HGGHHJ

Physical and Virtual
Learning Spaces in
Higher Education:
Concepts for the Modern
Learning Environment
Mike Keppell
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Kay Souter
La Trobe University, Australia
Matthew Riddle
La Trobe University, Australia
Senior Editorial Director:

Director of Book Publications:
Editorial Director:
Acquisitions Editor:
Development Editor:
Production Editor:
Typesetters:
Print Coordinator:
Cover Design:
Kristin Klinger
Julia Mosemann
Lindsay Johnston
Erika Carter
Michael Killian
Sean Woznicki
Keith Glazewski, Natalie Pronio, Milan Vracarich, Jr.
Jamie Snavely
Nick Newcomer
Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: concepts for the modern learning environment / Mike Keppell, Kay
Souter, and Matthew Riddle, editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: This book documents real-world experiences of innovators in higher education who have redesigned spaces for
learning and teaching, including physical, virtual, formal, informal, blended, flexible, and time sensitive factors--Provided
by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-60960-114-0 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60960-116-4 (ebook) 1. College environment. 2. Classroom
environment. 3. Virtual reality in higher education. 4. Blended learning. I. Keppell, Mike, 1961- II. Souter, Kay, 1952- III.
Riddle, Matthew, 1969LB2324.P47 2012
378.101--dc22
2011014040
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
242
Chapter 15
Re-Imagining Teaching
for Technology-Enriched
Learning Spaces:
An Academic Development Model

Caroline Steel
University of Queensland, Australia
Trish Andrews
University of Queensland, Australia
ABSTRACT
New technology-enriched learning spaces are a focus of institutional investment to address the identified
shortcomings of traditional teaching and learning environments. Academic development, an area that
has received little attention in this context, can be designed to provide strong opportunities for university
teachers to re-imagine their teaching for these new spaces while also building their leadership capacity. This chapter discusses challenges that teachers face in transforming their teaching practices and
proposes a model for academic development to support this. Two case studies demonstrate the flexibility
and efficacy of the model and provide pointers for further adoption in the higher education context.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights the need for a stronger focus on academic development to enable teachers to
re-imagine their teaching for technology-enriched
learning spaces. In order to assist academics to
adapt to new teaching and learning environments a
translation process is required. This process should
include identifying the opportunities offered by
technology-enriched formal learning spaces for

teachers own contexts and re-designing student
learning with peer support and review. Specifically, the model outlined here seeks to improve
support for academic teachers in the design of
pedagogical activities for technology-enriched
learning spaces while simultaneously building
leadership capacity to sustain change at local
disciplinary levels.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch015
Copyright 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces
BACKGROUND
In recent years the higher education sector has
recognised that the spaces within which university
teaching takes place can have a major impact on
student learning.
The spaces in which we work, live and learn
can have profound effects on how we feel, how
we behave, how we perform spaces can also
limit the possibilities of our activity, restricting
us to old modes of working and thinking (Watson,
2007, p.260).
Consequently, many universities have realised
that in order to promote more active, studentcentred teaching and learning activities, different
physical and virtual spaces are required to those
traditionally available in most higher education
institutions. Accordingly, sizeable investment is
being made in designing and creating technologyenriched formal spaces across higher education
institutions (Oblinger, 2005; Watson, 2007). These
spaces are innovative physical learning environments equipped with a wide-range of technology
tools and are designed to support new ways of
teaching and learning. While there are significant differences in the types and purposes of the
spaces being provided, common characteristics
that define these innovative formal spaces are:

the use of technology to support learning

and teaching activities and
the requirement for flexibility; and increasingly adaptability.
These new technology-enriched learning

spaces are designed and built to support active,
social, collaborative and independent learning.
Consequently, these spaces, which offer a rapidly
expanding range of technologies and configurations, confront traditional assumptions about
teaching and learning. In turn, this creates challenges for teachers working in these new spaces
to re-imagine their teaching, learning designs

and practices and actively promote more student
engagement in the learning process.
Physically, these new learning spaces are
usually visually attractive, designed for a range
of educational purposes and equipped with
state-of-the-art technologies. However, there is
reportedly some tension between the desire to
justify the expenditure on these new spaces in
terms of enriched student learning, and the support of innovative teaching and learning practices
(Pearshouse, et al., 2009). While the spaces have
been designed with a view to transforming student learning and knowledge creation (Punie,
2007), little attention has been given to helping
mainstream university teachers to transform or
re-imagine their teaching practices in ways that
these spaces and technologies can afford. When
confronted with these new technology-enriched
spaces, many university teachers feel ill-equipped
to re-imagine their teaching practices so have reservations in relation to the commitment required
to capitalise on the affordances enabled by these
spaces. Furthermore, a focus on research in the
promotion processes of many higher education
institutions leaves little time to develop new pedagogical understandings and skills to effectively
utilise technology-enriched learning spaces. University teachers require opportunities and time to
reconcile their pedagogical beliefs, beliefs about
technologies and the pedagogical affordances
inherent in these spaces with their pedagogical
contexts (Steel, 2009a). A crucial part of this reimagining process is to create opportunities for
teachers to rethink their learning designs so that
they can effectively harness the potential teaching
and learning opportunities offered by these spaces.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF
RE-IMAGINING TEACHING
A significant problem for higher education institutions is that the complexities involved in changing
243
educational practices for these new technologyenriched spaces are often overlooked in terms
of both leadership and academic development.
Such a change requires an equivalent shift in
teacher and student roles and relationships and
is not necessarily comfortable or economic for
many university teachers. As with any change to
daily practices, people need to be convinced of
why change should take place (Vrakking, 1995)
and inspired and supported to make that change.
Providing opportunities for supported mutual introspection (Carew, Lefoe, Bell, & Amour, 2008)
through peer review processes is one approach
to motivating academics to undertake changes
to their teaching practices. Building leadership
capacity throughout this process addresses the
continuing need for academic leadership development in higher education, particularly in relation
to teaching and learning practices. Academic
development programs need to explicitly promote
the development of leadership skills necessary to
undertake the radical change to the status quo
required to effect new teaching and learning
practices (Lefoe, 2010).
Leadership as a Critical Component

Leadership is crucial to ensuring that university
learning and teaching change initiatives have
the best possible chance of success. However
leadership capacity development is an area of
higher education that has been ad hoc, particularly
beyond the realms of management and administration (Lefoe, 2010). Changes in teacher practices
require different levels of distributive leadership
that can empower, enable and support teachers
while appreciating and engaging with their cultural
codes and assumptions. Leadership is needed at
various levels to enable university teachers to be
part of the vision for change and to help teachers
address the challenges that they face personally,
as teachers, and as part of a cultural organisation.
Universities are places of great teacher diversity (Steel & Levy, 2009) as well as homes to many
244
disciplinary and faculty-based cultures. Teachers

