

guess is there because I am involved in what they’re talking about, what they are taking away

from what they are reading and what they’re getting from their content and how they’re applying

it in their classroom” (Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016, 16:40).

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 2: Facilitator’s

Scaffolding through Design of Supplemental Course Content
The central research question and research sub-question #2 of this study relates to design

dispositions, specifically, “To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile and

digital technology access?”

Supplemental course content design also involved instructor feedback. Specifically,

instructor feedback occurred through landscape posts and assessment feedback. Landscape posts

and assessment feedback comprised the two main areas of supplemental course content design.
 104

First proposed by Collison et al. (2000), Landscape Posts continued as a design element for

online course facilitators. Interview discourse from the facilitators indicated that they were very

comfortable with conveying information to their course learners through the means of landscape

posts and assessment feedback. At least two facilitators during the Skype interviews sought to

located examples of their landscape posts in files resident on their computers. Facilitators defined

Landscape Posts, as

help(ing) the learners understand what’s going on, highlights from the conversation for

the week, um, it also helps to draw attention to certain students and everybody likes to

be called out in a positive way from time-to-time, so it gives them recognition that ‘Hey

the instructor saw what I said and thought it was valuable enough to put in this

Landscape Post.’ Um, and then it also helps, if conversations have maybe gotten off

track, um, you know choosing the right things to put in the Landscape Post can help get

it back on track. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016, 25:10)

Another participant recalled the advantage of landscape posts as a synchronizing affordance

among all online course participants who were separated by distance and time zone.

It’s like a multiple view post and they understand that, but then I also sometime pull,

like, ‘so-and-so gave us this link and ask this question and wouldn’t it be interesting if

we followed up a little while on this’ and ‘ok, here’s what we’re going to think about

next and here are some additional questions you might have.’ (Facilitator G7,

interview. September 24, 2016, 17:50)

All facilitators reported positive opinions regarding Landscape Posts, for example:

I like the Landscape Posts. I’ve always really liked that um, and I think if you’re just

waiting until the end of the week and doing a landscape post once that’s not going to cut

it, um, in terms of being present. (Facilitator J10, interview, October 6, 2016, 24:03)
 105

Facilitators cited Landscape Posts as a way to respond as a collaborative co-learner:

I was really inspired by that and it really made me feel more a part of their (the learners’)

conversations because normally we would just be giving them feedback on everything,

but this way I was able to get into the conversation. (Facilitator G7, interview, September

24, 2016, 19:53)

Interview Results for Central Research Question and Sub-question 3: Facilitators’ Use and
Design for Mobile Technology

The central research question and research sub-question #3 of this study relates to mobile

technology, specifically, “To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their

online courses?” For the purposes of each interview, mobile technology was described as

including cell phones, Androids, iPhones, iPads, Kindle Fire, tablets, Chromebooks, eReaders, or

anything handheld. A majority of eleven interview participants indicated that they used mobile

technology in their courses. The interview findings for interview question #4 - #10 and the

central guiding research question and sub-question 3 are supported by the interview responses

especially from respondents M13 and A1, who stated, “Mobile tech allows for quicker access to

the instructor” (Facilitator M13, interview, September 28, 2016, 37:50). Mobile technology was

used for quicker access to learners. “I use tablets to access my course on a regular basis and I

will use my cell phone to check in on the [PBS TeacherLine course] Help Forum when I’m out

and about. (Facilitator A1, interview, October 9, 2016, 2:56). As indicated previously for TPaCK

scaffolding, one of the main advantages of mobile technology was quick response by the course

facilitator and “the ability to answer questions quickly and easily on emails you know so even if

I'm out shopping and I see an email from a learner I can quickly answer their questions

(Facilitator N14, interview, October 4, 2016, 10:06). “I find I get really OCD about the thing

(responding to emails) so I’m checking, especially in the beginning of the course, I’ll check, I’ll

have the iPad all the time” (Facilitator K11, interview, September 28, 2016, 15:20).
 106

Survey Question #6 and #7 addressed the combined aspects of TPaCK and lesson design,

respectively and the survey findings are supported by the responses of 11 out of 12 interview

participants who described “app smashing” which is the practice of using particular mobile apps

for specific purposes. Facilitators mentioned apps such as Gmail, Symbaloo, Porta-portal, Color

Note, Alto, Weebly, Diigo, Glogster, Kahoot, Library of Congress app, Prezi, Voki, and Speech-

to-text translation apps. Mobile technology activities included course access, check learners’

course activity, respond to learner-initiated correspondence, supply assistance for learners,

supply assessment feedback, create supplemental course content, and assess how the course page

rendered among mobile devices.

Summary of Research Findings

Both quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data are presented in alignment

with the Central Research Question and sub-questions. Quantitative data was shared in Chapter 4

and triangulated with qualitative interview results and empirical literature, where appropriate.

Implications of the findings, conclusions, and new applications are shared in Chapter 5.

• RQ1: How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design, and the TPaCK instructional framework to improve online

course content? Sub-question 1: How do selected online educators demonstrate

technological, pedagogical and content knowledge in their online courses?

• Sub-question 2: To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile

technology access?

• Sub-question 3: To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their

online courses?

Finding 1 Relating to RQ1 and sub-question 1. Online continuing education course

facilitators integrated technological, pedagogy, and content knowledge in their courses through
 107

the use of mobile and digital tools. Data from both the survey and the interviews integrated

indicated that online course facilitators in continuing education courses integrated technology,

pedagogy, and content knowledge in varying degrees in their online course facilitation using

digital tools.

Finding 2 Relating to RQ1 and sub-question 2. Online continuing education course

facilitators made design decisions for both mobile and digital access through the creation of

supplemental course content. Data from both the survey and the interviews indicated that a

majority of course facilitators designed supplemental course content for their continuing

education courses. All twelve of the online course facilitators who were interviewed described

how they designed supplemental course content in an intricate scaffolding sequence. This

sequence occurred prior to the start of the course and continued during the course.

Finding 3 Relating to RQ1 and sub-question 3. Online continuing education course

facilitators utilize mobile technology in their online courses through an innovative inclusion of

mobile devices and mobile apps. In the interviews, mobile devices included cell phones,

Androids, iPhones, iPads, Kindle Fire, tablets, Chromebooks, iBooks, and eReaders. Eleven out

of twelve online course facilitators access the courses they teach with at least one mobile device.

Eleven out of twelve online course facilitators communicate with the adult learners in their

courses using at least one mobile device. Eleven out of twelve course facilitators use apps and

design supplemental course content for learners to access with mobile devices.

Findings Related to Literature

Empirical literature supports the study’s findings. Improvements in the location and

functionality of wireless communication technologies provide new opportunities for educators to

create new educational prototypes. The rapid growth of mobile technology influenced the

instructional and course design decisions of online course facilitators in the study. In the study’s
 108

interviews, online course facilitators explained their use of mobile technology in narratives that

echoed three themes from current literature (Traxler, 2009). These themes were the use of mobile

devices to overcome time and space barriers, personalize content for learners, and support a

collaborative process.

In the study, online course facilitators scaffolded instruction through their online peer-to-

peer, collegial conversations (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Guskey & Passaro, 1994) with the

learners in their courses. Course conversations were mediated through intricate, personalized

feedback delivered in course discussion boards, personalized emails, speech to text app, and an

occasional phone call between course facilitators and learner. The feedback loop used in courses

occurred between the course facilitator to learners, from learners to learners, and from learners in

response to course facilitator. An additional outlet feedback related to course conversations

occurred in the peer-to-peer facilitators’ virtual forum where course facilitators shared ideas,

answered questions posted by peers, and received announcements and information from

administration.

Qualitative research is “interpretive research” (Creswell, 1994, p. 147). Through active,

listening, questioning, and checking for understanding, the qualitative interviews in the study

attempted to attain the designation of “researching people” (Freeman, 2016, p. 118). In

qualitative interviews, the online course facilitators also referred consistently to their practice of

scaffolding for online learning with mobile technologies through the supplemental course

content they designed. The supplemental course content was composed of detailed and

individualized feedback. Feedback existed in a variety of formats including discussion forums,

multi-viewed landscape posts reflecting the rotating cross-sections of course participants, and

email correspondence. One course facilitator described the process of detailed, individualized

feedback as “taking the time to be in touch with each student personally” (Facilitator I9, 38:04).
 109

Learning and learner engagement are formed in a socially mediated culture (Brown,

Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). This principle also applies to digitally mediated

spaces. The PCK instructional framework by Lee Shulman (1987) and the TPaCK instructional

framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) provided an organizational

structure for the combined skill set used by the participant group of online course facilitators in

continuing education courses. Both PCK and TPaCK served as the vehicles to host the Transfer

of Knowledge from the online course content, facilitators’ supplemental course design, and the

learner-initiated inquiry. As stated in more detail in Chapter 2, when information is organized

into a conceptual framework combined with an instructional framework, greater knowledge

transfer occurs. Transfer of Knowledge allows the learner to apply what is learned in new

situations and internalize related information more quickly (Wiggins, 2010).

