IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Role of Educational Technologies Utilizing the TPACK Framework and 21st Century
Pedagogies: Academics’ Perspectives
Tirtha Goradia
Endeavour College of Natural Health, Australia

43

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Abstract
With the rapid development in information technology and the need to acquire 21st century
skills, global trends in higher education are shifting towards using digital pedagogies. In lightof this, Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) framework to integrate technology with teaching. The framework has
now been explored and implemented in various educational institutions. This study aims tocollect academics’ perspectives on various technologies and pedagogies used at the institutethrough the lens of the TPACK framework. A mixed-methods study, using a survey-basedquestionnaire, was undertaken to collect academics’ perspectives. The study revealed a wide
range of technologies and pedagogies being used to enhance 21st century competencies andskills. The TPACK framework provides a useful tool to gauge the learning environment anddisplays a complex interaction between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge specificto the learning environment. The results highlight the need to use technology for innovationand to renovate contemporary teaching practices for 21st century learning.
Keywords: TPACK, pedagogies, technologies, higher education, 21st century

44

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Introduction
The last decade has seen an exponential increase in the use of information technology within
the Higher Education (HE) sector. Most higher education institutions have incorporated
teaching with technology to enhance the learning experience for students. New learningtechnologies are being implemented with the aim of enhancing student engagement andacademic outcomes. With the development in information technology, current trends in HE are
now embracing a wide range of technologies which include, but are not limited to, discussion
forums, simulation, virtual reality, webinars, wiki space, Kahoot, as well as social media
technologies.
Further, as a result of globalization in HE and the demands of current knowledge age, the needsof the 21st century learners have been changing. 21st century pedagogies have therefore
stemmed from this need to provide learners with the opportunity to develop necessarycompetencies and skills to meet the current demands. Global trends in HE are therefore shifting
towards digital pedagogies. According to Lai (2011) digital technologies can enhance learning
experiences when used as a medium to support collaboration and construction of knowledge.
This paper reviews the TPACK framework as developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009). The
TPACK framework was introduced with the aim of integrating technology into teaching. The
framework involves a complex interaction among three major components: content, pedagogy,
and technology. TPACK studies have been explored in various educational institutions to study
the relationship between technology and pedagogy with opportunities, as well as challenges,
having been identified in the process. The TPACK model has allowed for increase in bothstudent engagement and collaboration, as well as flexibility in learning (Lye, 2013). Academics
considered the TPACK framework as a heuristic for exploring the dynamic elements for
effective teaching with technology (Glowatz & O'Brien, 2017). On the other hand, academics
perceive limitations with specific tools in terms of design and usage and have raised concernswith use of TPACK framework in the context of specific tools such as social networking sites(Glowatz & O'Brien, 2015, 2017; Lye, 2013).
This study evaluates academics’ perspectives on various technologies and pedagogies that are
being used at the institute to determine whether they contribute to 21st century learning. The
data would allow academics to rethink about digital technologies and how this can improvelearning experiences.
Literature Review
Shulman (1986, 1987) described the categories of knowledge that a teacher requires to promotecomprehension among students. In particular was the knowledge of content and pedagogy thatblended together to create a flexible learning environment for diverse groups of students. The
TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s work to include technology for effective teaching andemerges from interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology Koehler and Mishra(2009).
Components of TPACK framework
The three main components of the framework are: Content knowledge, Pedagogicalknowledge and Technological knowledge. See Figure 1.

45

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge components (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
Content knowledge involves the lecturers’ grasp on the subject content. This would include
scientific facts, theories, evidence-based reasoning as well as discipline specific practices.
Pedagogical knowledge involves lecturers’ knowledge about teaching and learning. This
includes ways of representing and formulating the subject content that make it comprehensible
to others (Shulman, 1986). Technology knowledge involves understanding technology for
information processing, communication, and problem solving (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain,2013).
A complex interaction between the three domains gives rise to an additional three components:
pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge and technologicalpedagogical knowledge (see figure 1.) Technological cntent knowledge refers to lecturer’s
knowledge on use of appropriate technology in order to communicate the content material
within specific discipline. Pedagogical content knowledge includes appropriate methods ofteaching to convey a specific content. Here the teacher knows the subject matter and uses
different ways of representing it. Technological pedagogical knowledge demonstrates how aparticular technology enhances teaching and learning. Technology can be used differently tosuit the context and purpose.