hold different beliefs about their disciplinary
knowledge, how it is taught, how students should
learn and the role and value of technology. Their
beliefs and teaching practices are also influenced
by institutional and local teaching cultures. These
cultures represent differing and sometimes conflicting interests, disciplines, beliefs and values.
From a cultural perspective, these are the informal
codes and shared assumptions of the individuals
who participate in an organisation (Tierney, 1996,
p. 372). They can also be expressed in relation
to educational practices such as those that might
take place in new learning spaces. Trowler and
Cooper (2002) suggest that these cultures can
be understood within the notion of teaching and
learning regimes (TLR). TLRs comprise an interrelated collection of local rules, assumptions,
practices and relationships related to teaching and
learning issues in higher education (Trowler &
Cooper, 2002, p. 221). For example, negativity
around changes to practices can be derived from
the local rules around what comprises appropriate
teaching practices (Sahin & Thompson, 2006).
Expectations around transforming teaching
practices can be at odds with local TLRs. Thus,
there is a need to build capacity for educational
leadership at local levels and with teachers who
are privy to those codes and also open to moving
beyond them. Some have suggested that distributive leadership, as a mechanism for the sharing of
knowledge, practice and reflection on practice, can
be an effective collegial tool for moving teaching
and learning innovations forward (e.g. Knight &
Trowler, 2001; Lefoe, 2010). Distributive leadership offers distributive power sharing in order to
transform TLRs and help colleagues re-interpret
teaching practices meaningfully in connection
with cultural rules and assumptions for new
technology-enriched learning spaces. This kind
of distributive leadership can be further strengthened by the involvement of academic developers
as both colleagues and partners in initiating and
supporting change and learning. The benefits of
these kinds of collegial-partner leadership roles

lies in the ability to meaningfully interpret local
TLRs through localised leadership in partnership
with higher education researchers and specialists
(academic developers).
Staff development is a critical part of any change
process. Changes in learning and teaching
methods can require significant changes in both
academic and support staff roles. In order to enable staff to get the most out of their new roles
there need to be development opportunities made
available (JISC, 2009).
The field of academic development has recently
been described as elastic practice (Carew, et al.,
2008) because academic developers are able to
draw on a toolkit of theories, strategies, techniques, ideas, values and experiences in order to
respond to the varying contexts they work within.
Across the discipline of Higher Education they
are leaders, educational researchers, practitioners,
scholars and change agents whose role, in part, is
to stimulate the kinds of academic conversations
and reflective practices that underpin pedagogical
growth and transformation. Academic development is a more valued and valuable experience
when integrated into a distributive leadership
environment that forms constructive partnerships
with faculty-based leaders, senior management
and leaders in related areas (such as IT and support). As Kotter (1996, p. 6) suggests, without a
sufficiently powerful guiding coalition change
initiatives experience countervailing forces such
as tradition, self-interest and passive resistance.
The Need for Academic Development

for 21st Century Learning
With the current demands placed upon university
teachers for technology-enriched 21st Century
learning and purpose-built 21st Century learning
spaces, the need for academic development strategies to enable academic teachers to move forward,
are critical (Hughes, 2009). As Diaz et al. (2009),

point out, while academic development needs are
not new, new areas of need are emerging:
21st-century faculty will need support in new
areas as well: keeping up with an increasingly
technological workplace, developing ways to
further integrate technology into the instructional
experience (p. 48).
Hooker, (2008), suggests that while technologies provide many opportunities for teachers they
also create many challenges. Not only do teachers
need to be able to develop the technical skills to
use the new technologies effectively, they also
have a need to consider the pedagogical aspects
of using these tools. Academics can be sceptical
of the stated learning benefits of using technologies in teaching and learning largely due to the
overwhelming emphasis on the technology in contrast to any overarching pedagogical framework
(Waldron, Dawson, & Burnett, 2005, p. 4). As part
of the process of developing skills and identifying affordances in relation to the use of ICTS,
Hooker, (2008) quoting Papert (1990), emphasises
the importance of providing opportunities for
teachers to reflect on their practice as they make
use of the technologies so that they can become
active generators rather than passive consumers
of knowledge (p. 2). However, to become active
generators, strategies need to be formulated that
enable academics to overcome critical issues in
relation to their ability to rapidly and effectively
adopt pedagogically appropriate technologies
for a range of teaching and learning contexts in
higher education. Indeed, the identified need for
improved ICT skills amongst academic teachers
is critical in overcoming the digital divide in the
provision of higher education in a web 2.0 world
(Hughes, 2009). However, further to this, Young
(2008) highlights the importance of not losing sight
of the endgame and cautions that the key focus
of academic professional development needs to
be the enhancement of student learning. With that
245
in mind we need to consider how we can assist

teachers to develop increasingly sophisticated
and complex conceptions of teaching so that they
might more readily think about teaching in new
ways (Young, 2008, p. 42).
As new learning and teaching spaces are usually
designed with pedagogical transformation in mind,
context-specific academic development needs to
be integral to the development and implementation
of new technology-enriched learning and teaching
spaces. Academic development strategies need
to address local TLRs, personal belief systems
and help teachers renegotiate their pedagogical
vision and student-teacher roles and relationships.
Teachers need convincing of how these spaces
can be used with different technologies to positively influence student learning. Furthermore,
academic development opportunities need to be
targeted at better equipping teachers to identify
the affordances and constraints of these spaces
and technologies in relation to their belief systems
and the pedagogical and cultural contexts they
operate within.
Persistent Issues Around Technology

Adoption and Integration
While not focused on learning spaces in particular,
technology adoption and integration into university teaching and learning practices continues as
a persistent issue. Although various technologies
have been widely available for some time and promoted for their ability to transform learning, this
promise has not yet been realised (Hedberg, 2006).
There are a number of recursive and interactive
factors that influence teachers decision-making
around technology use. These include teachers
own pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about the value
and application of technologies as well as their
own cultural and pedagogical contexts. Successful
academic development for effective technology
integration into teaching and learning needs to be
cognizant of the multiple aspects of the teaching
246
and learning environment and provide a number

of strategies and approaches.
Diaz et al., (2009), in a recent study into the
professional development needs for 21st century
teachers, found that successful models for 21st
century academic development require flexibility
and multiple approaches that should:
include mentoring, delivery in a variety of oncampus and off-campus formats (face-to-face,
blended, online, self-initiated/self-paced), and
anyplace/anytime programming to accommodate
just-in-time needs. Faculty members are learners with needs and constraints similar to those
of students. Support programs must be valuable,
relevant, current, and engaging. They should also
demonstrate best practices in providing a participatory, facilitated learning environment (p.5).
Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004) also suggest
adopting a holistic approach to academic development for preparing academics for teaching the
rapidly growing numbers of millennial students
now attending university. They highlight the
importance of developing more student-centred
approaches and aligning such approaches both
with the needs of the teachers and the needs of the
institution. In addressing the complexity of teacher
needs, Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004) propose
that an appropriate model should assist academics
to develop a greater awareness of student needs
and learning styles, teaching styles, educational
design, and to increase their technology skills
(p.202) and that the model should include the
following seven factors:
1. Consideration of the universitys strategic
direction
2. Awareness of the current and evolving
academic/university culture within the
university
3. Knowledge of the students characteristics
4. Encourage teachers to be aware of their own

preferred teaching style and philosophy and
to experiment with other approaches
5. Encourage teachers to become conversant
in applying educational design principles,
or engage expert educational designers to
assist
6. Consider technological innovations
7. Investigate the universitys infrastructure to
establish feasibility (p. 204).
This model recognises the complexity of the
context within which academic development occurs and the need to respond to a broad range of
issues. The model also suggests the importance
of teachers recognising their approach to teaching
and learning and consequently considering new
ways of teaching with technologies.
The recognition of the importance of teacher
beliefs as part of professional development
program is essential (Steel, 2009a; 2009b). In
particular, a professional development model for
teaching with technology should acknowledge
that teachers prior experiences with technology
along with their beliefs in relation to technology
in teaching and learning are of critical importance
and can have a significant impact on the ways in
which teachers use technologies in their classrooms. Steel (2009a), discussing the complexities
of technology adoption, proposes that even if
teachers are confident and proficient in their use of
technologies, this does not mean that they believe
they are valuable tools when used for educational
purposes (p. 399). Further, a significant predictor of teachers technology uptake and use is the
beliefs that teachers hold about their application in
their educational contexts (Mahdizadeh, Biemans,
& Mulder, 2008; Miller, et al., 2003). Therefore
teachers require opportunities to surface and
resolve tensions across their own belief systems
and practices in relation to their own pedagogical
context, their belief systems and the technologies
on offer (Steel, 2009a). These are essential elements in any academic development approach
designed to sustain transformative practices in