In face-to-face classrooms, course curriculum is delivered through a variety of methods.

Traditionally, the vehicle for most course content is the textbook. In online course environments,

the textbook is re-imagined in the course content modules residing in learning management

system (LMS) or content management system (CMS). Most often it is the talent and skill of the

instructor/course facilitator to navigate the engagement process for learners in any realm of

learning, whether face-to-face, blended or completely online. The course facilitator is more than

the virtual vehicle of content dissemination.

The research findings in this study indicates that something more occurs. Within the

courses facilitated by PBS TeacherLine course facilitators, a constructivist ecosystem emerges

and strengthens as the course progresses. This ecosystem is nurtured through the behaviors and

skillset of the online course facilitator. It develops and changes in the span of just a few weeks

and reflects not only constructivist languaging [sic] (Swain, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978), but also

constructionist product creation and iterative design. The online course learners are discussing,
 110

describing, proto-typing, tinkering, and peer reviewing projects and products that reflect their

professional practice. These products include but are not limited to: multimedia creation,

demonstration lessons for small and large groups of learners, reading interest surveys, campus

reading initiatives, lesson plan creation, and intervention protocols for special needs learners.

According to Freire, while in education groups, teachers experience best practices that they could

return to their schools and initiate on their campuses. (Saul & Saul, 2016).

Somewhere during six short weeks, the pre-assigned identities of instructor and student

transform into a new community of co-learners who co-create (Sameshima, 2007) supplemental

course curriculum. For the online course facilitator, the transformation moves from a starting

point of online coach among online learners to co-learner. A new community of co-learners

emerges and strengthens. These environments function as socio-cultural “education groups” and

“teacher collectives” (Saul & Saul, 2016, p. 64). In the qualitative interviews, some participants

described incidences where learning continued by telephone (Facilitator H8, Facilitator I9),

email, (Facilitator G7, Facilitator N14) and in online portals separate from the online course

learning management system (Facilitator A1, Facilitator Q17, Facilitator Y25).

Although online and mobile learning exist in virtual spaces, beginning activities of

conversational sharing progress effectively when informed by constructionist and constructivist

learning principles. The learning activities include the transfer of knowledge, concept tinkering,

recursive thinking and concept mastery. Completing the effective rendition of the socio-cultural

learning online, both the facilitator/instructor and the learners retain concepts and create applications

that inform and perhaps even benefit their own professional practice.

These groups function as a mediating factor in both Freire’s Permanent Education (Saul

& Saul, 2016) and Knowles’ Adult Learning Theory (2014). The cultivation and harvesting of

learner responses, comprised the “fragments of theory…involved in the practices of each

 111

teacher” (Saul & Saul, 2016, p. 64). Applying relevant theory to their online course participants’

professional practice is vital for online course facilitators and a primary characteristic of adult

learning (Knowles, 2014). It is these responses that provide enduring value. Responses from

course facilitators situated in teacher collectives of the online course provided a canvas for the

research results.

Transfer of Knowledge encourages adult learners to exchange ideas and apply the

knowledge and skills they learn to a variety of situations in their professional practice (Teague

et al., 2016). Transfer of Knowledge is both a transmission of information and an exchange of

ideas across virtual spaces (Teague et al., 2016). Despite the LANs, WANs, iClouds, and

modems, at its core, transfer of knowledge online occurs through conversation. Course

facilitators’ knowledge of Adult Learning Theory (Knowles, 2014) framed the canvas for the

research results. Freire’s Permanent Education emanated from teaching practice as a focal point.

Chapter Summary

A mixed methods study was used to investigate the ways that online course facilitators in

continuing education course utilized the TPaCK instructional framework, included mobile

technology and design decisions in their course facilitations. Reflections by current online course

facilitators were gathered through quantitative survey and qualitative interview. Quantitative

survey data was gathered using the 2014 Koh et al. survey, A survey to examine teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Koh et al., 2014). Qualitative data was

gathered using inductive inquiry through semi-structured interviews with current online course

facilitators. The qualitative data created twelve cases exploring online course facilitators’

strategies for integrating mobile technology, design decisions, and the TPaCK instructional

framework.
 112

Survey data indicated that 100% (33 out of 33 online course facilitators) had varying

degrees of positive perception toward their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge

perceptions in their online course facilitation. A majority of 97% (32 out of 33 online course

facilitators) self-reported varying degrees of positive perception toward their lesson design

decisions. A majority of 88% (29 out of 33 online course facilitators) had varying degrees of

positive perception toward the design decisions that they make for the inquiry activities of their

course. Only in the areas in designing for self-directed learning and inquiry did variations trend

into disagreement. One online course facilitator disagreed with the statement, “I can create self-

directed activities for content knowledge with appropriate technology tools.” Three course

facilitators disagreed with the statement, “I can design inquiry activities to guide learners to

make sense of content knowledge with appropriate technology tools.”

Questions relating to the specifics of lesson design practices, revealed the greatest

variation on reflection on practice. A majority of 88% (29 out of 33 participants) begin their

design process by “considering a few lesson ideas” and “considering several lesson ideas to see

if they adequately address learners’ needs.” Although still in the minority range, the question

relating to “considering a few lesson ideas” had the highest number of three participants self-

reporting with varying degrees of disagreement. Although still in the minority range, the

question relating to “considering several lesson ideas to see if they adequately address learners’

needs.” had two participants self-reporting with slight degrees of disagreement. Weighing

“conflicting lesson ideas” was chosen as the lesson plan design schema among the smallest

majority 76% (25 of the 33 participants) with four participants choosing “Disagree” and four

participants unsure.

Iterative design was represented in two questions specified “refine my lesson ideas” and

being “prepared to completely change my lesson ideas if needed” with 97% (32 out of 33
 113

respondents) answering with varying degrees of affirmation and only one participant for each

question unsure.

In information regarding the design dispositions (Koh et al, 2014) of a majority of

participants reflect acceptance of uncertainty, openness to new experiences, willingness to

explore conflicting ideas, and deviate from established practices. All participants were

“comfortable with occasional failures from trying out new approaches for technology-enhanced

lessons” (Koh et al., 2014, survey question #DD5).

The mixed-methods study found through interview data that 100% of the online course

facilitators seamlessly combine technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge in both the set-up

and administration of their online courses. Qualitative interview data also revealed that a 97%

majority of online course facilitators use mobile technology during their online courses and made

at least some of their supplemental course design decisions based on mobile technology. The

most common need, identified by the interviewer participants, was not to equip online course

learners solely with mobile tech tools but to scaffold instruction for online learners to achieve

gains in course concept mastery and online community within the course.

Scaffolding and meaning-making was a recurring and paramount concern among online

course facilitators. The online course facilitators constructed meaning through their reflection.

The researcher also reflected upon the data gathered from the research to consider professional

development aspects that would relate to successful scaffolding strategies. Improved scaffolding

strategies that include the TPaCK instructional framework would replicate the successful

practices of the online course facilitators who participated in the research. These scaffolding

skills cluster a new online checklist that reflected both mobile and desktop-tethered applications.

Research implications, conclusions, recommendations for further research and specifics of the

new competency checklist will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

 114

Chapter 5: Summarization and Discussion of Results from Research

Experts are often unaware of the skills they have learned; they simply use them.

- Gregory Gargarian, 1996

Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of the research and the conclusions synthesized from the

data presented in Chapter 4. Further this chapter provides some of the implications for decision-

making and suggests recommendations for further research. This chapter presents a brief

synopsis of the conceptual framework and a summary of the study’s findings. The chapter

reviews the study’s issues, research questions, conceptual framework, methodology, the study’s

strengths, and implications. This chapter synthesizes literature regarding the socio-cultural and

instructional framework to propose conclusions, a new mobile instructional approach, and

recommendations for further research.