46

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

The framework has been implemented in various educational institutions with most of them
reporting average levels of technology integration in their teaching and learning process. The
studies have identified further need for improvement in technological, pedagogical and content
aspects of teaching and learning skills (Benson & Ward, 2013; Lye, 2013). While someeducators emphasize technology over pedagogy, others prefer pedagogical knowledge overtechnology for an effective TPACK implementation. In contrast, other studies have foundimprovement in students’ knowledge and skills especially within the science domain(Sheffield, Eva, Gibson, Mullaney, & Campbell, 2015). In general most educators believe
competency with TPACK as a core attribute essential for professional development in theteaching and learning environment.
21st Century
The need for 21st century learning and skills. Today’s world faces challenges such as
climate change, socio-economic inequality, unemployment, globalization, and cultural
diversity. “The 21st century is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous” (Acedo & Hughes,
2014, p. 504). Additionally, with the development in information technology there is a growing
need to keep abreast with technology. Educators, therefore, highlight the importance ofrestructuring education system such as to prepare 21st century learners to face these complex
challenges. Educators as well as the public support the notion that higher-order thinking skills
are essential to face these complex issues and involve creativity, critical thinking, collaborationand lifelong learning (Acedo & Hughes, 2014; Sacconaghi, 2006; Scott, 2015)
21st century skills. The Framework for 21st Century Learning (Partnership for 21st Century
Learning, 2007) identifies the skills, knowledge and expertise required by students in order tobe successful in the current digital economy. The 21st century skills are categorized as: learningand innovation skills (creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication andcollaboration); information, media and technology skills; and life and career skills. These arebriefly described below (Applied Educational Systems, 2018):
Creativity: Allows students to review concepts from a different perspective
which ultimately leads to innovation.
Critical thinking: A skill that allows students to analyze evidence and form
judgement to solve problems.
Problem-solving: Refers to the ability to solve problems in an effective andtimely manner.
Communication: A skill that allows students to effectively convey ideas amongst
peers.
Collaboration: Collaboration means getting students to work together in order tofind solution to a problem.
Information literacy: Understanding facts, figures, statistics, and data.
Media literacy: Understanding the methods in which information isdisseminated.
Technology literacy: Understanding of the tools used to disperse theinformation.
Life and Career skills: Allows for personal and professional growth thereby
leading to lifelong learning.
21st century pedagogies. Several educators have highlighted the significance of 21st century
pedagogies (Acedo & Hughes, 2014; Breslow, 2015; Kivunja, 2014, 2015; Scott, 2015). These47

