TEACHERS’ INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF IMMERSIVE EDUCATIONAL SIMULATIONS Shane Thomas Weir DipBus, D.DipVET/TDD, BEd(Sec)(Hons) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology 2019
272
Embed
TEACHERS INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF … · 2019-08-26 · Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations iii needing to employ
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
TEACHERS’ INTERPRETATION OF PEDAGOGY IN THE FACE OF IMMERSIVE
EDUCATIONAL SIMULATIONS
Shane Thomas Weir
DipBus, D.DipVET/TDD, BEd(Sec)(Hons)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
2019
Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations i
KEYWORDS
Business education, Economics and Business, digital disruption, digital technologies,
Figure 2.6. Hotel Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation............... 35
Figure 3.1. Organising elements of the ICT General capability (ACARA, n.d.-g). .................................................................................................. 49
Figure 4.2. Elaborated model of learning in 3-D VLEs incorporating unique characteristics and learning affordances (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010, p. 24). ................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4.3. Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002, p. 8). ..................................................................................... 75
Figure 4.4. SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006). ....................................................... 76
Figure 4.5. Comparison of the stages of models of teacher adoption of technology (extended from Lloyd, 2016, p. 301). ............................... 81
Figure 4.6. Conceptual framework illustrated through literature review. .............. 87
Figure 6.1. Themes from Item 3. .......................................................................... 112
Figure 6.2. Themes from Items 3 and 4. ............................................................... 115
Figure 6.3. Themes from Items 3, 4 and 7. ........................................................... 126
Figure 6.4. Characteristics and benefits of teaching within and through digital technologies. ........................................................................... 135
Figure 7.1. In- and Out-Worlds of PierSim Business Island. ............................... 139
Figure 7.2. Duality of the in- and out-worlds. ...................................................... 145
viii Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations
Figure 7.3. Progression across levels of integration (Harmes et al., 2016, p. 143). ................................................................................................... 160
Figure 8.1. Grouping of affordances by meaningful characteristics (after Jonassen, 1990). ................................................................................. 188
Figure 8.2. Mapping of Diana’s recount to the career stages of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. ................................................. 201
Figure 8.3. Extended Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002). .................................................................... 203
Figure 8.4. A relational schema as a theoretical model to map teaching and learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation. ...................................................................... 207
Figure 9.1. “Emergence Pedagogy” based on the amalgamation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009); the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002); and the Australian Curriculum Organising Elements of the ICT General Capability (ACARA, 2014). .............................................................. 212
Figure 9.2. The in- and out-worlds marking the boundary of the emergence pedagogy. ........................................................................................... 213
Figure 9.3. The levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) within the emergence pedagogy. ......................................................................... 216
Figure 9.4 Adding teaching affordances to the emergence pedagogy. ................. 220
Figure 9.5 Adding learning affordances to the emergence pedagogy. ................. 223
Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations ix
Descriptors of Standard 2.6 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers by career stage ............................................................................. 46
Descriptors of Standard 3.4 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers by career stage ............................................................................. 47
Descriptors of Standard 4.5 of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers by career stage ............................................................................. 48
Teaching experience of survey respondents (sorted by experience with the program) (n=15) .......................................................................................... 93
Summary of participants’ experience in teaching Economics and Business (n=15) ........................................................................................................ 106
Summary of participants’ experience in using PierSim Business Island Simulation to teach Economics and Business ............................................ 107
Summary of participants’ beliefs as to which of the following is an outcome of the PierSim Business Island Simulation .................................................... 122
Summary of affordances and pedagogical connections of the PierSim Business Island Simulation ....................................................................................... 197
Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations xi
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
3-D World A 3-D or Virtual world is a computer-based simulated environment,
which allows multiple players represented by avatars. (see also
Simulation (game), Second Life (SL), Virtual World).
ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.
ACOT Apple Classroom of Tomorrow
Active Worlds Active Worlds is a popular 3D virtual world launched in 1995.
AR Augmented Reality, an image augmented by computer-generated
sound, video or graphics.
Avatar An online graphical representation of a participant/player in a 3D or
Virtual World. An avatar is the user’s character (alter ego) that moves
or carries out the user’s wishes in the 3D or Virtual World. An avatar
is visible to the user and to other participants/players.
BYOD
CK Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
HUD
ICT
Heads Up Display
Information and Communication Technology/Technologies
Internet (From 1969) Globally-connected computers using predefined Internet
protocols, also defined as a network of networks.
LAN Local Area Network
LMS Learning Management System
mLearning Mobile Learning or learning across multiple contexts, platforms and
devices.
MCEETYA
MUVE
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
Multi-User Virtual Environments
NMC New Media Consortium
PCK Pedagogical Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
PK Pedagogical Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
PLE Personal Learning Environment
PLN Professional Learning Networks
Second Life (SL) Second Life is a widely-used free 3D virtual world
Simulation
(game)
Computer simulations are usually used to model real data, such as
weather patterns. Simulation games (from c.1989) represent aspects
xii Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations
from real life for training, analysis or prediction. They are typically
set in a 3D or Virtual World.