Summary of the Study: Overview of the Issues

This study addressed the perceptions of online continuing education course facilitators

about their use of mobile technology, instructional design, and the TPaCK instructional

framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Mobile technology,

instructional design, and the TPaCK instructional framework have each influenced online

education but the researcher was able to find few studies that ascertain their combined influence

in an online course environment. The 2014 Koh et al. survey, A survey to examine teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) addressed the combination of TPaCK,

instructional design decisions by teachers, and lesson plan practices. However, it queried

teachers in traditional, face-to-face classroom. The participant pool for this study was 33 online

course facilitators, 50% of the available participant pool, for PBS TeacherLine, an online,
 115

professional development, continuing education course provider and subsidiary of PBS Public

Broadcasting System. The proposal for research was presented and defended at the West Los

Angeles campus of Pepperdine University in mid-July, 2016. Institutional Review Board

approval was received in mid-August, 2016. The pilot study and data collection of quantitative

survey and qualitative interviews began in September, 2016, and ended on October 30, 2016.

Data collection is described fully in Chapter 3.

Restatement of the Research Questions

The central guiding research question addressed in the study was:

• How do selected online course instructors combine the components of mobile

technologies, design principles, TPaCK, to improve online course content?

The sub-questions of the study were:

1. How do selected online educators demonstrate technological, pedagogical and
content knowledge in their online courses?

2. To what extent do online teachers’ design content for mobile and digital
technology access?

3. To what extent do online teachers utilize mobile technologies in their online

courses?

Synopsis of the Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the study addressed the perceptions of online course

facilitators. Specifically, how do online course facilitators for adults in continuing education

courses combine TPaCK to influence the design of supplemental course content for mobile

technology access and use? Chapter 2 described pioneering socio-cultural learning theories

served as the foundation for the research. The study centered on online course facilitators’

perceptions of their instructional practices with adult learners in online course environments. It

specifically asked participants about their perceptions of their use of the TPaCK instructional

framework, mobile technologies, and design to improve online course content. Socio-cultural
 116

theories of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Papert, 1980), and especially the socio-cultural

conveyance of scaffolding through the Zone of Proximal Development and More Knowledgeable

Others (Vygotsky, 1978), informed the theoretical basis for the study.

Review of Methodology

The exploratory study was conducted in three phases. The following list gives a brief

synopsis of the research.

1. For phase 1, the researcher piloted the 2014 Koh et al. survey.

2. For phase 2, the researcher incorporated results from the pilot study and

distributed 2014 Koh et al. survey to 33 online course facilitators from PBS TeacherLine

online course professional development provider.

3. For phase 3, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with a random

group of twelve online course facilitators from the survey pool.

The 2014 Koh et al. survey was completed by 33 online course facilitators at PBS

TeacherLine online professional development course provider. This was a 51% response rate A

random sample of twelve course facilitators from this survey group completed a semi-structured

interview. The combined tenure of these course facilitators who were interviewed reflected over

300 years in public, private, K-12 and higher education. Each online course facilitator had

public, private, K-12 educational experience before he or she entered higher education, so their

experience with students was not solely confined to post-secondary learners. In the interviews,

the course facilitators were asked to describe their use of mobile technology, the TPaCK

instructional framework, and their course content design activities.

The interviews occurred over a two-week period. The total time for 11 of the 12

interviews was 615 minutes. One interview was completed through completion of the survey

questions across email. Survey and interview data from the online course facilitators revealed an
 117

adherence to the principles of Adult Learning Theory (Knowles, 2014; Vaughn, 2016), Transfer

of Knowledge (Huber, 1991), and an intricate application of scaffolding and close reading.

Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and coded by the researcher. Ten interview

participants took part in member checking of transcribed data. Intercoder reliability measures

showed consensus from among both the application of codes reflecting in the research questions

and codes that emerged from the interviews.

Strengths of the Study

Some studies address aspects of an online educator’s instructional practice (Cho et al.,

2016). The researcher found few studies to address how educators combine mobile technology,

pedagogy, content knowledge, and design in their online courses (U.S. Department of Education,

2014) with adult learners. Further, the researcher found that few studies addressed instructional

practice from the instructor’s point of view. With projections of mobile technology reaching 97%

saturation point and course enrollments increasing for online courses, a study that addresses the

nexus of these factors reflects timeliness of inquiry (Rallis & Rossman, 2012). A strength of the

study is its timeliness addressing how practitioners use design decisions to support mobile

technology. A second strength of the study is in its strong participation rate of 51% of the

potential participant pool and 97% survey completion rate. A third strength of this study is the

participants’ rich descriptions of the specific ways in which they mediate their online course

facilitation practices to include mobile technology.

Implications

Specifically, as the participants described their scaffolding activities in interviews, five

characteristics emerged. The first characteristic included situating the instructional activity of

their courses in conversational learning communities (Chen et al., 2003; Kukulska-Hulme &

Traxler, 2009). The second characteristic involved scaffolding cycles of increasing competence
 118

for adult learners. Online course facilitators interviews reveal a third scaffolding activity of quick

responsiveness to learners’ questions, posts, emails, and through their feedback procedures. In

the fourth scaffolding characteristic, online instructors’ use of leading activities (Leontiev, 1981)

such as landscape posts (Collison et. al., 2000) to encourage and scaffold for the fifth

characteristic of learner-initiated inquiry toward professional practice (Coltman, Petyaeva, &

Anghileri, 2002; Knowles, 2014). These five characteristics increased socio-cultural learning for

teacher-learners in a virtually created space that accommodated both tethered and mobile devices

via a communication network (Abdulla & Iyengar, 2016).

Conclusions

Conclusion 1. Online Course Facilitators in Continuing Education Courses traverse many

roles. Conclusion 1 supports the central Research Question: How do selected online course

instructors combine the components of mobile technologies, design, and the TPaCK instructional

framework to improve online course content? As found in previous research, (Wahlgren,

Mariager-Anderson, & Sørensen, 2016), online course facilitators traverse many roles and

instructional strategies such as TPaCK.

By analyzing survey data and interviews transcripts, the researcher discovered that these

roles are instructional designer, technology innovator, trouble-shooter, online course community

organizer, content curation specialist, subject matter expert, cheerleader, empathetic listener, and

co-learner.

Conclusion 2. Close reading is an effective way to listen online. Interviews with the

online course facilitator participants revealed that all have found a way to listen to learners in

online course environments. The essential skill of listening in the face-to-face classroom is

reimagined in the online arena by online course facilitators’ practice of closely reading the

submissions, posts, and textual communication of their learners. The researcher’s original view
 119

was that close reading was important as a competency to be nurtured in the learner, for the

learner. However, in every interview, online course facilitators revealed that close reading was

essential to their technological and pedagogical practice. Another unanticipated outcome from

the research related to the amount of time that online course facilitators spend in close reading.

As one facilitator explained:

You need to learn how to read what the learner is writing. You have to interpret based

on what you know about that one person and then give them feedback or ask them

questions that get into what’s really going on in their head. (Facilitator I9, interview,

September 28, 33:42)

Conclusion 3. Effective practices when integrating mobile technology include quick

responsiveness and message design. There is an intimacy with mobile technology and course

facilitators promote this intimacy through quick responsiveness to learners and message design

that includes individualization and personalization. Message design is the way that course

facilitators present information for learners (Lohr, 2011; Wang & Shen, 2012). Instructional

message design is the "manipulation and planning of signs and symbols that can be produced for

the purpose of modifying the cognitive, affective or psychomotor behavior of one or more

persons" (Lohr, 2011, p. 1). Previously, a majority of instructional design decisions resided with

instructional design professionals. The research in this study indicates that mobile technology

has had a disruptive influence on message design as course facilitators make instructional design

decisions in situ. One of the messages they design is the Landscape Post, a multi-viewpoint

informational text that intertwines course curriculum with learners’ views (Collision et al.,

2000). Through their construction of the Landscape Posts, online course facilitators describe

their practice of close reading to learn from their learners. Online Course Facilitators are the
 120

More Knowledgeable Other (Vygotsky, 1978) at first, then there is a switch and the facilitator

becomes a co-learner in the virtual space of the online course.

Conclusion 4. Feedback in online continuing education courses is a multi-faceted and

integral component of course communication mediated by close reading. Interviews with the

online course facilitator participants and feedback is a rich, multi-part pedagogical format

involving dual discourse. An unanticipated outcome of the study was the researcher’s heightened

view regarding new expressions of course facilitator feedback. Before the interviews, the

researcher viewed feedback as a one-way assessment discourse from facilitator to the adult

learner. The researcher’s prior view was that feedback was an explanatory process detailing the

relative merits and areas of improvement of a learner’s assignment submission. Analysis of

interview data supported the researcher’s conclusion that feedback is not a process initiated

solely for the learner and to the learner. Feedback is also a process initiated in partnership with

the learner as co-participant.

