Technology, Pedagogy and Education

ISSN: 1475-939X (Print) 1747-5139 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rtpe20

Technology for teacher learning and performance

Susan McKenney & Adrie J. Visscher

To cite this article: Susan McKenney & Adrie J. Visscher (2019) Technology for teacher
learning and performance, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28:2, 129-132, DOI:
10.1080/1475939X.2019.1600859

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1600859

Published online: 12 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12446

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpe20
TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 129–132
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1600859

GUEST EDITORIAL

Technology for teacher learning and performance

Introduction
Teachers are bombarded with information about technological innovation for their students, yet
they receive far less guidance on the use of technologies that can support their own work. Within
the limited literature on tools to support teachers, there is a prevalence of research on course
management rather than tools to facilitate core teaching performance. Also, within this limited
literature on tools to support teaching performance, the theoretical and empirical basis is extre-
mely limited. This issue focuses squarely on the relationship between pedagogical practice and
technological innovation.

The core tasks of teachers

Teachers vary tremendously. Accordingly, teachers differ in their perceptions of themselves as
professionals (Van Veen, Sleegers, Bergen, & Klaassen, 2001) and of the tasks for which they feel
responsible. However, the core tasks performed by all competent teachers remain constant. These
are design, enactment and reflection (McKenney, 2017).

Design
Teachers design both before and during lessons. The work beforehand goes beyond simple
planning. As a design science (Laurillard, 2012), teaching requires pedagogical choices, organisa-
tional structuring and the curation, customisation or creation of learning resources. Successful
teachers curate, customise or create engaging tasks that give students meaningful work to do
(Darling-Hammond, 2016). They map pathways, over the course of a lesson, unit or semester,
through which learning will progress towards the construction of big ideas (Windschitl, Thompson,
Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012) or the development of disciplinary practices (Enfield, 2014). Yet design
also takes place during lessons, in the form of in-the-moment improvisation. Teachers typically
design in action due to either unforeseen opportunities, such as when a ‘teachable moment’
presents itself, or the observation that the current approach could be improved. Design-in-action
includes pedagogical decision making such as an impromptu group discussion, the adjustment of
learning tasks or revision of student choice options. It also includes the development of interaction
norms, and classroom management strategies, which are regularly fine-tuned on the fly.

Enactment
At the heart of the profession, navigating the complexity of learner differences, social dynamics
and instructional targets, the enactment of teaching cannot be prescribed. Rather, performing it
well involves knowing in action – a constant effort to observe, recognise, judge, decide and act
(Schoenfeld, 2000; Schön, 1983; Shulman, 1987). During enactment, competent teachers: constantly
assess students to identify strengths and learning approaches as well as needs, and to examine the
effects of different instructional efforts; scaffold a process of successive conversations, steps and
learning experiences; help develop student confidence, motivation and effort and assure that
students feel connected and capable in school (Darling-Hammond, 2016). For example, teachers
© 2019 Association for Information Technology in Teacher Education
130 S. MCKENNEY AND A. J. VISSCHER

working to help students understand and participate in scientific discourse guide conversations
that elicit student ideas to adapt instruction, help students make sense of material activity and
press students for evidence-based explanations (Windschitl et al., 2012).

Reflection
Like design, reflection also takes place both in and out of lessons. Starting with his seminal work in
1987, the industrial consultant, urban planner, policy analyst and higher education teacher Donald
Schön championed the crucial significance of reflection-in-action – a form of inquiry-while-doing.
For teachers, this includes on-the-spot experimentation and adjustment, such as requesting feed-
back from learners or debriefing to gauge understanding. Darling-Hammond refers to strategies
teachers use to promote student learning while also investigating student thinking as two-way
pedagogies (Darling-Hammond, 1996). Their results inform immediate actions, future design and
teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Outside of the learning environment, reflection-on-action
with external support also helps teachers improve their instruction. This process takes place
informally, for example while grading papers or conversing with colleagues, but stands to be
more meaningful when more formalised, for example through self-studies (Zeichner, 2007) or
professional learning communities (Little & Horn, 2007).

Technology to support teacher learning and performance

Technology has powerful potential to support teacher learning while performing the three core
tasks of teaching, described above. Tools that support design could, for example, guide the
processes of creating new activities or resources, or help teachers assemble and curate existing
resources in ways that foster alignment between aims, learning activities and assessment
(McKenney & Mor, 2015). During lesson enactment, technologies could support teacher learning
and performance by offering real-time feedback, such as bug-in-ear coaching (Elford, Carter, &
Aronin, 2013; Rock et al., 2014), or by giving insight into whole -class and individual student
progress through annotated dashboards of (aggregated) student progress (Visscher, 2017). Tools
that support reflection include apps through which teachers can collect student feedback on
lessons, or video reviewing protocols for reflecting on classroom events (van der Meij, Coenders,
& McKenney, 2017). Various tools for teacher learning and performance are in development,
though a structured examination of such resources is severely lacking. All articles in the special
issue therefore respond to the following question, What does research tell us about how teacher
learning and performance can be supported by technology?