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

are the pedagogies that develop higher-order thinking skills, metacognitive skills, and support
deeper learning through collaboration.
Unver and Arabacioglu (2014) have reflected on inquiry-based learning (IBL) and problembased learning (PBL) as pedagogies that can solve current age challenges through theacquisition of problem solving skills. The authors identify IBL as a learning activity whereby
learners acquire knowledge from direct observations by using deductive questions. They
further differentiate it from PBL as a learning activity whereby learners learn throughinvestigation, explanation and resolution of meaningful problems. Similarly, Snow and Torney(2015) through their mixed-methods study suggest that inquiry-based learning has the potential
to develop students’ cognitive skills at a higher level thereby promoting problem-solving,
critical thinking and leadership skills. Furthermore, empirical research on inquiry-basedlearning reveals enhanced academic performance and student engagement in students using
this pedagogy (Summerlee & Murray, 2010).
Several researchers have reviewed collaborative learning as a pedagogy to facilitate learning(Beccaria, Kek, Huijser, Rose, & Kimmins, 2014; Fakomogbon & Bolaji, 2017; Scott, 2015).
In particular, the study by Fakomogbon and Bolaji (2017) revealed that collaborative mobile
learning through portable devices or smartphone could enhance motivation, academic
outcomes, and engagement through sharing knowledge, group discussions, and groupassessments with group members. According to Scott (2015), learners through collaborative
learning participate in higher-order thinking such as managing, organizing, critical analysis,
problem resolution, and creating new knowledge.
The availability of digital technologies has also generated informal ways of learning to support
formal studies (Kwok-Wing & Smith, 2017). Digital technologies such as laptops, mobile
phones, Google, iPads, tablets, as well as social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitterare quite popular among students and are being used to complement formal learning methods.
Several researchers, therefore, are now investigating the role of informal methods within thelearning space. Kwok-Wing and Smith (2017) suggest incorporating mobile and digitaltechnologies in the formal courses in conjunction with more traditional methods of learning inorder to cater for the diverse learning style of students. Kivunja (2015) recommends higher
education institutions to utilize social media technologies as effective pedagogies to support
effective learning, teaching and assessment in the 21st century. These technologies create
opportunities for experiential learning. The author believes that experiential learning can be avery effective way for cognitive processing as it involves the reciprocal exchange of discourse
amongst students so as to develop a deeper understanding of pedagogical content knowledge.
Yet another pedagogy that has been explored in higher education is constructivist learningwhich emerges from the concepts developed by pioneers, Piaget and Vygotsky. Constructivist
learning allows for students to actively construct their own knowledge in order for learning to
be meaningful and effective (Afify, 2018; Alt, 2017; Asiksoy & Ozdamli, 2017; Noel, 2015;
Scott, 2015). Noel (2015) suggested use of blogs in education to create a constructivist learning
environment that supports knowledge development through student engagement, reflection andcollaboration. Asiksoy and Ozdamli (2017) in their study on education technologies forconstructivist learning found that the most frequently used tool was the computer and the mostcommon platform was learning management system. Additionally, Afify (2018) found digitalconcept mapping an effective tool in support of constructivist learning theory.

48

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Scott (2015) believes the current educational system with fixed curriculum and delivery
method obscures personalised learning and suggests the need to adopt personalised learningfor 21st century education. This form of learning caters to individual needs of students and canbe achieved by using flexible curricula and learning opportunities (Deed et al., 2014; Scott,2015; Waldrip, Yu, & Prain, 2016). For students, this allows development of autonomy,
motivation, and self-regulation (Deed et al., 2014; Scott, 2015). Emerging technologies suchas mobile applications, e-portfolios, blogs, audios, videos allow implementation of
personalized learning. The shift from traditional educational system to adopting more
personalized learning would require a major cultural change in higher education institutions
and involvement of various stakeholders.
Among recent trends in higher education, flipped learning is gaining much attention as a newpedagogy. In a flipped classroom, lectures are viewed beforehand whilst in the class students
are engaged in more student-centered activities in collaboration with other students, andapplying knowledge (Kyung Hye, Kwi Hwa, & Su Jin, 2018; Sletten, 2017; Zipp, Maher, &Olson, 2017). A flipped environment has the potential to improve student’ motivation to learn,enhance self-directed learning skills, and promote reflection and critical thinking, thereby
enhancing learning (Zipp et al., 2017). However, the flipped learning method has gained mixed
review with some academics reporting success while others facing challenges. Further researchin this area is being conducted to understand the applicability of flipped learning within higher
education institutions.
Rationale
21st century pedagogies should rely on research based pedagogies and learning technologies
through real world contexts. The rationale for this research was therefore to collect academics’
perspectives on various technologies and pedagogies being used at our institute through thelens of the TPACK framework. The data collected through this study will provide a detailed
snapshot of whether the technologies and pedagogies contribute to 21st century competencies
and skills. As graduates from Endeavour College of Natural Health are natural healthpractitioners who would have to engage with the demands of the current knowledge age, theywould need the competencies and skills to face such demands. Therefore this study will also
help in providing data to the college for the development of appropriate skills.
Methodology
The study was conducted at Endeavour College of Natural Health which is a national provider
of complementary medicine in Australia and the departments include Biosciences,
Naturopathy, Nutrition, Acupuncture, and Myotherapy. This involved a mixed methods study
using a survey based questionnaire. The mixed methods research design was considered forthis study as the objective of the study was to gather qualitative and quantitative responses. The
quantitative responses would gather information on the use of technologies and pedagogies
with respect to frequency while the qualitative responses would gather information onacademics’ perspectives. The survey instrument covered technologies that were being used at
the college and covered pedagogies that were discussed in the literature review. As the study
aimed to gather academics’ perspectives, all teaching staff were approached for this research.
Participants involved permanent staff and casual academics across all departments as in figures
2 and 3. An estimate of 100 participants was made based on the current teaching capacity at
the college. Ethics approval was gained from the Human Research Ethics Committee andEndeavour Research Committee. Once ethical approval was obtained, academics were49