technology-enriched learning and teaching spaces.
Pedder and colleagues (Pedder, Storey, &
Opfer, 2008) in their study that explored different stakeholders view of what constitutes successful professional development for teaching
and learning with technology in schools found
that both teachers and leaders found similar
approaches of value. School leaders felt that
professional development activities that enabled
learning through experimentation and practice
in the classroom, reflection, student and peer
feedback and participation in teacher networks
promoted successful outcomes. Teachers valued
opportunities for classroom experimentation and
practice and being able to make changes based
on student or peer feedback. Significantly both
groups identified the importance of peer feedback
and opportunities for practice.
Many professional development approaches,
strategies and programmes advocate the value of
peer learning. As Eisen (2001), points out:
Peer learning is a model well suited to the development of professionals, who are no longer
novices, because it promotes sharing of partners
experiences through action and reflection (p.31).
Peer learning is defined as voluntary reciprocal relationships between individuals of comparable status, who share a common or closely related
learning/development objective (Eisen, 2001, p.
32). Boud (2001), also considers reciprocity in his
definition of peer learning. He takes the view that
peer learning needs to involve reciprocal interaction between participants. Peer learning should
be mutually beneficial and involve the sharing
of knowledge ideas and experience between the
participants (p. 3). While reciprocity is common across definitions of peer learning, Topping
(2007) introduces the notion of active helping.
Peer learning can be defined as the acquisition
of knowledge and skill through active helping
and supporting among status equals or matched
247
companions (Topping, 2007, p. 631). Approaches

to peer learning that provide constructive feedback
and suggestions could be considered as active
helping. The P2P project (2006) which explored
peer learning across schools in several European
countries found that professional development
that involved peer learning had a positive impact
on student learning. This reflects Youngs (2008)
injuncture, that academic development activities
need to keep a focus on student learning. This focus
on student learning needs to be at the forefront
of any potential solutions or recommendations
to dealing with the complexities inherent in the
development and implementation of new learning spaces.
Academic Development
for Learning Spaces
Currently there is very little literature relating
to what constitutes effective academic development activities to support teacher practices
in new learning spaces. While universities are
enthusiastic about building new student-centred
and technology-enriched learning spaces, there
is less emphasis on how teachers are helped to
re-conceptualise their learning designs for these
spaces. The juncture between learning spaces,
learning design and teacher beliefs is an undertheorised area that is pivotal to future space developments and successful student outcomes in
these spaces. However in spite of this limitation,
work in relation to supporting the adoption and
integration of technology into higher education
and schools provides useful models and insights
that can be considered in relation to developing
professional development approaches for new
learning spaces.
The limited work that is available in relation
to academic development for learning spaces
highlights the complexity of the issue. In a recent
(extended) blog comment, Long (2009) refers to
the issue of timing as a key aspect of successful academic development for learning spaces.
248
Long makes the important point that academic

development activities for learning spaces need
to be implemented at an early stage in the space
development process.
What absolutely CANNOT happen regarding professional development for these spaces is to wait
until they are built (blog comment, Long, 2009).
However, in the majority of cases, preparing
teachers to engage with new spaces is seldom
considered prior to the completion of the space.
Further, Long suggests that one-off professional
development activities delivered by an expert,
while they have their uses, falls well short of
meeting the complexity and diversity of teachers
needs in relation to learning spaces. Consequently,
he suggests a multi-faceted model that allows for:
real time modelling of good (and new) practice,
team teaching, real time support, group work,
mixed groupings, lead lessons, small group work
with the whole team working, learning and gaining
confidence together. This is not a one hour session
this takes some days to really embed in, along
with return visits (blog comment, Long, 2009).
The Challenges of Teaching

in New Learning Spaces
Taking into consideration the multiple complexities and challenges associated with teachers
translating their practices for technology-enriched
learning spaces it is surprising that so little attention has been focused on academic development
to assist teachers to transform their practices for
these spaces. Approaches are needed that assist
teachers to recognise both the pedagogical and
other affordances and constraints of the technologies and spaces relevant for their own teaching
context. Figure 1 summarises teacher challenges
that need to be addressed through academic development strategies. In addressing these challenges,
it is possible to harness the benefits of distributive
Figure 1. Challenges of teaching in new learning spaces
leadership in partnership with academic development while being respectful of local cultural
perspectives (such as TLRs).
This diagram highlights recurring challenges
that teachers face when confronted with new
technologies and learning spaces. It also emphasises the heightened significance of teachers as
designers of student learning in these innovative
technology-enriched learning spaces. These elements are further explored below.
Pedagogical Beliefs and Beliefs

About Technologies and Spaces
Teachers pedagogical beliefs about teaching,
learning and the use of technologies are highly
influential technology practices (Bates & Poole,
2003; Park & Ertmer, 2007; Steel, 2009a). Consequently, academic development programs that
encourage re-imagining teaching practices for new
teaching and learning environments need to start
making teachers beliefs systems explicit. Teachers pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about
the value, use and role of technologies and new
249
learning spaces are highly influential on the way

teachers conceptualise their teaching practices for
these new spaces. Furthermore, using these spaces
often involves a shift away from teachers usual
educational practices and teacher beliefs can act
as a filter to change (Yerrick, Parke, & Nugent,
1997). Therefore opportunities to discuss and
explore these beliefs should be considered critical
to translating practices for new spaces.
Contemporary design of physical learning
spaces is often underpinned by the assumption that
they will be used in ways that are student-centred
rather than teacher centred. Some teachers hold
pedagogical beliefs that are more aligned with
teacher-centred practices while others may not
have experienced using the spaces and/or technologies to express their pedagogical beliefs. How a
teacher conceptualises these roles internally has
implications for their educational practices, use of
technologies and for student learning. Even when a
more student-centred learning design is developed,
teacher-centred approaches may prevail.
Indeed some teachers may not see a role, or
any value, in using the spaces or the technologies
in their teaching. While this may well be justifiable, models for academic development need to
provide opportunities for teachers to make their
beliefs explicit in order to properly explore the
affordances and constraints of the spaces and to
reconcile their beliefs with the possibilities that
may be identified as part of the academic development process.
Pedagogical Vision for Use of

Technology-Enriched Spaces
Given that most teachers are unfamiliar with the
ways that new technology-enriched spaces can
be used for teaching and learning, teachers need
time and scaffolding to develop a pedagogical
vision. Developing a clear pedagogical vision
enables teachers to convey the relevance of their
use of spaces and technologies, and consequent
pedagogical changes, to students. Learners need
250
to understand how their learning is meant to

occur through their use of these technologyenriched spaces. As with any learning design,
students are likely to engage if they are clear
about how learning tasks are linked to their
academic success.
In an examination of educationally sophisticated technology-using university teachers,
Steel (2009b) found that the interrelationship
between a number of factors contributed to a
strong pedagogical vision for technology use.
These factors were derived from the fact that
these teachers held coherent pedagogical beliefs
and were well equipped to draw on their beliefs
about technologies, the characteristics of their
pedagogical contexts and their experiences with
technologies to help them identify the affordances
and constraints of technologies that they needed
to resolve in practice. For mainstream teachers,
there is benefit in guiding them to consider these
kinds of linkages and experiences. A good way to
start conceptualising a pedagogical vision is for
teachers to explore examples of how other academics are using technology-enriched spaces, to
have exposure to pedagogical models that convey
possibilities and to test and modify ideas in a safe
peer-supported environment.
Discipline, Curriculum and