About this special issue

Recent research has shown that curriculum resources specifically designed to help students (many
of which are technology based) yield significantly better results at scale when they concomitantly
attend to the teacher learning (ParejaRoblin, Schunn, & McKenney, 2018). As the field of educa-
tional technology moves forward, researchers and developers must understand the importance of,
and learn to attend to, the needs of both teachers and students (Hopster-den Otter, Wools, Eggen,
& Veldkamp, 2017). Failure to do so is likely to only increase the creation of educational technol-
ogies that do not reach practice. This is because too many technologies require more time,
expertise or technological infrastructure than the teachers and schools concerned can handle. In
other words, we need to prevent excess work beyond the zone of proximal implementation
(McKenney, 2013), and help researchers and developers focus on technologies that can be used
in the here and now, with realistic and sustainable amounts of guidance, where needed. Teacher
performance tools of this nature are valuable on their own, and essential for enabling effective use
of pedagogical tools for students. To address the need for work with this kind of focus, this special
 TECHNOLOGY, PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION 131

issue offers a structured, research-based examination of technologies that support teacher learning
and performance. In accordance with the themes described above, each article positions itself in
light of the core tasks of teachers.
Two of the contributions speak to supporting teachers during the core task of design. Tekkumru-
Kisa and Schunn describe iPlan, a web-based tool which provides online access to educative
curriculum materials in an interactive learning platform. It supports teacher design by enabling
teachers to share their adaptations and reflections, and compares their versions with those
developed by experts. Prestridge, Tondeur, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich focus on the use of digital
applications for developing and curating curriculum materials and designing learning sequences.
The findings show how teachers relied on their online social networks for design. These studies
reveal the kinds of insights teachers seek during design, while also demonstrating that design
knowledge is often distributed as well as enriched through social connections.
Two of the contributions concern support for teachers during the core task of enactment. Loper
et al. examine how teacher beliefs about scientific argumentation are influenced by multimedia
educative curriculum materials, and the subsequent impacts on pupil learning. They found that
teachers became more confident in their abilities to teach argumentation as they enacted more
lessons, likely due to the clear exemplification of practice offered by the videos. Matsumura et al.
describe a technology-rich teacher professional development programme designed to build tea-
cher knowledge about dialogic reading instruction. This technology-rich programme supported
teachers in attending specifically to the relationship between their instruction and student think-
ing. Both of these studies demonstrate how technology can support teachers in focusing on the
strophic interaction between their performance and student learning.
Two of the contributions address support for teachers during the core task of reflection. Bijlsma
et al. describe a smartphone-assisted app through which students can give immediate feedback
following a lesson. The effects of the student feedback on teacher reflection and behaviour are
discussed. Philipsen et al. describe the design and enactment of an online teacher professional
development scenario aiming to foster reflection in action and reflection on action. Both of these
studies show that technology can catalyse or provide valuable inputs for reflection, but that
additional efforts are required for reflective practices to be sustained.
This special issue offers a structured, research-based examination of technologies that support
teacher learning and performance. This editorial has focused on describing the core tasks of
teaching (design, enactment and reflection) as well as some of the commensurate roles technology
has the potential to play. Each article in the special issue positions itself in light of this guiding
framework. Taken together, this collection offers both theoretical insights as well as practical
guidelines for supporting teacher performance through the use of technology.

Acknowledgments
The guest editors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the TPE editorial team for their support in
bringing this special issue to fruition. We are especially grateful to Hannah Bijlsma, who served as guest editorial
assistant throughout the entire process.

References
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for
democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5–17.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice.
Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91.
Elford, M., Carter Jr, R. A., & Aronin, S. (2013). Virtual reality check: Teachers use bug-in-ear coaching to practice
feedback techniques with student avatars. Journal of Staff Development, 34, 40–43.
Enfield, M. (2014). Reading scientifically: Practices supporting intertextual reading using science knowledge. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25, 395–412.
132 S. MCKENNEY AND A. J. VISSCHER

Hopster-den Otter, D., Wools, S., Eggen, T. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2017). Formative use of test results: A user’s
perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 12–23.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2007). Normalizing problems of practice: Converting routine conversation into a resource for
learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence,
depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79–92). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McKenney, S. (2013). Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal
implementation. Research in Learning Technology Supplement 2013, 21: 17374.
McKenney, S. (2017). Een infrastructuur voor de professionele groei van docenten [Infrastructuring teacher professional
growth]. Inaugural lecture. Enschede: University of Twente.
McKenney, S., & Mor, Y. (2015). Supporting teachers in data-informed educational design. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46, 265–279.
Pareja Roblin, N., Schunn, C., & McKenney, S. (2018). What are critical features of science curriculum materials that
impact student and teacher outcomes? Science Education, 102, 260–282.
Rock, M. L., Schumacker, R. E., Gregg, M., Howard, P. W., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. (2014). How are they now? Longer
term effects of e coaching through online bug-in-ear technology. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37,
161–181.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Models of the teaching process. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 243–261.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
van der Meij, J., Coenders, F., & McKenney, S. (2017, June). Naar praktische en effectieve videoclub routines voor leraren
in opleiding [Towards practical and effective videoclub routines in teacher education]. Round table presentation at
the Onderwijs Research Dagen [Educational Research Days], Antwerp, Belgium.
Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Klaassen, C. (2001). Professional orientations of secondary school teachers
towards their work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 175–194.
Visscher, A. J. (2017). Gericht ontwikkelen van leerkrachtkwaliteiten [Deliberately developing teacher capacity].
Inaugural lecture. Enschede: University of Twente.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools
for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58,
36–46.

Susan McKenney and Adrie J. Visscher

University of Twente