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

approached and provided with the link to the survey. An information sheet and consent form
was included on the front page of the survey instrument. The survey outlined the aims andpurpose of the study, including a description of what is required of the participant once econsent is obtained. The information sheet also explained that the participation in the survey isvoluntary and if they do not agree to participate they would remain anonymous. Those agreeing
to participate would also remain anonymous. The survey comprised of five sections. Section
A gathered information on participants’ profiles. Section B gathered information on reasonsfor using technology, content taught using this technology as well as any perceived constraints.
Section C explored the Pedagogical Content Knowledge component by framing the researchquestion: How did this pedagogy help in teaching specific content? Section D explored
Technological Content Knowledge by framing the research question: How did this educational
technology/tool best suit to address subject specific content? Lastly section E explored
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge by framing the research question: How did thistechnology enhance student learning?
Participants were provided with a list of pedagogies with a brief description for each. Following
are the 21st century pedagogies identified based on the literature review:
Problem-Based learning - An approach where students acquire the knowledge
through solving the problem. The aim here is to solve the problem. For
example: Case studies.
Inquiry-Based learning - An approach where a problem/scenario is used toincite students to question context, to find information that supports underlying
principles and to reflect upon the wider implications. The aim here is to raisequestions.
Constructivist learning - An approach where students actively construct theirown understanding/knowledge through student-student and teacher-student
collaboration in order for learning to be meaningful and effective.
Personalized learning - Learning is personalized when learners are motivatedto learn as they view the learning task as being engaging and meaningful.
Pedagogies that cater for individuals.
Collaborative learning - A form of social interaction that allows students toshare their ideas and learning experiences, thereby promoting learning
performance of the group as well as of individuals. For example: groupassessment.
Informal learning - As opposed to formal learning, informal learning is interest
driven and occurring incidentally, done in one’s own time or throughparticipation in various social groups using digital and mobile technologies.
Flipped learning - As opposed to a conventional class, flipped learning is anapproach where information is introduced to students before class using
technology (such as mobile devices) thereby allowing more engaging learning
activities during in-class time.
Data Analysis
Pedagogies and technologies were analysed with respect to frequency and qualitative
responses. The data gathered by both research methods was brought together to reveal acomplete picture. The integration occurred during the interpretation of qualitative andquantitative results. Subgroup analysis of qualitative responses was done. The responses toreasons provided for using particular technologies were grouped into following categories:

50

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018student engagement, improving retention, collaborative work, notification, flexibility, user
friendly, assessment purposes, learning purposes, national consistency, and teaching purposes.
Results and Discussion
The findings from the survey analysis are presented in this section. The profile of theparticipants in the survey captures representation across both casual and permanent staff andthe time period they have been teaching at the institute. 20 participants responded to the survey.