Interview participants explained their pedagogical philosophy that co-participation

between themselves and their learners extended beyond assessment on assignments to

asynchronous discussion forums, landscape posts, group and individual email correspondence.

One participant encapsulated this philosophy in the following quote, “what you bring to the

course, you really bring to the course through discussions and feedback” (Facilitator N14,

interview, October 4, 2016, 41:47).

Conclusion 5. The technological component of the TPaCK instructional framework

includes mobile technology. Eleven out of twelve interview participants cited mobile technology

either in their course access or in app utilization capacity. A majority of online course facilitators

indicated an comfort with new experiences and this trend toward innovation was also found in

interview responses. All interview participants reflected on their eagerness to tinker with new
 121

technologies, and 11 out of 12 indicated that this extended to mobile technology access and use

in their courses. One facilitator described the use of the use of a voice-to-text mobile app to

provide quick and personalized communication to learners (Facilitator Y25, interview, October

10, 2016).

Implications from the Study

The study revealed the need for additional research to generalize and scale results among

the growing population of online course educators. Combining technology use and design

decisions may ensure that online faculty are properly trained in research-based pedagogies. To

date, a national strategy does not exist to address the entry of mobile technology, pedagogy, and

content knowledge in online courses. Although national strategies to address educational

practices continue to emerge, it is often at the credit-granting institutional level where practice

and education are planned, structured, and measured.

As mobile technology continues to increase, a new skill set of instructor competencies is

needed. Without a scalable set of competencies, professional development for online instructors

will fail to capitalize on the transfer of knowledge among co-learners. Online courses, whether

they are accessible through tethered or mobile connections, sometimes feature only the function

of competency attainment. While competency attainment may serve a purpose in skill-based

recertification such as medical, dental, and machine-based training, professional staff

development for educators requires a richer transfer of knowledge.

The online course facilitators are highly motivated individuals, often working alone from

diverse locations on the time intensive task of co-creating an online learning community and

reaching course curriculum goals to strengthen their learners’ professional practice. The

challenge for the researcher was to accurately represent the intense and time-consuming work of

the online course facilitators. Through the mixed-methods of survey data, interview data, and
 122

empirical literature, a narrative emerged among the voices of the online course facilitators. It

emerged through repeated analysis of data and interview transcript and video review. From the

conversations a pattern of practice began to emerge.

Many learner-centered approaches focus on mobile technology integration. New options

for integration combine discussion forums, chatting, and sharing multimedia learning materials.

However, many of these options focus on student learning. What is needed is a skill set to

represent the views of the research participants in this study. Such a skill set would

operationalize the intense work of the research participants who serve as course facilitators and

the learning process they co-create with their learners. Co-creating (Sameshima, 2007) and

commons-based peer-production (Benkler, 2006) are learning process that occur through a

scaffolded skill set. The scaffolded skill set reflects socio-cultural attributes.

Reading information on mobile devices requires a continuous scrolling action. It is

appropriate to reflect this action through an acronym to acknowledge the repeated scrolling

through content on mobile screens. The acronym would serve as a new representation of the

facilitators’ mobile technology use, their instructional design, and their instructional choices in

the TPaCK framework. Further, it would provide a useful method to operationalize in

educational professional development.

The acronym known as “SCROLL” reflects the scaffolding activities used by online

course facilitators to create communities of co-learners. It also represents the activities of

learners who receive online course instruction and create and design artifacts to represent their

concept mastery. A more complete descriptive naming convention would include the organized

progression of the skill set through a checklist. The “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness

checklist reflects six scaffolding characteristics grounded in the mixed methods research study

results. The 6-point “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness checklist combines the results
 123

of the quantitative 2014 Koh et al. survey, the qualitative interviews, and empirical research. It

fuses technological innovation of both tethered and mobile devices with socio-cultural pedagogy

with content knowledge tailored to learners’ professional practice. The 6-point “SCROLL”

mobile technology effectiveness checklist can be scaled for professional development. It can also

be presented in a webinar format or made available as an eBook.

As synthesized from the research study findings, the SCROLL activities are:

• Scaffold instructional activity with innovative technology application in cycles of

increasing competence to support learners’ increasing competence and collaboration.

• Coach context-aware, conversational learning communities toward professional practice

• Respond to learners through personalized feedback, close reading, and landscape posts.

• Orchestrate quick response communication to overcome time and distance barriers.

• Leverage supplemental course content design to include mobile apps for instant use

• Link learner-initiated inquiry toward learner’s professional practice mutual sharing.

Recommendations for Further Research

The research in this study explored an emerging phenomenon of increasing array of

online courses accessed with mobile technology and how online course facilitators combine the

areas of TPaCK, instructional design, and mobile technology in the successful learning

experience for their learners. What emerged as an implication from the findings was a prevailing

practice of a comprehensive 6-point scaffolding eco-system. The 6-point “SCROLL” mobile

technology effectiveness checklist needs further research among participant groups of online

course facilitators to see if it can be scaled as a professional development module option.

To determine if the results of this research are consistent in other settings, more research

with additional or larger groups of online course facilitators at PBS TeacherLine and other online

course providers might be helpful to strengthen correlative conclusions. Further research into the
 124

combination of the TPaCK instructional framework, design thinking, and mobile technology in

other onground higher education environments could also be considered.

The participants in this study were mid-career level educators who also had decades of

experiences in face-to-face classroom environment. As demand increases for more online course

offerings, it is predictable that additional course instructors will be hired who may not have face-

to-face course teaching experience. Of interest to human resource professionals tasked with

hiring would be the requisite skills needed in the job descriptions of future online course

instructors. Additional research is needed to indicate if a lack of a face-to-face instructional

reference point impacts the potential success of online course facilitators’ ability to combine

components of mobile technology, design, and the TPaCK instructional framework.

Further areas of study might include the intergenerational practices of course facilitators.

Every course facilitators in this study described high levels of technological acumen, trouble-

shooting ability, willingness to tinker, and tolerance for uncertainty and making mistakes. Every

course facilitator in the study exceeded the age of “millennials”. Their technological skills far

exceeded those in younger generations. Further research is needed to ascertain whether the

participant group’s technological attitudes are representative of all online course facilitators or an

outlier group of the 2.5% of innovators or 13.5% of early adopters (Rogers, 2010).

The study participants completed a survey and a random group described the ways in

which they used rich and detailed feedback to transfer knowledge and deepen student-driven

inquiry. What emerged from the research was the course instructors’ practice of close reading for

context clues in the posts of learners and designing this information as supplemental course

content for mobile technology access. The process of close reading and creating detailed

feedback learning products such as Landscape Posts is time-intensive. Further research is needed

to determine if the detailed feedback through email, discussion posts, and landscape posts
 125

contributes to learner completion of courses. Also, does the community created through the

feedback and transfer of knowledge interplay serve an incentive for learners to enroll in future

online courses? Results from these future research studies would help online course providers

such as PBS TeacherLine continue to compensate online course facilitators at either the current

price point or at a price point increase. Results from this future research would also inform an

understanding of the revenue streaming potential of online courses mediated with mobile

technology.

Chapter Summary

The only thing I could probably add is that I learn so much. You’d think that all

this content would just be overwhelming and reading everything, and you think

you know everything. But I always learn something… I learn so much being a

facilitator, beyond just, you know, being able to share ideas and things, that I

am a learner as well as a facilitator I think that’s the key right there.

- Facilitator G7, interview, September 24, 2016, 33:10

Teachers, learning media specialists, instructional coordinators, and administrators are

enrolling in online continuing education courses in increasing numbers (Ross-Gordon et al.,

2016). These courses provide enhanced professional skills, continuing education credits, hours

for professional development, renewal, salary scale points, highly qualified requirements, and

recertification. However, just because online education is growing does not mean that courses

and learning experiences should be hastily combined without regard to the delicate balance of

teaching and learning online. Disingenuous procedures and approaches to online education result

in low course completion rates and disaffected students. One disingenuous procedure is

digitizing and uploading content from face-to-face courses without regard to the design features
 126

needed for the online course environment. Another disingenuous process is underestimating the

time and cost involved to develop the skill set necessary for online course facilitation. The

growth of mobile technology continues to impact online instruction. An integrative approach to

the practice of teaching online that is less tool specific and more pedagogically defined and

systematic is needed.