SLE Smart Learning Environments
TCK Technological Content Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
TEL Technology-Enhanced Learning
TPK Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
TK Technological Knowledge (a component of TPACK)
TPACK Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
VLE Virtual Learning Environment
VSEW Virtual Social and Educational World
VW Virtual Worlds (see 3D Worlds)
Web 1.0 The original World Wide Web (WWW) confined to static web pages
connected by hyperlinks; a technical evolution of the Internet.
Web 2.0 (From 2004). Addition of user-generated content and social
networking sites, such as blogs and wikis.
Web 3.0 (From 2007, also referred as Semantic Web). Evolution of the WWW
to focus on connecting data, concepts, applications and people.
WLAN Wireless local area networks
Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations xiii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for
an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person
except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: 10 August 2019
QUT Verified Signature
xiv Teachers’ interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my supervisors, Dr Vinesh Chandra, Adjunct Professor Margaret Lloyd and Dr
Alan Roberts for their feedback throughout my study. A special thank you to Marg for her
tireless support and guidance throughout this entire process, of which I am truly grateful. I
would not have completed this journey without Marg’s expert mentoring and encouragement
from start to finish. Her wisdom and knowledge in the field of technologies within secondary
education is quite remarkable. I am grateful that she has shared this with me and has also
challenged me to continually question my own thinking in this exciting era of education.
I would also like to thank the participants of this study. While they remain
anonymous, their willingness to give their time and provide me with invaluable insights as to
how they teach within and through such emerging technologies is quite extraordinary. They
are true pioneering practitioners in the field of Economics and Business education.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family and friends who have unreservedly
supported me throughout this epic journey. Their continual words of encouragement and
“just get it done so we can go and do something” really does put things into perspective and
has enabled me to still have some resemblance of a life while burning the midnight oil at my
desk all too often.
While completing this study, I have come to the realisation that my personal
affordance of investigating this research aim was the ability to simultaneously and
contiguously complete major milestones while still holidaying around the world! Therefore,
it is timely that I ask Marg if my personal overarching question can now be answered; that is,
“Marg, can I pretty please have my passport back so that I can go travelling again?”
Therefore, I dedicate this thesis to those Economics and Business teachers who continue to
embark on the exhilarating journey of engaging students in the wonder and excitement of
Economics and Business.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Three decades ago, Sendov (1986) asked “how do we build education in the presence of the
computer” (p. 16). Since this critical question was posed, educational researchers have
continued to consider the disruption to pedagogy wrought by the introduction of new
technologies such as: augmented reality (Phillips & Li, 2016); mobile technologies including
iPads (McNaughton & Light, 2013); educational games (Psotka, 2013); Skype and
learning, and making information available. Further to this, West (2012) contended that
“technology can deepen education by altering the way students master core content, teachers
operate their classroom, and parents and policy makers can evaluate education” (p. 8). These
observations imply that traditional conceptions of teaching and learning will change thus
making it possible to realise Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994) argument that “nobody wants
to use technology to recreate education as it is” (p. 256).
This study has rebadged characteristics or qualities as affordances when the
author’s/authors’ intention was aligned with the accepted definition of affordance. This
appropriation of qualities as affordances lies in Hutchby’s (2001) contention that
“affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the
possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object” (p. 44) and Kirschner’s (2002)
contention that educational affordances can be defined as the relationships between the
properties of an educational intervention and the characteristics of the learner that enable
certain kinds of learning to take place. An example of this afforded agency lies in the
characteristics of meaningful learning described by Jonassen (1999), namely: Active,
14 Chapter 1: Introduction
Constructive, Cooperative, Authentic and Intentional (Section 1.6.2). In specific regard to
virtual or immersive worlds, Bronack et al. (2008) offered that they provide: the previously
cited “presence” pedagogy where others populate the space affording social interaction and
collaboration; and, a “cognitive” presence which “provide a platform for both peers and
experts to serve as catalysts for explicit, intentional learning” (p. 62).
1.8 Teaching within and through digital technologies
This study has adopted the prepositions within and through to explain the interaction that
teachers and students have with the immersive educational simulation at the heart of this
study. This shifts from the more commonly used and expected term, “with,” which is applied
to the use of most software packages used in schools. It is of interest that term “with” was
once considered unusual in reference to the educational use of digital technologies. Harmes
et al. (2016) explained that “some researchers have described a shift from learning about
technology, to learning from technology, to learning with technology” (p. 139, emphases
added). They went on to explain that “such a shift requires a change from an outdated
transmission model of technology integration to a model that focuses on the pedagogy that
technology enables and supports, rather than on the technology itself” (p. 139). This study
represents a further shift from “with” to “within” and from “from” to “through.” These
changes to wording better represent the notion of technology as a component of a larger
learning environment rather than a simple “add-on” to a traditional setting. The adoption of technologies in teaching and learning is an amalgam of the concepts
of teacher and pedagogy of the Conceptual Framework (Figure 1.1). How teachers adopt
digital technologies is typically mapped to models showing progressive stages which Lloyd
(2016) described as being “from lower to higher and from naivety to mastery” (p. 302).
