Mind the gaps: Professional perspectives of technology-based teaching and learning in the Foundation Phase

Abstract

This study was set in a chosen district in the Gauteng province because the environment was identified as data rich, which implies that the participants were able to share information based on the large number of Foundation Phase schools that they service.Methods: Qualitative case study methods such as interviews, opinion pieces and field notes from district officials servicing Foundation Phase schools were examined through the theoretical lens of the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model. Results:The data gathered proved worthwhile in presenting the perspectives of TBTL in the Foundation Phase from one district in South Africa with regard to the benefits, barriers and gaps thereof. Conclusion:Implications for technological infrastructure, a Foundation Phase TBTL policy framework, teacher preparation training and in-service training, and support in finding appropriate content were given.

Exploring students’ views on clinical simulation in the acupuncture programme at a South African university

“…The authors opined that integrating technologies in the acupuncture programme will strengthen teaching and learning. Hannaway (2019) agrees with Mishra and Koehler (2006) that digital technologies are an integral part of teaching and learning for the twenty-first century. For this reason, various scholars and researchers have used the TPACK model in order to integrate technologies in education and promote effective teaching (Venketsamy & Wilson, 2020).…”

“…There are three core components to TPACK: pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), and technological knowledge (TK) (Figure 3) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The primary claim of the model is that the appropriate combination of these components for teaching, learning and assessment generates another four other types of knowledge, namely content knowledge (what); pedagogical knowledge (how), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (which technology/ies) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;Hannaway, 2019). The model presents technology as the third core domain of teacher knowledge, along with content and pedagogy (Harris et al 2017;Hannaway, 2019).…”

“…The primary claim of the model is that the appropriate combination of these components for teaching, learning and assessment generates another four other types of knowledge, namely content knowledge (what); pedagogical knowledge (how), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (which technology/ies) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;Hannaway, 2019). The model presents technology as the third core domain of teacher knowledge, along with content and pedagogy (Harris et al 2017;Hannaway, 2019). Harris et al (2017) further argued that various other blended knowledge domains could be derived from the three domains, such as technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and TPACK.…”

“…According to the TPACK model, the lectures are recommended to select the appropriate pedagogical approaches for delivering specific content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009;Hannaway, 2019). The authors were of the view that it was of great importance for lecturers to acquire adequate PCK and TPCK, which would assist them in promoting the effective delivery of specific CK.…”

Key Factors Needed for Developing a Higher Education Cross-Campus Learning Environment in a Nordic Context

“…These new program offerings can be viewed as an attempt to transform higher education teaching and learning. Often the driving force behind transformation in HEI's is largely intertwined with the role that digital technologies play (Hannaway, 2019;Haugsbakken et al, 2019;Støckert et al, 2019;Nykvist et al, 2022) and funding is often diverted to the purchase of digital technologies as part of the transformational process. In this study, blended learning is referred to as the combination of face-to-face and online learning experiences to support learning (Nykvist, 2008;Boelens et al, 2018;Bruggeman et al, 2021).…”