Successful practices by online course facilitators who combine technological,

pedagogical, content knowledge (TPaCK) with instructional design decisions, and mobile

technology have the effect of producing digital pedagogues who “integrate technology and

pedagogy and be more interactive teachers using the latest technologies (Maor, 2016). Creating

online learning spaces where the identity roles of instructor and learner transform to co-learners

is a time-intensive professional development experience. One of the quotients that remained to

be discovered was “whether the challenge of the problem [was] matched by availability of

resources” (Teague, 1965, p. 57).

Using survey data provided by 33 adults who facilitate online continuing education

courses for PBS TeacherLine and 12 in-depth, semi-structured interviews of participants who

were randomly chosen from the survey group, the study examined the perceptive associations

between the TPaCK instructional framework, instructional design decisions, and mobile

technology use among the course facilitators. The profile of the course facilitators who

successfully combine online, mobile technology involves using the TPaCK instructional

framework to design supplemental course content and scaffold instruction.

The research conclusions indicate that online course facilitators integrate technological,

pedagogy, and content knowledge, make design decisions for both mobile and digital access, and

utilize mobile technology in their online courses. These conclusions provide additional evidence

that suggests the extensive role of scaffolding toward continuous course participation by learners
 127

in online courses. A suggested effectiveness checklist reflecting the study’s conclusions emerged

from the analysis of quantitative survey data and qualitative interview days. The effectiveness

checklist provides a cost-effective strategy to scale for the professional development and

continuing education of pre-service and developing online course instructors. The design and

scaffolding processes of the study participants can be scaled for cost-effective professional

development.

A 6-part scaffolding framework for professional development was developed based on

the conclusions from the research study and reinforced by socio-cultural literature of

constructionist and constructivist learning. The working title and acronym of this professional

development framework reflects a common activity of scrolling. This activity is associated with

and inherent to the use of mobile devices. The “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness

checklist is the acronym that emerged from the mixed methods research of the study.

The “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness checklist reflects the main activity of

accessing content through mobile device. Scrolling is also an activity used with tethered,

computer-mediated instruction so there are links to include many types of learning technologies.

Each letter of the word “SCROLL” relates an activity, supported from the research of this study,

to support learning with mobile and digital devices. These six checklist components were

distilled from the survey and interview responses from online course facilitators in continuing

education courses at PBS TeacherLine.

As synthesized from the study, the six “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness checklist

activities are:

• Scaffold instructional activity with innovative technology application in cycles of

increasing competence to support learners’ increasing competence and collaboration.

• Coach context-aware, conversational learning communities toward professional practice

 128

• Respond to learners through personalized feedback, close reading, and landscape posts.

• Orchestrate quick response communication to overcome time and distance barriers.

• Leverage supplemental course content design to include mobile apps for instant use

• Link learner-initiated inquiry toward learner’s professional practice mutual sharing.

Previous research addressed what instructors did to content and for learners. Devoid of the

pressure of teaching to the test, online course facilitators in the study were able to teach to

individual needs of each learner through quick responsiveness, personalized message design, and

close reading of learners’ communication. The outcome was a partnership with the learner that

strengthen learner-driven engagement toward the specific needs in the learners’ professional

practice.

The application of this study to professional practice endeavored to highlight the value of

a socio-cultural community of co-learners (Polin & Moe, 2015, Riel & Polin, 2004; Sameshima,

2005; Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2015). This community of co-learners emerges and grows

throughout the duration of the course. The growth and continuation of the community is

mediated by the instructional decisions learning opportunities mediated with mobile and digital

technology and the strength of the communicative ties among the course participants (Polin &

Moe, 2015; Riel & Polin, 2004; Wenger, 1998). These instructional decisions are first made by

online course facilitators and then extended to online course participant learners as they make

connections to their professional practice and create new constructionist products to demonstrate

learning and transform their instructional practice. The community often continues after the

online course reaches its official conclusion date and may extend to a landscape of practice

(Wenger et al., 2015) where the practitioner “understands not just her own practice, but a good

bit about those practices that impact hers” (Wenger et al., 2015, p. 2).
 129

The intent of the research was to highlight a tangible way to combine pedagogical theory

with the practices of online course facilitators in online continuing education courses. The

findings and conclusions of the study promote new avenues for further research on the efficacy

of the “SCROLL” mobile technology effectiveness checklist. The findings and conclusions of

the study suggest further research on the scalability of new practices for educational professional

development that include blended learning environments.

The results of the study reinforce additional online and mobile elements that emphasize

current instructional practices among a group of online course facilitators in online, continuing

education courses. The results of the study present what can be co-created with learners in

online courses mediated by mobile technology, instructional design, and the TPaCK instructional

framework.
 130

REFERENCES

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice

teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573

Abdulla, A. A., & Iyengar, N. C. S. (2016). Mobile Collaborative Learning (MCL) based on

cloud computing. Journal of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, 7(11), 584-592.

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online

education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and

Quahog Research Group, LLC. Higher Education Reports. Retrieved from

http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Al-Nassar, B. A. Y. (2017). The influence of service quality in information system success

model as an antecedent of mobile learning in education organisations: Case study in

Jordan. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 11(1), 41-62.

doi:10.1504/IJMLO.2017.10001725

Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA

courses?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2). Unique

Identifier: 424926758

Archambault, L. (2016). Exploring the use of qualitative methods to examine TPACK.

In M. C. Herring, P. Mishra, & M.J. Koehler, (Eds.). Handbook of Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009a). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in

the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009b). K–12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online

across the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363-391.
 131

Archambault, L. M. and J. H. Barnett (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content

knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education 55(4), 1656-1662.

Bainbridge, J., Melitski, J., Zahradnik, A., Lauria, E. J. M., Jayaprakash, S., & Baron, J. (2015). Using

learning analytics to predict at-risk students in online graduate public affairs and

administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(2), 247-262.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Princeton-Hall.

Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach: Duke University’s

first MOOC. Durham, NC: Duke Center for Instructional Technology.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 9(4), 407-414.

Bernard, R. (2009). Music making, transcendence, flow, and music education. International Journal of

Education & the Arts, 10(14), 1-21.

Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM‐rich tinkering:

Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education,

99(1), 98-120.

Blackburn, J., Robinson, J. S., & Kacal, A. (2015). Determining the effects of reflection type and

cognitive style on students’ content knowledge. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(3),

195-209.

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous

video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203.

 132

Boston, W. E., Ice, P., Díaz, S. R., Richardson, J., Gibson, A. M., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of

the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in

online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67-83.

Boyarko, M. A. (2009). Online professional development: A study of first year online teachers.

(Doctoral dissertation) Kent, OH: Kent State University.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brenton, S. (2015). Effective online teaching and learning. A handbook for teaching & learning in

higher education: Enhancing academic practice (2nd ed.), 139-151, London: Kogan Page.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032

Brown, T. (2014). Change by design. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bull, P. H., & Patterson, G. C. (2016). Strategies to promote pedagogical knowledge interplay with

technology. In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.) Handbook of research on active learning

and the flipped classroom model in the digital age. 451-468. Hershey, PA: IGI Gobal, 255.

doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9680-8.ch013

Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action:

Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative health

research, 17(10), 1316-1328.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Exploring the factor structure of the

constructs of technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-pacific Education

Researcher, (20)3, 595-603. Unique Identifier: 772186180

 133

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium

(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research, 397-412. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., & Hamilton, E. R. (2008). Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions

of faculty to student engagement in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3),

339-353.

Chen, M. (2012). Leet noobs: The life and death of an expert player group in World of Warcraft.

Berne, Switzerland: Peter Lang. International Academic Publishers.

Chen, Y. L., Hsu, C. C., & Doong, J. L. (2016, March). Self-regulation Assessment of Mobile Game-

based Language Learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2016(1), 882-886.

Chen, N.-S., Teng, D., Lee, C-H, (2011). Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct

access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education 57(2),

1705-1715. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.013

Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating Online Learning Effective

Strategies for Moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood.

Coltman, P., Petyaeva, D., & Anghileri, J. (2002). Scaffolding learning through meaningful tasks

and adult interaction. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and

Development, 22(1), 39-49.

Cook, J. (2010) Mobile phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts for development.

In E. Brown (Ed). Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning

in action (pp. 193-206). Learning Sciences Research Institute. Nottingham, UK:

University of Nottingham.
 134

Corbin, J.W. & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs

selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice

39(3), 124-130.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano, V. L. C. (2013). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research

Electronic Version. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In

Z. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, 3-14. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Dane, F. (2011). Evaluating research: Methodology for people who need to read research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility.

Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3(18). doi:10.5334/2012-18

Darlaston-Jones, D. (2007). Introducing the navigator, the juggler, and the analyst: AQ profile of

undergraduate psychology students within an Australian university. Psychological Sense of

Community and its Relevance to Well-being and Everyday Life in Australia, 19(2), 63. Retrieved

from https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/ACP_19(2)_Final2.pdf#page=63
 135

Day, C., & Leithwood, K. A. (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change: An

international perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Dean, B. A., Harden-Thew, K., & Thomas, L. (2017). Building an online community to support the

professional development of casual teachers. International Journal for Academic Development,

22(1), 31-42. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2016.1261356

Department of Education. (2010). Overview information; Race to the top fund assessment program:

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2010. Federal Register, 75(68),

18171-18185.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. London,

U.K.: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Shallow Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

D'Mello, S. K., Lehman, B. Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for

learning. Learning & Instruction 29(1), 153-170.

Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. S. (2008). What can be known and how? Narrated subjects and the

Listening Guide. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 399-409. doi:10.1177/1468794106093636

Downing, J. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2013). Teacher educators' readiness, preparation, and perceptions of

preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: An exploratory study. The Teacher

Educator, 48(2), 96-109. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.760023

Duckworth, E. (1972). The having [sic] of wonderful ideas. Harvard Educational Review, 42(2), 217-

231.

Duckworth, E. (2009). Helping students get to where ideas can find them. The New Educator, 5(3),

185-188.
 136

Duderstadt, J. J. (1997). The future of the university in an age of knowledge. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 1(2), 78-88.

Duggan, M. (2015). The demographics of social media users. Business Insider. Retrieved from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2014). The power of presence: Our quest for the right mix of s

social presence in online courses. In A.A. Piña & A.J. Mizell (Eds.) Real life distance

education: Case studies in practice, (pp. 41-66). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Dunn, S. K., & Larson, R. (1990). Design technology: Children's engineering. London, UK.:

Falmer Press.

DuVall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis, M. (2007). Text messaging to improve social presence

in online learning. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 24.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2009). The Innovator’s DNA. Brighton, MA:

Harvard Business Review.

Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and

technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems

75, 692-699. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013

eMarketer. (February 10, 2016). Number of smartphone users in the United States from 2010 to 2019

(in millions). Retrieved from

http://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-the-us/

Ferguson, J., Mentzelopoulos, M., Protopsaltis, A., Economou, D. (2015) Small and flexible web

based framework for teaching QR and AR mobile learning application development.

International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning

(IMCL), 383-385. doi:10.1109/IMCTL.2015.7359624

 137

Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (2015). Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through

the Communicative and Visual Arts, Volume II: A Project of the International Reading

Association. New York, NY: Routledge.

Freeman, M. (2016). Media industries as interaction: Constructivism and the corporate context.

Industrial Approaches to Media, (pp. 109). doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55176-4_6

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, England: Penguin Books.

Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the heart. (D. Macedo & A. Oliveira, Trans.). New York, NY:

Bloomsbury Academic Publishing USA.

Fuegen, S. (2012). The impact of mobile technologies on distance education. TechTrends, 56(6): 49-53.

Fulantelli, G., Taibi, D., & Arrigo, M. (2015). A framework to support educational decision making in

mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 50-59.

Gargarian, G. (1996). The art of design. In Y.B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds). Constructionism in practice:

Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 125-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New Brunswick, N.J: Aldine Transaction Publishers.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New Brunswick, N.J: Aldine Transaction Publishers.

Grandgenett, N. F. (2008). Perhaps a matter of imagination: TPCK in mathematics education. In

AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 145-165). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Gray, D. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Gray, D. (2010). Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
 138

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1995). Biographical word and new ethnography. In R. Josselson & A.

Lieblich (Eds.) Interpreting experience: The narrative study of lives, (pp. 45-58). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 3(45).

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative

learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications,

1(2/3), 147-166. Retrieved from: https://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_15156.pdf

Guskey, T.R. & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions.

American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627-643. doi:10.2307/116323

Gusley, T.R. & Yoon, K.S, (2009). What works in professional development. Retrieved from:

http://www.k12.wa.us/Compensation/pubdocs/Guskey2009whatworks.pdf

Hamilton, E. C. (2016). Technology and the politics of university reform. New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan US.

Hilton, J. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology

integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, (107) 2, 68-73.

doi:10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. Qualitative research, theory, method

and practice, 2, 140-161.

Huang, H.-W., Chih-Wei Wu, C., Chen, N. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in

a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education 59(2), 250-

259. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015

Huggard, M., & Mc Goldrick, C. (2016, February). Droning on: Reflections on integrating UAV

technology into a computer engineering design laboratory. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM

technical symposium on computing science education (pp. 504-509). Memphis, TN.

doi:10.1145/2839509.2844650
 139

Hustad, K. (January 19, 2016). Venture capital in edtech is booming. ChicagoInno. Retrieved from

http://chicagoinno.streetwise.co/2016/01/19/edtech-investments-up-to-1b-in-q4-2015-according-

to-kpmg-and-cb-insights/

Ito, J. (2012). The culture of innovation. EmTech. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Media Lab. Retrieved from: http://www2.technologyreview.com/emtech/12/

video/#!/ watch/joi-ito-innovation-culture/

Jacobsen, D. Y. (2017). Dropping out or dropping in? A connectivist approach to understanding

participants’ strategies in an e-Learning MOOC pilot. Technology, Knowledge and

Learning, (pp. 1-21). doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9298-z

Jen, T. H., Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Chen, K. M. (2016). Science teachers' TPACK-

practical: Standard-setting using an evidence-based approach. Computers & Education.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.009

Johnson, L., Adams-Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). 2014 NMC horizon report. Austin,

TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559384.pdf

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology.

(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a

pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1).

doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406

Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning

outcomes. Computers & Education, 97, 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306.
 140

Knight Foundation, (2016). News goes mobile: How people use smartphones to access information.

Retrieved from https://medium.com/mobile-first-news-how-people-use-smartphones-to/news-

goes-mobile-how-people-use-smartphones-to-access-information-53ccb850d80a#.jvtm25mu4

Koehler, M., Greenhalgh, S., Rosenberg, J., & Keenan, S. (2017). What the tech is going on with

teachers’ digital teaching portfolios? Using the TPACK framework to analyze teachers’

technological understanding. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 31-59.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of

Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers design educational technology?

The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK)?. Journal of Education, 193(3).

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a

design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education,

49(3), 740-762.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Technological pedagogical content

knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st

century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535-543.

 141

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Hong, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C., (2014). A survey to examine teachers’

perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, (pp. 1-14). doi:10.1080/1359866X.2014.941280

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, 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.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers’

perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,

17(1), 185-196. Unique Identifier: 5892498774

Koh, J. H., & Divaharan, H. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technology integration expertise

through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 44(1), 35-58.

Korucu, A. T., & Usta, E. (April 01, 2016). The analysis of new generation mobile device

dependencies of students in faculty of education. Participatory Educational Research, 3(3),

22-29. doi:10.17275/per.16.01.3.1

Koskey, K. L., & Benson, S. N. K. (2017). A review of literature and a model for scaffolding

asynchronous student-student interaction in online discussion forums. In P. Vu, S.

Fredrickson, & C. Moore, Handbook of research on innovative pedagogies and

technologies for online learning in higher education, (pp. 263-280). Hershey, PA: IGI.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. doi:10.1007/bf02299087

Laurillard, D. (2002a). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective

use of learning technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.

 142

Laurillard, D. (2002b). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. EDUCAUSE review, 37(1).

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. (2008). Toward democracy: Social studies and technological pedagogical content knowledge.

In J. Colbert (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for

teaching and teacher educators, (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lee, J.-K., Lee, I.-S., & Kwon, Y.-J. (2011). Scan & learn! Use of quick response codes &

smartphones in a biology field study. The American Biology Teacher, (73)8, 485-492.

doi:10.1525/abt.2011.73.8.11

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data

analysis triangulation. School psychology quarterly, 22(4). doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557

Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition.

In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245-264).

London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Leontiev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In: J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The

concept of activity in soviet psychology, (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Liu, T. Y. (2017). Developing an English mobile learning attitude scale for adult learners. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 45(3), 424-435. doi:10.1177/0047239516658448

Lo, L., Coleman, J., & Theiss, D. (2013). Putting QR codes to the test. New Library World, 114(11/12),

459-477. doi:10.1108/NLW-05-2013-0044
 143

Lohr, L. (2011). Syllabus for instructional message design. Retrieved from

http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/eisenachd/506/EDTECH577.doc

Looi, C. K., Lim, K., Pang, J., Koh, A., Seow, P., Sun, D., & Soloway, E. (2016). Bridging formal and

informal learning with the use of mobile technology. In Future Learning in Public Schools (pp.