Figure 2. Position in college

51

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Figure 3. Duration of time teaching at college
Reasons for using particular technologies
Figures 4 and 5 review reasons for using particular technologies. The qualitative responses on
reasons for using various technologies received from the participants were grouped into
categories such as: student engagement; improving retention; collaborative work; notification;
flexibility to students; user friendly; assessment purposes; learning purposes; national
consistency; and teaching purposes. The results show that a discussion forum was highly rated
by our participants and student engagement was a common reason for using various
technologies. This finding is similar to that found in a research conducted by Glowatz andO'Brien (2017) where discussion forums in the form of the learning management system was
widely used and student engagement appeared as the driving influence for using various
technologies. Online quizzes were considered user friendly as they allowed for automatic
grading thereby saving marking time. An online quiz, discussion forum and wiki forum weretools rated for assessment purposes. Additionally, YouTube, concept maps, virtual patient,screencast recordings, webinar, e Portfolio and Kahoot were the tools considered for teaching
and learning purposes. These are the tools that allow for visual, kinesthetic, and auditory
activities and therefore are important technologies to cater to different types of learners.
Participants were also asked to identify any constraints in using technologies. The reasons werecategorized as tools not being applicable to the discipline, logistic issues, and tools not suitable
to the context. Participants also reported that students often preferred to contact the lecturer
through email as opposed to making any posts on the discussion forum.

52

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Figure 4. Reasons for using particular technologies

Figure 5. Reasons for using particular technologies
Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Figure 6. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

53

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Figure 6 represents information on how the pedagogy helped in teaching specific content
including whether it built on prior knowledge; related to real world scenarios; helped inunderstanding abstract phenomena; connect different concepts; and/or allowed problem
solving. Participants were asked to rate the 21st century pedagogies to show how they helpedin teaching specific content.
Our findings reveal that problem based learning, enquiry-based learning and constructivist
learning were highly rated. These are the pedagogies that enhance deeper learning as opposed
to superficial learning and promote higher order thinking skills. In contrast, collaborative
learning had minimal rating. Other research (Dureta, Christley, Denny, & Senior, 2018;
Fakomogbon & Bolaji, 2017; Kivunja, 2015) has shown positive correlation between
collaborative learning and academic outcomes and also emphasized use of collaborative
assessments. Scott (2015) believes that unless knowledge is created, communicated and sharedthrough collaboration, this can stifle creativity and creativity is an important element of 21st
century competencies. Our finding on collaborative learning therefore seems a concern. Ourfindings also show minimal rating for personalized learning and flipped learning. Besides, there
has been significant research on use of social media platforms such as Facebook and mobile
technologies as educational tools. These tools are also popular with students. However, ourresearch has shown contradictory results with no rating for informal learning.
Technological Content Knowledge
The research question framed to address this component of the TPACK framework was: How
did this technology/tool best suit to address subject specific content? Participants were asked
to indicate how technology helped in understanding the content. Figures 7, 8, and 9 revealed
tools used for understanding abstract phenomena, 3D concepts and accessing additional
resources respectively.

Figure 7. Helped in understanding abstract phenomena

54

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Figure 8. Helped in understanding 3D concepts

Figure 9. Accessing additional resources

55

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
Figures 10 and 11 show responses to how the technology enhanced student learning.

Figure 10. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge

Figure 11. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
Pedagogical knowledge encompasses knowledge of various teaching strategies; student
learning processes, class management; evaluating student outcomes; and above allunderstanding cognitive, social, and behavioral aspects of student learning. Therefore, ourparticipants were asked to rate various technologies against wide range of pedagogical criteria.
While every technology had a specific role in enhancing learning environment, discussion
forum was the highly rated tool and fulfilled a wide range of pedagogical criteria. This
information could also be discipline specific as the technology tools are related to discipline
specific pedagogies. As the majority of our participants belonged to the Biosciences
department, there could have been an element of bias although similar findings are found inother TPACK related research. TPACK studies conducted over the period from 2002-2011 hadscience and mathematics as major subject domains where TPACK studies were explored (Wu,2013) and this could mean that these are the areas just like Biosciences where technologies arewidely embraced.