Assessment Agendas
Translating curriculum and assessment to blended
and online models is inherently problematic.
Academics are prone to transporting their existing practices to new environments (Kirkup
& Kirkwood, 2005) and need encouragement
and support to change their curriculum and
assessment practices. Academic development
programs need to assist teachers in identifying
uses of spaces and technologies that solve teaching and learning problems inherent to their particular disciplines. Examples of well structured
technology-enriched learning designs from a
variety of disciplines can provide teachers with
models to assist them to change their curriculum

approaches to take advantage of the affordances
offered by these environments. Opportunities to
test these models in their own contexts and to
receive constructive feedback from peers can
strengthen teachers confidence to change their
curriculum practices.
Student Profiles, Needs and Challenges

Modern teaching and learning environments are
characterised by student diversity. Curriculum
design that addresses the diversity of student
needs and characteristics, can promote student
engagement and retention. However adequately
preparing students for these new learning environments is a critical part of the challenge (Kennedy,
et al., 2009). In preparing teachers to use these
new learning environments consideration needs
to be given to the digital literacy of students,
the wide variation they present in this regard
and ways in which this might effectively be addressed. Furthermore, teachers need to develop
skills in assisting students to understand what
learning means in a web 2.0 world (Fitzgerald
et al., 2009; Hughes, 2009). Students ability to
learn with technologies is a key aspect of these
environments. Overlooking this can result in poor
student learning outcomes in these new spaces
(Kennedy, et al., 2009). Additionally, these new
learning environments can mean changes in the
ways in which students participate in learning
activities creating feelings of isolation, alienation
and anxiety. Academic development programs
need to provide opportunities to explore these
issues and find strategies to address them.
Pedagogical Effectiveness vs. Real

Constraints of Pedagogical Context
While some learning designs are highly effective they may not be very efficient or vice-versa
(Hornby, 2003). Moreover some learning designs
may be suitable for one teachers pedagogical
context but not for another. The pedagogical context includes variables such as teacher and student
characteristics and preferences, the pedagogical
approach employed by specific disciplines, the
organisation of the learning environment as
well as disciplinary and institutional culture
and norms. It encompasses the variables woven
together in the act of learning, rather than around
it, as conveyed by the word environment (de
Figueiredo & Afonso, 2006) and can be understood as the relationship between a setting and
how participants interpret that setting, including the meaning of practices (Moschkovich &
Brenner, 2000).
When re-imagining teaching for technologyenriched learning spaces teachers can benefit
from testing the pedagogical effectiveness of a
learning design in a peer-supported environment
that is conducive to safe constructive feedback
and reflection. For example, an excellent learning
design may be conceptualised that is actually an
add-on to the curriculum rather than integral to
it. Or due to students being located in different
international time zones some features of the design may not be feasible. Workload is of course
a crucial issue. Many teachers have implemented
highly effective teaching and learning strategies
only to find that their own workload has been
highly exacerbated. There is high value in trying
to troubleshoot these kinds of issues ahead of time
as teachers quickly loose enthusiasm for innovation when troublesome issues arise.
Affordances and Constraints of

Technologies and Space
If teachers have not used or experienced available
technologies and spaces, it is very difficult to be
able to identify the affordances and constraints
of the technologies and spaces. The terms affordances and constraints suffer a lack of clarity in
contemporary literature particularly as applied to
the use of technologies in teaching and learning
(Conole & Dyke, 2004; McGrenere & Ho, 2000).
251
Figure 2. A model of academic development for technology-enriched learning spaces
A more interrelational view of the concept was

offered by Kennewell (2001). He pursued the
idea of exploring affordances and constraints
not only in relation to the inherent properties of
the object and the perceptions of the actor, but
also in relation to the whole pedagogical context.
Kennewell (2001) defines affordances as the
attributes of the setting which provide potential
for action and constraints as the conditions and
relationships amongst attributes which provide
structure and guidance for the course of actions
(p. 106). As with pedagogical effectiveness,
teachers need opportunities to consider the affordances and constraints of technology-enriched
spaces in relation to their pedagogical context
and educational aims.
Considering the issues and challenges for
teachers who are confronted with the need to reimagine their teaching for technology-enriched
environments, it is surprising that so little attention
has been given to supporting teachers to enact
quality teaching practices in these environments.
The next section offers a model of academic
development for technology-enriched learning
spaces that draws on and builds capacity toward
distributive leadership while being inclusive of
different disciplinary perspectives and TLRs.
252
DEVELOPING A MODEL OF
ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT
FOR TECHNOLOGY-ENRICHED
LEARNING SPACES
With a clear knowledge of the considerable challenges that teachers are confronted with when
trying to re-imagine their teaching for innovative
technology-enriched learning spaces, a model for
academic development was developed to help
individuals and disciplinary communities move
forward (Figure 2). The model itself is also aimed
at developing capacity for leadership and building communities so that progress and growth are
championed, sustained and encompassing. As
noted by Lefoe (2010), there is an urgent need in
Australian universities to build leadership capacity that will enable distributive leadership in all
aspects of teaching and learning. She also quotes
Fullan, Hill and Crvola (2006) as proposing that
capacity building involves the use of strategies
that increase the collective effectiveness of all
levels of the system in developing and mobilizing knowledge, resources and motivation, all of
which are needed to raise the bar and close the
gap of student learning across the system (p.88).
It is with these aims in mind that the model was
created. As a model of academic development for
technology-enriched learning spaces it aims to:
facilitate a process whereby academics can

translate their practices in ways that harness the potential of these spaces and technologies for their own pedagogical
context
build leadership capacity that can influence
build collegial peer-based disciplinary
communities
Further, congruent with the notion of academic

development as elastic practice (Carew, et al.,
2008), the model is designed to be applicable in
different modes, disciplinary contexts and with
different teacher cohorts (higher education and
K12). It is also flexible in terms of the kinds of
activities that can achieve the different components
of the model. This kind of inherent flexibility
is meant to accommodate different academic
developers/ facilitators styles and preferences.
Two applications of the model are detailed later
in this section.
The model, as visually displayed in Figure
2, depicts a staged process that addresses the
challenges previously outlined in Figure 1 with
a particular focus on teachers learning designs
for use in technology-enriched spaces.
Stage 1: Teachers Pedagogical

Beliefs and Beliefs About
Technologies and Spaces
The initial stage of the model begins with the provision of opportunities for teachers to make their
pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about technologies
and spaces explicit. Many academics have not
necessarily had the opportunity to articulate these
beliefs and as such this can be a reflective and
revealing process. This step is also an opportunity
for some teachers to start to conceptualise their
pedagogical vision for the use of the space and
the technologies on offer.
Stages 2a-2d: Orienting to

the Possibilities and ReImagining Practice in a PeerSupported Environment
These next four components of the model are integrated rather than a linear staged process. They
may occur together at different times and serve
to further surface teachers belief systems and
assist in conceptualising their pedagogical vision
for the use of the technology-enriched spaces.
These four elements are designed to help teachers envisage learning designs that are appropriate
to the spaces and to their own pedagogical and
disciplinary context. In 2a, teachers engage with
discipline relevant models that exemplify some of
the pedagogical and technological affordances of
the spaces. During their engagement they are encouraged to identify and discuss both affordances
and constraints for their own pedagogical context,
discipline, curriculum and assessment agendas.
Teachers are also encouraged to consider their
student profiles, needs and challenges. In 2b,
opportunities are made available for hands-on
training and practice in the spaces using various
technologies. Teachers also experience a student
perspective of the use of the spaces and technologies during their participation in exemplar teaching models. Most academics have not learnt with
technologies or in technology-enriched spaces, so
providing them with opportunities to participate
as both student and teacher are important. As
teachers have competing priorities for their time,
it is also essential to ensure that there is time
(preferably both during and outside of academic
development) to translate a part of their curriculum
into learning designs that harness the potential
they have identified for the space. Therefore 2c
is integral to enabling teachers to re-imagine
their teaching practices for technology-enriched
learning spaces. As learning designs emerge and
mature, peer review and sharing can be used to
catalyse disciplinary communities (2d). Such
peer-supported communities can be encouraged
253
Table 1. Teacher challenges mapped to model