79-96). Singapore, SG: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-579-2_6

Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your

students' lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. The Internet

and Higher Education, 13(1), 70-72. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.004

Lucas, H. (2015). Technology and the disruption of higher ed: Saving the American university.

North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Malone, S. (2014). Characteristics of adult learners. Training & Development, 41(6), 10-13.

Maor, D. (2017). Using TPACK to develop digital pedagogues: a higher education experience.

Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1) 71-86. doi:10.1007/s40692-016-0055-4

Maor, D. J. (2016). Using TPACK to develop digital pedagogues: a higher education experience.

Journal of Computers in Education, (pp. 1-16). doi:10.1007/s40692-016-0055-4

Marcus-Quinn, A., Cleary, Y. (2016. Postgraduate students’ use of m-learning. In Proceedings of

Global Learn, 2016 (pp. 6-10). Association for the Advancement of Computing Education

(AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172703/proceeding_172703.pdf.

Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of

mobile technology. Computers & Education, (pp. 76-85)). doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021

McLoughlin, C. and Luca, J. (2000, February). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking

through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? In A. Herrmann and M.

M. Kulski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4. Perth, AUS:

Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved from

 144

http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for

teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), (pp. 1017-1054).

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework:

You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology,

36(7), 14-18. Unique Identifier: 425589912

Morris, L. V. (2015). On or coming to your campus soon: Drones. Innovative Higher Education,

40(3), 187-188. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9323-x

Muir, T., Callingham, R., & Beswick, K. (2016). Using the IWB in an early years’ mathematics

classroom: An application of the TPACK framework. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher

Education, 32(2), 63-72. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.1138913

Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the

SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. (pp. 72-78). Boston, MA: ACM.

doi:10.1145/191666.191703

Natale, S. M., Libertella, A. F., & Doran, C. J. (2015). For-profit education: The sleep of ethical

reason. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 415-421. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1938-1v

Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Novak, G, Patterson, E.T., Gavrin, A.D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-In-Time teaching: Blending

active learning with web technology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in

social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.

Overton, L. & Dixon, G., (2016). In-Focus: The consumer learner at work (2016). Towards Maturity.

Retrieved from http://towardsmaturity.org/article/2016/02/01/in-focus-

consumer-learner-at-work/
 145

Pande, D., Thakare, V. M., & Wadhai, V. M. (2017). An e-learning technology conceptually.

Journal of Web Development and Web Designing, 2(1). Retrieved from:

http://matjournals.in/index.php/JoWDWD/article/viewFile/1135/756

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic

Books, Inc.

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital tools for qualitative research.

Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications

Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical

concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6

Perez, S. (February 6, 2017). Super Bowl posts on social media are up from last year, but didn’t top

2015’s record numbers. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/06/super-bowl-posts-

on-social-media-are-up-from-last-year-but-didnt-top-2015s-record-numbers/.

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2010). Design thinking: Understand–improve–apply.

Berlin, GDR: Springer Science & Business Media.

Polin, L. & Moe, R. (2015). Locating TPACK in mediated practice. Retrieved from:

http://profmoe.com/PolinMoe_OnlineTeaching_v1a.pdf

Pramis, J. (February 28, 2013). Number of mobile phones to exceed world population by 2014.

Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/mobile-phone- world-population-2014/.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2012). The Research Journey: Introduction to Inquiry. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.
 146

Rashid-Doubell, F., Mohamed, S., Elmusharaf, K., & O'Neill, C. S. (2016). A balancing act: a

phenomenological exploration of medical students' experiences of using mobile devices in the

clinical setting. BMJ open, 6(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011896

Rasi, P. M., & Poikela, S. (2016). A review of video triggers and video production in higher

education and continuing education PBL settings. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-

Based Learning, 10(1), 7. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1609

Resnick, M. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how

children learn) in kindergarten. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on

Creativity & Cognition, 1-6. ACM. doi:10.1145/1254960.1254961

Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2013). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, J., Swan, K., Lowenthal, P., & Ice, P. (2016, April). Social presence in online learning:

Past, present, and future. Proceedings of Global Learn 2016, 477-483. Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE0. Retrieved from

https://www.editlib.org/p/172799/

Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in

designing technical support. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for

virtual communities in the service of learning, (pp. 16-52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly

transform our schools. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Huggins-Manley, A. C., Ruggles, K., & Wilson, M. (2016). Validation of the

survey of pre-service teachers' knowledge of teaching and technology: A multi-institutional

sample. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(1), 26-37.

 147

Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Rose, D. (2014). Enchanted objects: Design, human desire, and the internet of things. New York, NY:

Simon and Schuster.

Rose, R. (2012). What it takes to teach online. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education),

39(5).

Ross-Gordon, J., Rose, A., & Kasworm, C. (2016). Foundations of adult and continuing

education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks:

CA: Sage Publications.

Rudenko, I.V., Erdyneeva, K. G., Blinov, L.V., Blinova, L.N., Rogova, A.V., Akhmetova, M.N. &

Ulyanchenko, L.A. (2016). Designing and realization of continuing professional development

of teachers arranging supplementary education. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 11(1)

Salifu, S. (2014). Using instructional design goals to appropriately classify instructional

design models. Models for Improving and Optimizing Online and Blended Learning in Higher

Education, 189. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6280-3.ch010

Sameshima, P. (2007). Seeing red- pedagogy of parallax: an epistolary bildungsroman on artful

scholarly inquiry. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.

Saul, A. M., & Saul, A. (2016). Paulo Freire and the methodology of thematic investigation for

permanent teacher education. International Journal of Action Research, 12(1), 59-80.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge.

Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98. Retrieved from

http://thelearningexchange.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Collective-Cognitive-

Responsibility-20021.pdf
 148

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation

of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology

in Education, 42(2), 123-149. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London, UK: G. Allen & Unwin.

Scoble, R., Israel, S., & Benioff, M. (2014). Age of context: Mobile, sensors, data and the future of

privacy. United States: Patrick Brewster Press.

Scull, R., Thorup, J., & Howell, S. L. (2016). Review 10 trends impacting distance and continuing

education, part 2. Recruiting & Retaining Adult Learners, 18(5), 1-5. doi:10.1002/nsr.30114

Sheninger, E. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Sher, W., Williams, A., & Northcote, M. (2015). The lived experience of online educators: Insights

from construction management. Construction Economics and Building, 15(2), 49-62.

doi:10.5130/ajceb.v15i2.4398

Shin, D.-H., Jung, J., & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience

perspective. Computers in Human Behavior 28(4): 1417-1426. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.004

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York,

NY: Penguin Books.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.

London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Shuler, C, Winters, N & West M, (2013). The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy

makers and planners. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,

Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002196/219637E.pdf.

 149

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowing and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 57(1), 1-32. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Shulman, L. S., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners:

Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 135-140.

doi:10.1080/0022027032000135049

So, H.-J. (2009). Designing interactive and collaborative E-Learning environments. In T. Kidd & H.

Song (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology, (pp. 596-613).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-865-9.ch042

Sølvberg, A. M. & Rismark, M. (2012). Learning spaces in mobile learning environments. Active

Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 23-33. doi:10.1177/1469787411429189

Song, M. & Yuan, R. (2015, April). Beyond social presence: Increasing cognitive presence through

meaningful interaction. Proceedings of Global Learn 2015, (pp. 731-736). Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from

http://www.editlib.org/p/150924

Sözcü, Ö. F., İpek, İ., & Kınay, H. (2016). The attitudes of field dependence learners towards learner

interface design in e-learning instruction. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3),

539–546. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040310

Spires, H. A., Wiebe, E., Young, C. A., Hollebrands, K., & Lee, J. K. (2012). Toward a new learning

ecology: Professional development for teachers in 1:1 learning environments. Contemporary

Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2).

Strauss A, Corbin J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stuart, G. & Triola, M. (2015). Enhancing health professions education through technology: Building

a continuously learning health system. New York, NY: Josiah Macy Jr.
 150

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging [sic], agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency.

In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and

Vygotsky, (pp. 95-108). London, UK: Continuum. doi:10.5040/9781474212113.ch-004

Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and

implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher Ed,

15(2), 81-88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002

Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J.

(2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry.