56

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

To summarise, the author identified several key observations relevant to each component of
the TPACK framework:
1) Reasons for using particular technologies: A discussion forum on the learning
management system was the most widely used tool and student engagement was thedriving influence behind using these tools. Lecturers also used tools that cater todifferent types of learners and their learning styles. These perceptions relate to studentcentricity and reflect on the innovative use of digital technologies to cater to different
learners.
2) Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Lecturers embrace problem-based learning, inquirybased learning and constructivist learning as pedagogies for 21st century learning.
These pedagogies allow for engaging with the content at a deeper level and promoting
higher-order thinking skills. Survey results reveal limited interest among lecturers inusing collaborative learning, informal learning methods, personalized learning, andflipped learning. These findings generate the need to look at different ways of
introducing personalised learning through informal methods. With the use of emerging
technologies, cultural shift and flexible curriculum there is a potential to enhance 21st
century learning. Providing learning opportunities to collaborate with others withinproblem-based learning and enquiry-based learning can eliminate the resistancetowards collaborative learning to some extent.
3) Technological content knowledge: A wide range of technologies were used especiallyin understanding abstract phenomena which is central to Biosciences learning. A better
understanding of how technologies can be used innovatively to suit other disciplines isessential.
4) Technological pedagogical knowledge: Participants used technologies to understandcognitive, social, and behavioral aspects of student learning. To that end, a discussion
forum was commonly preferred. The knowledge of innovative technologies andpedagogies can help academics to improve student learning. Although technology has
been related to functional fixedness, lecturers need to rethink innovative ways of using
technologies to customize pedagogical purposes (Koehler et al., 2013).
Recommendations
This study captures academics’ perspectives on various technologies and pedagogies used toenhance 21st century learning in higher education. It is worthwhile understanding the rationale
behind this perspective. How do lecturers know that these technologies and pedagogies best
suit to address teaching and learning purposes? Probably, this information can be derived frompersonal experience, student feedback, grades/course outcomes, and monitoring engagement
analytics. Further research is recommended to evaluate how participants know technologies
and pedagogies best suit the purpose. Additional perspective from students’ point of view ontechnologies is suggested to complement the findings of this study.
Study Limitations
With a small number of participants completing the survey, the likelihood of generalizing thefindings of this study is limited. Besides, the majority of the participants belonged tobiosciences department thereby limiting interpretations to other disciplines. Time constraint
could probably also have limited the participation of respondents as the survey was open only
for one month duration of time. Despite these limitations, the results identify various

57

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018technologies and pedagogies for 21st century learning and consider the TPACK framework as
an effective tool to develop teaching and learning skills.
Conclusion
This research investigated the role of technologies and pedagogies for 21st century learningfrom academics’ perspectives. Our findings reveal a wide range of technologies and pedagogies
are being embraced at Endeavour College of Natural Health. The TPACK framework provides
a useful tool to gauge the learning environment. The framework highlights a complex
interaction between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge and allows educators to use
innovative technologies and renovation to contemporary teaching practices. The shift towards
digital pedagogies in higher education is looking to contribute to the development of 21st
century competencies and skills thereby preparing learners to face global challenges in thecurrent knowledge age. The literature review showed some academics prefer technologies overpedagogies while others place pedagogies above technologies. This study supported the
dynamic influence between the three components of the TPACK framework: content,
technology and pedagogy. To educators, the TPACK framework serves as a lens through whichteaching practices can be viewed and reflected upon thereby making the learning environment
more conducive to student learning. This study provides the rationale for providing teacherswith further training in the TPACK area.