Teacher challenges (Figure 1)
Mapped to Model (Figure 2)
a. Pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about technologies
1, 2c, 2d
b. Pedagogical vision for use of space
1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d
c. Discipline, curriculum and assessment agendas
2a, 2c, 2d
d. Student profiles, needs and challenges
2c, 2d
e. Pedagogical effectiveness vs. real constraints of pedagogical context
2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3
f. Affordances and constraints of technologies and space
2a, 2b, 2c, 2d
to provide a safe, non-competitive space for discussing possibilities, pedagogical effectiveness,

affordances and constraints.
Stage 3: Consolidating Designs,

Enacting Leadership and
Sustaining Community Learning
Finally in stage 3, teachers apply their designs
to their own pedagogical context, supported by
their disciplinary communities and leadership
both within that community and institutionally.
Reflection has been interwoven throughout the
model, however teachers are strongly encouraged
to reflect on the application of their designs and
evaluate their pedagogical effectiveness. Having
completed the academic development model that
underpins the process with a network of peers,
teachers are being positioned to lead further
iterations of the model either in partnership with
academic developers or with community members
in their cohort. The model itself is made explicit,
resources are made available and the expectation
of leadership has been interlaced throughout
the academic development process. Further to
this, teachers have experienced the potential of
socially-mediated community-based learning and
are provided with a range of strategies to continue
this practice both with established community
members and with other teachers in their local
cultural communities.
The teacher challenges outlined in Figure 1
are mapped to the model in Table 1.
254
APPLYING THE MODEL TO TWO

CASE STUDIES
The following two teacher development programs
were designed to help teachers address barriers
to technology innovation while enabling them
to identify and realise the affordances and constraints of new learning environments enriched
with technologies. Each culminated in a portfolio
of learning designs that were appropriate to their
own pedagogical contexts.
Masters of Educational
Studies Course
The development of a postgraduate course in a
Masters of Educational Studies program provided
an opportunity to test the model of academic development for technology-enriched spaces over two
iterations. The course is aimed at helping teachers to integrate technologies into their teaching
and become future leaders in their home school
environment. As this was a predominantly online
course, both virtual and physical learning spaces
were explored. Enrolled teachers engaged in the
course through a Learning Management System
(LMS) and used a range of other technologies
throughout the course. They attended campusbased workshops three times over the semester.
The course objectives were as follows:
1. Review and reflect on the common enablers
and barriers to technology integration and the
2.
3.
4.
5.
use of different learning spaces in relation

to your educational context
Express and evaluate your beliefs about
technology, teaching and learning and their
influence on your own use of technologies
and different learning spaces
Compare and evaluate various pedagogical
and learning theories in relation to the use of
educational technologies and consequential
pedagogical affordances and constraints for
current and emerging technologies
Critically analyse and debate contested issues associated with existing and emergent
technologies with reference to scholarly
research and theories
Design and justify a range of your own learning designs for new technology-enriched
spaces with reference to your beliefs, learning theories and pedagogies, attributes of
effective technology practices and potential
barriers to implementation.
The assessment items for the course were:
1. Concept map and reflective essay on teachers beliefs about teaching and learning and
technology use
2. An online discussion on a contested issue
and submission of debate synthesis
3. Project: Portfolio of learning designs that
included
A presentation of a design with peer

review
A portfolio of learning designs for

technology-enriched learning spaces
Teachers were initially required to introduce
themselves online and complete an online icebreaker. The icebreaker was designed to hook
teachers in, place them in the course context and
promote strong interaction in order to stimulate an
initial sense of community. A short, provocative
YouTube video was used and stimulus questions
provided in a dedicated discussion forum in the
LMS. Teachers were exposed to various models

of technology and space use during the course,
and the course itself was designed to model possibilities inherent in the technologies and spaces
explored.
Their first assessment sought to help teachers
make their beliefs explicit in order to challenge
their ideas of what is possible in their own teaching
context as well as expose them to the beliefs and
practices of their fellow teachers. Throughout the
course they were exposed to various technologies
either through their own exploration or as part of
the course (e.g. a virtual field trip into the virtual
world of Second Life). The course challenged
teachers to think through the enablers and barriers
of both technologies and different spaces from their
own pedagogical context and belief systems and
also in terms of their own hands-on experiences.
An online discussion, again on a provocative and contemporary issue, gave teachers the
opportunities to expose and question some of
their beliefs about the value and risks of using
technologies in their teaching practices. Finally,
each teacher created a portfolio of learning designs
for technology-enriched learning spaces for their
own teaching context. This was accompanied
by a rationale for each activity that articulated
their underlying beliefs and thinking for their
designs. A template was provided for this activity to encourage them to relate their designs to
their pedagogical context and affordances and
constraints they identified. Peer review of designs
promoted cross-fertilisation of ideas and access to
other teachers examples of practice. As a cohesive
online community developed participants gave
constructive feedback and supported each other.
Although class sizes were relatively small (5-12
teachers), participants were able to work on their
own disciplinary areas, create peer networks and
engage in authentic activities that were aimed at
helping them re-imagine their teaching. Teachers
responded well to both iterations of the course (offered so far) as indicated in email correspondence:
255
Iteration 1 (we had one extra assessment

item which was a blog for reflections on course
readings):
I have enjoyed the subject immensely and see immediate applications in my teaching and planning
for next year.
I thought the course overall was excellent and
I learned a lot of practical ways to implement
new knowledge in my teaching. Also, the mode
of the course was great with so much online and
the assessment really worked to reinforce what
we were learning. The only negative I would say
is that it was quite time consuming, in that there
seemed to be more assessment for this course than
for other Masters courses Ive done.
Iteration 2
I have found this course so interesting its about
what is happening now. There is so much talk
about connecting study to the real world but very
little of it actually happens. Most of the assignments I do are so dull and boring it is worse
than watching paint dry. I find this course not
only challenging and exciting but providing me
with new strategies, new challenges in teaching
and learning strategies for classrooms and in
my own life.
Thank you so much for this course. I have learnt
so much and it has made me think more about
technology in the classroom.
Teacher Continuing Professional