E-mentor 2008, 2(24), 88-94. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.573

Swist, T., & Kuswara, A. (2016). Place-making in higher education: Co-creating engagement and

knowledge practices in the networked age. Higher education & development, 35(1), 100-114.

doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1128887

Suhr, D. (2006). The basics of structural equation modeling. Retrieved from:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e08/e8650acd8cf7ccef90331032f0c17fada062.pdf

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with

teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research

synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

Teague, B. (1966). Characteristics of donors and non-donors to higher education among members of

churches of Christ in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global.

Teague, H., & Pruett, C. (2016, April). Intergenerational digital storytelling goes global and mobile:

The Images of Aging photo contest. In Proceedings of Global Learn 2016, (pp. 414-419).

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from

https://www.editlib.org/p/172751/
 151

Teague, H., Pruett, C., & Wee, L. K. (2016, April). Social justice through simulation: Blended learning

for intergenerational studies. In Proceedings of Global Learn 2016 (pp. 447-452). Retrieved

from https://www.editlib.org/p/172754/

Teague, H., Wargo, F., Castro, R., King, J., Lara, V., & Tierney, J. (2016). Online course facilitators

describe what works in learner-centered feedback. Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference

on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016, (pp. 252-

259). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from

http://www.editlib.org/p/173948/

Torrisi-Steele G. (2008). Pedagogical perspectives on m-learning. In M. Khosrow- Pour (Ed.)

Encyclopedia of information science and technology (2nd ed.), 3041- 3046. Hershey, PA:

Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing.

Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile Learning:

Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp. 9-25). Edmonton: AU Press.

Traxler, J., & Lally, V. (2016). The crisis and the response: after the dust had settled. Interactive

Learning Environments, (pp. 1-9). doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1128216

Tseloudi, C., & Arnedillo-Sanchez, I. (2016, April). Capturing mobile learning in context. Paper

presented at the Global Learn 2016 Conference in Limerick, Ireland. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chrysanthi_Tseloudi/publication/302593211_Captu

ring_Mobile_Learning_in_Context/links/5731e4df08ae9f741b234ceb.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (2014). The connected community: Exploratory research on

designing online communities of practice for educators to create value. U.S. Department

of Education, Department of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/

wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Exploratory-Research-on- Designing-Online-Communities-

FINAL.pdf
 152

van den Beemt, A., & Diepstraten, I. (2016). Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology

approach. Computers & Education, 92, 161-170. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.017

Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at

course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28.

doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002

Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-learning

course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated

learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64-74. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.004

Vygotsky, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wahlgren, B., Mariager-Anderson, K., & Sørensen, S. H. (2016). Expanding the traditional role

of the adult education teacher: The development of relational competences and actions.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 303-311. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.09.005

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction a relational perspective.

Communication research, 19(1), 52-90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003

Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention

recall, and perceived learning. Computers in human behavior, (pp. 79-89).

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049

Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human cognition

and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561-575.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01214.x
 153

Watson, J., Murin. A. (2014). A history of K-12 online and blended instruction in the United States.

In R.E. Ferdig & K Kennedy (Eds.). Handbook of research on K-12 online and blended

learning, (pp. 1-23). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L, Gemin, R., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping pace with K-12 online

and blended learning: A guide to policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved

from: http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/EEG_KP2013-lr.pdf

Wenger, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Learning

in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice-based learning.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K:

Cambridge University Press.

Willingham, D. (2016, May 15). The false promise of tech in schools: Let's make chagrined admission

2.0 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/daniel- willingham-

false-promise-tech-schools-article-1.2636472

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Wyatt, S., Dopson, N., Keyzerman, Y., & Daugherty, J. (2014). The 5E instructional model. In A.

Hirumi (Ed.) Grounded designs for online and hybrid learning online and hybrid learning

designs in action, 2(51). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence

on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers.

REL 2007-No. 033. San Antonio, TX: Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
 154

Zhang, X., & Xu, J. (December 01, 2015). Integration of micro lectures into the blended learning

discourse in tertiary education. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 10(2), 13-28.

doi:10.1108/AAOUJ-10-02-2015-B003
 155

APPENDIX A

Example of Landscape Post

 156

APPENDIX B

TPACK Assessment, Koh et al., (2014)

A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their
relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
 157

APPENDIX C

Informed Consent

{Date}

Dear Fellow PBS Course Facilitators,

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Helen Teague, a current doctoral
student in Learning Technologies at Pepperdine University and Dr. Jack McManus, Doctoral
Committee Chair. Your participation is voluntary. Before you decide whether to participate,
please take some time to read the information below. Please feel free to email any questions to at
helen.teague@pepperdine.edu.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: My study is designed to investigate selected online course

facilitators’ perceptions of their lesson design practices and whether or not they include mobile
technology in their courses.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT: If you agree to voluntarily to take part in this study, you
will be asked to click on a link or scan a QR-code to go to a multiple-choice question, online
survey with 18 questions. It should take approximately 10-20 minutes to complete the survey.
Please complete the survey alone in a single setting.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL: Your participation is voluntary and you may

refuse to participate and/or withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in the survey at
any time by sending an email to me at helen.teague@pepperdine.edu. After completing the
survey, you may also withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY: There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with

this study. Your name, email address, course(s) you teach and/or other identifiable information
will not be collected. Therefore, your identity will not be associated with your responses. The
results of this research study may be published, but only reported as an aggregate summary of
the group data collected. Pepperdine’s University’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP)
may also access the data collected. The HSPP occasionally reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
 158

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION: My contact information is Helen Teague:

helen.teague@pepperdine.edu. You may also contact Dr. Jack McManus, Dissertation faculty
chairperson for this research at (redacted).

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION: If you

have questions, concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant or research in
general please contact Dr. Judy Ho, Chairperson of the Graduate & Professional Schools
Institutional Review Board at Pepperdine University 6100 Center Drive Suite 500, Los Angeles,
CA 90045.

Sincerely,
Helen Teague
Doctoral Student, Pepperdine Graduate School of Education and Psychology

I understand that the investigator is willing to answer any inquiries I may have concerning the
research herein described. I understand that I may contact Helen Teague at
helen.teague@pepperdine.edu or 325-674-2350 or if I have any other questions or concerns
about this research. I acknowledge that I have read and understand what participation in the
study entails. By selecting "Yes," I consent to participate in the survey and am ready to begin. If
you decline participation within the survey, please feel free to close this email or select "No, I
decline to participate".
 Yes, I consent to participate. Please take me to the survey.
 Yes, I consent to also participate in a follow-up interview.
 No, I decline participation.

QR Code Image Box –

QR Code deactivated following data collection

 159

APPENDIX D

Authorization for the Use of Survey Instrument

 160

APPENDIX E

IRB Approval Letter

 161

APPENDIX F

Koh et al. Survey Questions Post Pilot Study

TPACK1 – I can formulate in-depth discussion topics about content and help learners’ with
appropriate tools (e.g. Moodle, Google Sites)
TPACK2 – I can craft and represent real-world problems that relate to course content in order to
engage learners.
TPACK3 – I can structure activities to help learners construct different representations of
content knowledge using appropriate technology tools (e.g. Graphic Organizers, Surveys).
TPACK4 – I can create self-directed learning activities for content knowledge with appropriate
technology tools (e.g. Blog, Webquest).
TPACK5 – I can design inquiry activities to guide learners to make sense of content knowledge
with appropriate technology tools (e.g. PBL, simulations).
TPACK6 – I can design lessons that appropriately integrate content, technology, and pedagogy
for learner-centered learning.

LDP1-(7.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I start by considering a few lesson

ideas.
LDP2 – (8.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider several lesson ideas to see
if they adequately address learners’ needs before choosing one idea.
LDP3 – (9.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I allow conflicting lesson ideas to
coexist until I feel that I have adequately understood the learning problems.
LDP4 – (10.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I continually refine my lesson
ideas as I develop new understandings throughout the design process.
LDP5 – (11.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I consider the consequences of
adopting particular lesson ideas before working out details.
LDP6 – (12.) When designing a technology-enhanced lesson, I am prepared to completely
change my lesson ideas if needed.

DD1 – (13.) I am comfortable with the presence of uncertainty.

DD2 – (14.) I am open to new experiences.
DD3 – (15.) I am comfortable to explore conflicting ideas.
DD4 – (16.) I am comfortable to deviate from established practices.
DD5 – (17.) I am comfortable with occasional failures from trying out new approaches for
technology-enhanced lessons.
DD6 – (18.) I am constantly seeking to turn constraints into opportunities.
 162

APPENDIX G

Koh et al., 2014 Survey Readability Report

View publication stats