58

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

References
Acedo, C., & Hughes, C. (2014). Principles for learning and competences in the 21-century
curriculum. Prospects, 44(4), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9330-1
Afify, M. K. (2018). E-Learning content design standards based on interactive digitalconcepts maps in the light of meaningful and constructivist Learning theory. Journalof Technology and Science Education, 8(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.267
Alt, D. (2017). Constructivist learning and openness to diversity and challenge in higher
education environments. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 99–119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9223-8
Applied Educational Systems. (2018). What are 21st century skills? Retrieved October 31,
2018 from https://www.aeseducation.com/careercenter21/what-are-21st-century-skills
Asiksoy, G., & Ozdamli, F. (2017). An overview to research on education technology basedon constructivist learning approach. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(3),133–147. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v12i3.2444
Beccaria, L., Kek, M., Huijser, H., Rose, J., & Kimmins, L. (2014). The interrelationships
between student approaches to learning and group work. Nurse Education Today, 34,
1094–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.02.006
Benson, S. N. K., & Ward, C. L. (2013). Teaching with Technology: Using TPACK to
Understand Teaching Expertise in Online Higher Education. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 48(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.c
Breslow, L. (2015). The pedagogy and pleasures of teaching a 21st-century skill. European
Journal of Education, 50(4), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12159
Deed, C., Cox, P., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., . . . Yager, Z. (2014).
Personalised learning in the open classroom: The mutuality of teacher and student
agency. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 9(1), 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2014.9.1.66
Dureta, D., Christley, R., Denny, P., & Senior, A. (2018). Collaborative learning with
PeerWise. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1979
Fakomogbon, M. A., & Bolaji, H. O. (2017). Effects of collaborative learning styles on
performance of students in a ubiquitous collaborative mobile learning environment.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(3), 268–279. Glowatz, M., & O'Brien, O.
(2015). An exploration of the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge(TPACK) Framework: Utilising a social networking site in Irish higher education.
Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.21427/D73H8B
Glowatz, M., & O'Brien, O. (2017). Academic engagement and technology: Revisiting thetechnological, pedagogical and content knowledge framework (TPACK) in higher
education (HE): The academics’ perspectives. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(SI),133–159. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.si.06
Kivunja, C. (2014). Innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachersof 21st century skills: Unpacking the learning and innovations skills domain of the
new learning paradigm. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 37–48.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n4p37

59

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Kivunja, C. (2015). Innovative methodologies for 21st century learning, teaching andassessment: A convenience sampling investigation into the use of social media
technologies in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 1–
26. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p1
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-109/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
Kwok-Wing, L., & Smith, L. A. (2017). Tertiary students' understandings and practices of
informal learning: A New Zealand case study. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2937
Kyung Hye, P., Kwi Hwa, P., & Su Jin, C. (2018). Experiences of medical teachers inflipped learning for medical students: A phenomenological study. Korean Journal of
Medical Education, 30(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2018.84
Lai, K.-W. (2011). Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher
education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1263–1275.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.892 Lye, L. T. (2013). Opportunities and challenges
faced by private higher education institution using the TPACK model in Malaysia.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 294–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.426
Noel, L. (2015). Using blogs to create a constructivist learning environment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 617–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.591
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st Century Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Sacconaghi, M. (2006). Why the American public supports twenty-first century learning.
New Directions For Youth Development(110), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.165
Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf
Sheffield, R., Eva, D., Gibson, D., Mullaney, J., & Campbell, C. (2015). Teacher education
students using TPACK in science: a case study. Educational Media International,
52(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075104
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand:knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Reseracher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Sletten, S. (2017). Investigating flipped learning: Student self-regulated learning, perceptions,and achievement in an introductory biology course. Journal of Science Education &Technology, 26(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9683-8
Snow, S., & Torney, L. (2015). An evaluation of the first year of an enquiry-based learning
midwifery curriculum. British Journal of Midwifery, 23(12), 894–900.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2015.23.12.894

60

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Summerlee, A., & Murray, J. (2010). The impact of enquiry-based learning on academic
performance and student engagement. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(2),78–94. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/1919/1939 Unver, A.
O., & Arabacioglu, S. (2014). A comparison of inquiry-based learning (IBL),
problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PJBL) in scienceeducation. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 2(7), 120–128.
https://doi.org/10.15413/ajer.2014.0129
Waldrip, B., Yu, J., & Prain, V. (2016). Validation of a model of personalised learning.
Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984016-9204-y
Wu, Y.-T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge(TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E73–E76.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01349.x
Zipp, P. G., Maher, C., & Olson, V. (2017). SOLO-framed flipped learning environment:"Speaking the language of today's learner". Journal of Physical Therapy Education,31(3), 141–150.
Corresponding author: Tirtha Goradia
Contact email: tirtha.goradia@endeavour.edu.au61