Development Program
In 2010 an urban private school was planning
to open its new teaching and learning complex.
The building consists of collaborative teaching
and learning spaces (CTLCs) and advanced
concept teaching spaces similar to those at The
University of Queensland (UQ) (http://www.
256
uq.edu.au/~webaf/index.html). These advanced,

technology-enriched teaching and learning spaces
are intended to support more collaborative, interactive and engaged approaches to teaching
and learning at the school and will have a major
impact on teaching and learning at the school.
It is envisaged that the use of these spaces will
improve students learning experiences and help
support students transition to university learning. This would occur through the familiarisation
with technology-enriched learning spaces and
approaches that are evolving at the university
through the use of such spaces.
Recognising the need to prepare teachers to
work in these new spaces and build their capacity for leadership within their disciplinary areas,
senior levels of leadership within the school were
proactive in addressing teacher development ahead
of the completion of their new centre. This is
consistent with Longs view (2009) that teacher
development for new technology-enriched spaces
should occur prior to the building completion. An
initial group of eighteen teachers were selected to
participate in a continuing professional development program to provide distributive leadership
in the use and applications of these spaces across
the rest of the school community.
The continuing professional development
program was offered through a combination of
whole day face-to-face workshops supported by
online modules over a period of four months (see
Table 2). It was aimed at helping teachers address the challenges outlined in Figure 1. Tasks
and discussion were designed to help teachers
reconcile their own pedagogical beliefs, and
beliefs about technologies and spaces, with their
own learning experiences in different physical
spaces and online using a variety of pedagogical
models. In this way teachers were encouraged
to develop their own pedagogical vision for use
of the space that was meaningful for their own
discipline, curriculum and assessment agenda
as well as mindful of their own student profiles, needs and challenges. The workshops in
Table 2. Summary of continuing professional development program for technology-enriched spaces

Modules and workshops
Activities
Online module 1: Preworkshop online activities:
Participants were required to read some introductory material and complete the following tasks:
Post a personal bio photo, experience with technologies, teaching profile/experience, discipline, aspirations
for this CPD) to the LMS maximum 250 words
Create and submit a concept map on their pedagogical beliefs and a short reflect piece on how these beliefs
might be expressed in a technology-enriched learning space the challenges, enablers and barriers.
Face-to-face workshop 1
Overview of two different learning spaces

Discussion and evaluation of teaching and learning models derived from innovative teacher practices in
different discipline contexts and spaces (virtual and physical)
Discussion of teacher beliefs, enablers and barriers
Online module 2
Identification and rationale for unit of work to be translated into a learning design for technology-enriched
spaces
Reflection on anticipated changes to teacher and student roles
Face-to face workshop 2
Hands on training and practice in UQ learning spaces

Activity stations set up with explicit pedagogical approaches that used the spaces and a variety of technologies in different ways
Time allocated to work on learning designs (template provided for optional use)
Online module 3
Preparation for developing learning designs for peer review and for peer review process
Further hands on training and practice in UQ learning spaces

Presentation of learning design concept for peer feedback and discussion
Time allocated for further developing learning designs incorporating feedback
Participants conducted mini-teaching sessions for selected spaces

Time was allocated for peer questioning/comments and all teachers received written peer feedback
Discussion around leadership and strategies for sustaining peer knowledge sharing via disciplinary and
cross disciplinary communities
Wrap up and presentation of certificates
particular, provided an array of opportunities to

compare the pedagogical effectiveness of various
pedagogical models with the affordances and
constraints of the spaces, technologies and their
own pedagogical context.
The workshop facilitators utilised both the
technological and spatial features of the learning
spaces, so that teachers could explore different
theoretical approaches to teaching and learning
such as inquiry learning, independent learning
and discovery-based learning. They were provided with many reflective opportunities to examine their own belief systems and how they
might be translated into learning designs for
technology-enriched learning environments, including the challenges and enablers. The teachers
all participated in hands-on training in both
physical spaces and a familiarization with the
classroom management software that will be used
in their own spaces, LMS technologies, virtual
worlds, mobile technologies and Web 2.0 technologies. This enabled teachers to develop an
understanding of the affordances and constraints
of the space and the technologies and develop a
coherent vision for how they might utilise the
space for their own teaching and learning activities.
The final workshops enabled teachers to test
their learning designs in their selected space with
feedback from peers. The peer reviews were conducted with an emphasis on providing with a safe
and respectful space to practice the implementation
of their designs with constructive and supportive
peer feedback (Eisen, 2001; Pedder, et al., 2008).
This concluding component was also designed
to enable teachers to re-visit their beliefs and to
promote leadership, strong communities of practice and mentoring strategies. The mini-teaching
sessions were highly successful with teachers
demonstrating a wide variety of approaches to
257
utilising the spaces. There was a strong emphasis on active and collaborative learning in the
presentations, signalling a shift for many in their
teaching and learning approaches. Many teachers
were also keen to explore opportunities for team
teaching offered by the new centre.
The combination of online modules and faceto-face workshops were derived from the model
of academic development for technology-enriched
learning spaces (Figure 2). Throughout the program teachers became increasingly supportive
of one another and prepared to share their ideas,
knowledge and expertise. The course was fully
evaluated throughout and that data is currently being analysed. Additionally, a follow-up evaluation
will take place in mid 2010 once teachers have
experienced teaching in their own spaces. Each
workshop was rated individually and qualitative
data was gathered to monitor learning and identify learning gaps. Facilitators were then able to
respond to evaluations at subsequent workshops.
Feedback from teachers generally indicated that
participants were happy with the quality and content of the workshops. In particular, they indicated
that the opportunities the program provided for
practice and peer-learning were highly valued.
The online modules, though integrated with the
workshops, were not received as well. Teachers
found that allocating time outside of the face-toface sessions was difficult.
Leadership was also a critical factor. Initially
a distributive leadership model was established
between the academic developers and the school
with a strong sense of partnership and commitment on both sides. With changes in leadership
in the school, this partnership was not sustained
at the same level and this had a notable impact
on the teachers behaviours. Although the program was successful, the academic developers
all believed that the outcomes would have been
even more powerful if the distributive leadership
approach had continued with equal commitment
and momentum.
258
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluation of the impact of academic development on teacher practices and student learning
in technology-enriched learning spaces, and
development and testing of models of academic
development that support teachers to re-imagine
their teaching for these spaces, are key areas
for further research. The positive outcomes
experienced by teachers who participated in the
programs outlined here suggests that opportunities for practice in the new spaces accompanied
by peer feedback, in particular active helping
(Topping, 2007), should be considered as critical
elements. Programs designed to support teachers
to develop the skills to successfully capitalise on
the affordances of technology-enriched learning
spaces are crucial to the success of these initiatives.
Institutions need to consider how such programs
can be integrated into their overall academic development programs in a timely manner (Long,
2009). Incorporation of models such as the one
offered here should also be offered through formal post-graduate higher education programs to
encourage teacher participation and address the
challenges outlined in this chapter.
In conjunction with dedicated time for appropriate academic development and distributive leadership, reward structures, vision, and
social-cultural factors are influential to the use
of technology-enriched learning spaces. Enabling
teachers to participate in change means using
motivational strategies and addressing perceived
barriers. For example, reward incentives can be
as powerful an influence as lack of time for some
faculty members (Newton, 2003; Zhou & Xu,
2007). With competing priorities it is important
that both leaders and faculty are allocated sufficient time and recognised and valued for their
efforts to transform their teaching (Pajo & Wallace, 2001). Some university teachers have felt
that there is a lack of respect, institutionally, for
the development of teaching materials because it
is not a research-related activity (Newton, 2003).

These kinds of perceptions need to be constantly
and specifically addressed through all levels of
leadership in order for teaching cultures to buy into
change. Implementing change strategies that are
culturally aligned with institutional, disciplinary
and pedagogical beliefs and priorities are more
likely to be successful (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).
CONCLUSION
In order to see a strong cost-benefit return for the
significant financial and capital investment these
spaces command, a substantial investment in the
academic development needs of university teachers needs to be made. Teachers require time and
experience using technologies to translate their
pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about technologies
and re-imagine their teaching in these spaces (Hai,
2008). This chapter offers a model for academic
development for technology-enriched spaces that
has been well received in the contexts it has been
applied thus far. As outlined here such academic
development programs need to draw on the benefits of academic developers elastic practice
(Carew, et al., 2008), in conjunction with a focus
on distributive leadership. Such approaches have
been seen to go some way towards addressing
the range of challenges faced by teachers and
disciplinary cultures in adapting to technologyenriched learning environments. Additionally,
these approaches can be powerful in encouraging
teachers to develop a strong pedagogical vision
for their use of these technology-enriched spaces.
REFERENCES
P2P. (2006). Policy peer review ICT in schools:
Methodology. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from
http://insight.eun.org/ shared/data/insight/ documents/ P2PMethodology.pdf
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boud, D. (2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London,
UK: Kogan Page.
Carew, A. L., Lefoe, G., Bell, M., & Amour, L.
(2008). Elastic practice in academic developers. The
International Journal for Academic Development,
13(1), 5166. doi:10.1080/13601440701860250
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the
affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113124.
doi:10.1080/0968776042000216183
de Figueiredo, A. D., & Afonso, A. P. (2006).
Context and learning: A philosophical framework.
In de Figueiredo, A. D., & Afonso, A. P. (Eds.),
Managing learning in virtual settings: The role
of context (pp. 122). London, UK: Information
Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/9781591404880.
ch001
Diaz, V., Garret, P., Kinley, E., Moore, J., Schwartz,
C., & Kohrman, P. (2009). Faculty development
for the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(3),
4655.
Eisen, M.-J. (2001). Peer-based professional
develoment viewed through the lens of transformation. Holistic Nursing Practice, 16(1), 3042.
Fitzgerald, R., Barrass, S., Campbell, J., Hinton,
S., Ryan, Y., Whitelaw, M., et al. (2009). Digital
learning communities: Investigating the application of social software to support networked
learning. Australian Learning and Teaching
Council. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.
au /18476/1/c18476.pdf
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crvola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Toronto, Canada: Corwin Press.
259
Hai, B. (2008). Facilitating development of student

teachers positive beliefs about educational technologies through electronic modelling, reflection
and technology experience. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(1). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://
www.itdl.org/Journal/ Jan_08/article04.htm
Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures?
Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171183.
doi:10.1080/01580370600751187
Hooker, M. (2008). Models and best practice
in teacher professional development. Retrieved
April 27, 2010, from http://www.gesci.org/old/
files/ docman/Teacher_Professional_ Development_Models.pdf
Hornby, W. (2003). Case studies in streamlining
assessment. Aberdeen, UK: Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, The Robert
Gordon University.
Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in the
Web 2.0 world. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ publications/documents /
heweb2.aspx.
JISC. (2009). Effective practice in a digital age:
A guide to technology-enhanced learning and
teaching. Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://
www.jisc.ac.uk/media/ documents/publications/
effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf
Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004). The millennial effect: Implications for academic development. In Transforming Knowledge into Wisdom:
Holistic Approaches to Teaching and Learning,
Proceedings of the 27th Annual HERDSA Conference (pp. 194-206). Miri, Sarawak.
260
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennet, S., Gray, C.,

Judd, T., Waycott, J., et al. (2009). Education and
the net generation: Implications for learning and
teaching in Australian universities. Australian
Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved May
27, 2010, from http://www.altc.edu.au/system /
files/resources/CG6-25_Melbourne _Kennedy_
Final%20Report _July09_v2.pdf
Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and
constraints to evaluate the use of information
and communications technology in teaching and
learning. Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 10(1&2), 101116.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of
institutional culture on change strategies in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education,
73(4), 435460. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038
Kirkup, G., & Kirkwood, A. (2005). Information
and communications technologies (ICT) in higher
education teaching: A tale of gradualism rather
than revolution. Learning, Media and Technology,
30(2), 185199. doi:10.1080/17439880500093810
Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2001). Department
leadership in higher education. Buckingham,
UK: SRHE and Open University.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Lefoe, G. (2010). Creating the future: Changing
culture through leadership capacity development.
In U. D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (Eds.), Changing cultures in higher education. A handbook for
strategic change (189-204). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer Verlag.
Long, G. (2009). Professional development for
21st century learning and teaching. Retrieved from
http://blog.garethl.com/2009/ 04/proessionaldevelopment-for-21st.html
Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M.

(2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51(1), 142154. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2007.04.004
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances:
Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of the Graphics Interface Conference (pp.
179-186). Montreal, Canada.
Miller, S., Meier, E., Payne-Bourcy, L., Shablak,
S., Newmann, D. L., Wan, T. Y., et al. (2003).
Technology use as a catalyst for change: A leadership framework for transforming urban teacher
preparation. International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 7(12). Retrieved May 27,
2010, from http://iejll.synergiesprairies.ca/ iejll/
index.php/iejll/ article/viewFile/427/89
Moschkovich, J. N., & Brenner, M. E. (2000).
Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into research on
mathematics and science cognition and learning.
In Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook
of research design in mathematics and science
education (pp. 457486). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Newton, R. (2003). Staff attitudes to the
development and delivery of e-learning.
New Library World, 104(1193), 412425.
doi:10.1108/03074800310504357
Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from
classrooms to learning spaces. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 28(1), 1418.
Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite,

S., Graber, R., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2009). A
study of effective evaluation models and practices
for technology supported physical learning spaces
(JELS). Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences
Research Institute, University of Nottingham.
Pedder, D., Storey, A., & Opfer, V. D. (2008).
Schools and continuing professional development
(CPD) in England - State of the nation research
project: A report commissioned by the Training
and Development Agency for Schools. Cambridge
University and the Open University.
Punie, Y. (2007). Learning spaces: An ICT-enabled
model of future learning in the knowledge-based
society. European Journal of Education, 42(2),
185199. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00302.x
Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers
theory to interpret instructional computer use by
COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 39(1), 81104.
Steel, C. H. (2009a). Reconciling university
teacher beliefs to create learning designs for LMS
environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 399420.
Steel, C. H. (2009b). The interrelationship between university teachers pedagogical beliefs,
beliefs about Web technologies and Web practices.
Brisbane: Unpublished PhD, Griffith University.
Pajo, K., & Wallace, C. (2001). Barriers to the

uptake of Web-based technology by university
teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 16(1),
7084.
Steel, C. H., & Levy, M. (2009). Creativity and

constraint: Understanding teacher beliefs and the
use of LMS technologies. In R. Atkinson & C.
McBeath (Eds.), Same places, different spaces.
Proceedings of ASCILITE Conference Auckland
2009 (pp. 1013-1022). Auckland, New Zealand:
Auckland University.
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of

problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers beliefs
regarding technology use. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(2), 247267.
Tierney, W. G. (1996). Leadership and postmodernism: On voice and the qualitative method.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 371383.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90026-0
261
Topping, K. (2007). Trends in peer learning.

Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631645.
doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
Trowler, P., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories
and recurrent practices in the enhancement
of teaching and learning through educational
development programmes. Higher Education
Research & Development, 21(3), 221240.
doi:10.1080/0729436022000020742
Vrakking, W. J. (1995). The implementation game.
Journal of Organisational Change, 8(3), 3146.
doi:10.1108/09534819510090141
Waldron, N., Dawson, S., & Burnett, B. (2005).
Academic staff development in online learning
and teaching: Developing online pedagogies. In
Proceedings of AUSweb 2005. Gold Coast. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.
au/aw05 /papers/refereed/waldron /index.html
ADDITIONAL READING
Andrews, T., & Powell, D. (2009) Collaborative
Teaching and Learning Centres at the University
of Queensland. In D., Radcliffe, H., Wilson, D.
Powell, & B. Tibbetts, (Eds.), Learning spaces in
higher education: Positive outcomes by design:
Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning
Spaces 2008 Colloquium (pp 41-48) Brisbane:
University of Queensland.
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of long-duration
professional development academy on technology
skills, computer efficacy and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on
Chen, C. H. (2007). Cultural diversity in
instructional design for technology-based
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 11131116. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00738.x
Watson, L. (2007). Building the future of learning.

European Journal of Education, 42(2), 255263.
doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00299.x
Chen, Y. L. (2008). Modelling the determinants of

technology use. Computers & Education, 51(2),
545558. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.007
Yerrick, R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997).

Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The
filtering effect of teachers beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science.
Science Education, 81(2), 137159. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<137::AIDSCE2>3.0.CO;2-G
Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design

toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning
activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://jime.
open.ac.uk/2005/08/
Young, S. F. (2008). Theoretical frameworks and

models of learning: Tools for developing conceptions of teaching and learning. The International
Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 4149.
doi:10.1080/13601440701860243
Zhou, G., & Xu, J. (2007). Adoption of educational
technology ten years after setting strategic goals: A
Canadian university case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 508528.
262
Cox, M., & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT:

Do we know what we should know? Education
and Information Technologies, 12(2), 5970.
doi:10.1007/s10639-007-9032-x
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as
transformative learning: New perspectives for
teachers of adults. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2002). Reflecting on
teaching: The influence of context. The International Journal for Academic Development, 7(2),
167176. doi:10.1080/1360144032000071288
Dearn, J., Fraser, K., & Ryan, Y. (2002). Investigation into the provision of professional development
for university teaching in Australia: A discussion
paper. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Downes, S. (2005) E-learning 2.0, National
Research Council of Canada. Retrieved May
27, 2010, from http://elearnmag.org/ subpage.
cfm?section= articles&article=29-1.
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr,
S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about good
teaching: An integration of contrasting research.
Higher Education Research & Development,
19(1), 526. doi:10.1080/07294360050020444
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs:
The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research
and Development, 53(4), 2539. doi:10.1007/
BF02504683
Ertmer, P., Ross, E. M., & Gopalakrishnan, S.
(2000). Technology-using teachers: How powerful visions and student-centered beliefs fuel
exemplary practice. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price
& R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2000 (pp. 1519-1524).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York,
C. S. (2006-2007). Exemplary technology-using
teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
23(2), 5561.
Ferman, T. (2002). Academic professional development practice: What lecturers
find valuable. The International Journal
for Academic Development, 7(2), 146158.
doi:10.1080/1360144032000071305
Gaible, E., & Burns, M. (2005). Using Technology

to Train Teachers (Online). Retrieved April 27,
2010, from http://www.infodev.org/en /Publication.13.html.
Hatch, T., Bass, R., Iiyoshi, T., & Mace, D. P.
(2004). Building knowledge for teaching and
learning. Change, September/October, 36(5):
62-66.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The
conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong
staff development programme. Higher Education,
42(2), 143169. doi:10.1023/A:1017546216800
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers beliefs about ICT in education:
Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149173.
doi:10.1080/13664530701414779
JISC. (2006). Designing spaces for effective
learning: A guide to 21st Century learning space
design. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/ publications/programmerelated /2006/
pub_spaces.aspx.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the
knowledge society. Educause, January/February,
16-25.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, S. C. (2007). Teachers pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct
of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2),
272286.
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on
263
Miller, S., Meier, E., Payne-Bourcy, L., Shablak,

S., Newmann, D. L., Wan, T. Y., et al. (2003).
Technology use as a catalyst for change: A leadership framework for transforming urban teacher
preparation. International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 7(12). Retrieved May
27, 2010, from http://www.ucalgary.ca /iejll/
miller_et_al.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers use
of information and communications technology:
A review of the literature. Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319341.
Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from
classrooms to learning spaces. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 28(1), 1418.
Pelgrum, W. J., & Law, N. (2003). ICT in education around the world: Trends, problems and
prospects. Paris: UNESCO.
Prensky, M. (2007). How to teach with technology: Keeping both teachers and students comfortable in an era of exponential change. Emerging
Technologies for Learning, BECTA., 2(9), 4046.
Roche, V. (2001). Professional development models and transformative change: A case study of indicators of effective practice in higher education. The
International Journal for Academic Development,
6(2), 120129. doi:10.1080/13601440110090767
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299325.
doi:10.1023/A:1004130031247
Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance
predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 37(1), 6582. doi:10.2190/
J3GM-3RK1-2907-7U03
264
Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers decisions to adopt technology.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
7(4), 201213.
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy
related to information and communication technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3),
235286. doi:10.1080/14759390400200183
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing
teachers use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social
dynamics and institutional culture. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165205.
doi:10.3102/00028312039001165
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006).
Implementing computer technologies: Teachers
perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173207.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Academic Developers: Scholarly professionals with expertise in the discipline of Higher
Education who focus on providing a link between
pedagogical practice, research and theory.
Academic Development: Opportunities to
develop the link between pedagogical practice,
research and theory.
Affordances: The action possibilities inherent
in technologies and spaces that can be realised
by a teacher in relation to their own pedagogical
context.
Distributive Leadership: Leadership that is
enacted through power sharing of knowledge and
ideas by collegial groups.
Learning Designs: Curriculum-based framework that includes tasks and interactions that are
designed to promote student learning.
Pedagogical Context: The variable that are

interwoven into the act of learning and teachings
such as teacher and student characteristics and
preferences, the pedagogical approach employed
by specific disciplines, the organisation of the
learning environment as well as disciplinary and
institutional culture and norms.
Teacher Beliefs: A complex and inter-related

system of personal and professional beliefs that
are often held implicitly and serve as cognitive
maps that underlie teachers practices.
Technology-Enriched Spaces: Innovative
physical learning environments that are equipped
with a range of technology tools and designed to
support new ways of learning and teaching.
265

HGGHHJ

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationhukklj

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

HGGHHJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HGGHHJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical and Virtual

Senior Editorial Director:

Published in the United States of America by

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

An Academic Development Model

technology-enriched formal learning spaces for

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

the use of technology to support learning

These new technology-enriched learning

to re-imagine their teaching, learning designs

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

Leadership as a Critical Component

disciplinary and faculty-based cultures. Teachers

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

these kinds of collegial-partner leadership roles

The Need for Academic Development

are critical (Hughes, 2009). As Diaz et al. (2009),

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

in mind we need to consider how we can assist

Persistent Issues Around Technology

and learning environment and provide a number

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

4. Encourage teachers to be aware of their own

designed to sustain transformative practices in

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

companions (Topping, 2007, p. 631). Approaches

Long makes the important point that academic

The Challenges of Teaching

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

Figure 1. Challenges of teaching in new learning spaces

Pedagogical Beliefs and Beliefs

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

learning spaces are highly influential on the way

Pedagogical Vision for Use of

to understand how their learning is meant to

Discipline, Curriculum and

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

models to assist them to change their curriculum

Student Profiles, Needs and Challenges

Pedagogical Effectiveness vs. Real

Affordances and Constraints of

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

Figure 2. A model of academic development for technology-enriched learning spaces

A more interrelational view of the concept was

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

facilitate a process whereby academics can

Further, congruent with the notion of academic

Stage 1: Teachers Pedagogical

Stages 2a-2d: Orienting to

Re-Imagining Teaching for Technology-Enriched Learning Spaces

Table 1. Teacher challenges mapped to model

Mapped to Model (Figure 2)

a. Pedagogical beliefs and beliefs about technologies

b. Pedagogical vision for use of space

1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d

c. Discipline, curriculum and assessment agendas

d. Student profiles, needs and challenges