There are a number of models in the research; those selected for discussion in this thesis (see
Section 4.4) are:
ACOT Stages of Instructional Evolution (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Haymore-Sandholtz,
1990).
Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse, Trinidad, & Clarkson,
1998). Such an approach was selected in order to qualitatively describe, explain and (most
importantly) gain an insight into understanding the complex pedagogical issues that exist for
teachers to integrate immersive educational simulations into one’s real-life classroom and
general schooling environments. This chapter will provide details of the research design,
participants, data collection and analysis methods for this study.
Chapter 6 (Findings – Survey) presents the outcomes from the online survey. Survey
items included: participants’ range of experience in teaching Economics and Business with
the aid of the PierSim Business Island Simulation; their beliefs in the role of digital
technology in Economics and Business; their understanding of the purpose and effectiveness
of the PierSim Business Island Simulation; and their level of engagement with the PierSim
Business Island Simulation.
24 Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 7 (Findings – Interview) presents the findings from the one-to-one semi-
structured interviews (n=6). The interviews provided insight on the participants’ beliefs
towards how their teaching of the Economics and Business concepts might have changed as
a result teaching with the PierSim Business Island Simulation; their understanding and
engagement with the in- and out-worlds learning environments; and, the change in their own
confidence and mastery of the PierSim Business Island Simulation.
Following the presentation of the findings of the study, Chapter 8 (Discussion)
responds to the research questions and provides a detailed discussion of the outcomes of the
study, draws conclusions derived from the literature and findings, as well as proposes
recommendations for further research in this particular field. It also presents the first of two
theoretical models developed in this study, namely, the relational schema which maps
teaching and learning affordances within and through an immersive educational simulation.
The final chapter, Chapter 9 (Conclusion) concludes the thesis by presenting a
response to the overarching aim of the study. A new signature pedagogy, as a theoretical
model, is proposed to advance understandings of pedagogy when teaching subject-specific
concepts and skills within and through immersive educational simulations. It is referred to as
an “emergence pedagogy” and is the outcome of the findings of this study blended with
existing research and policy considerations.
1.13 Chapter summary
This chapter has introduced the study and outlined its research question and aims. It has
provided the background to the study and described its significance. A brief description of
the research methodology has been presented. The following chapter, Chapter 2, will
described the technological context for the study, that is, the immersive educational
simulation which participating teachers had adopted in their teaching of Australian
Curriculum: Economics and Business.
Chapter 2: Technological context 25
Chapter 2: Technological context
This chapter presents the technological context for the study by exploring the concept and
features of an immersive educational simulation by describing the concept of the PierSim
Business Island Simulation as a disruptive educational tool to support the curriculum
delivery of the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business education. This chapter
has two sections: the structure of the PierSim Business Island Simulation (Section 2.1); and,
an outline of teaching practice within and through the simulation (Section 2.2). The chapter
concludes with a brief summary (Section 2.3). This chapter exists to provide a detailed
explanation of the Pier-Sim Business Island Simulation; therefore, the literature review for
this study is presented in Chapter 4.
This thesis will use the term “immersive educational simulation” to describe a virtual
world that can exist on a controlled platform (private virtual space) and can allow the learner
to modify the virtual environment so as to change the learning experience (while having
custom-use of the avatar for educational purposes only). An example of an immersive
educational simulation is the “PierSim Business Island Simulation,” developed in Australia
by the International Educational Services (IES), in association with the University of
Queensland (UQ). It is the simulation at the heart of this study and effectively forms part of
the research setting (Section 1.10, Figure 1.4). The PierSim Business Island simulation is
described in detail in the following sections, namely, Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
2.1 Structure of PierSim Business Island
The PierSim Business Island Simulation is an immersive 3D simulation experience using an
Open Sims platform to assist students to learn business concepts, principles and practices1.
PierSim Business Island Simulation attempts to challenge the way in which Junior Business
Education is delivered in the secondary schooling classroom. Based in a private virtual
space, which is situated internally on the school’s server, students establish and operate a
virtual business that is a replica of businesses in the real-world (for example, Domino’s Pizza
Enterprises Limited, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and Di Bella Coffee) in an in- and
out-world virtual simulation. From designing their products to seeing how the share price of
their business is trading on the virtual stock exchange, the students adopt the role of an
1 A useful introductory video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfTGkTe2Tmc. It shows how the PierSim Business Island, referred to as VBE, is used in an Accounting unit at the University of Queensland Business School (URL correct at time of writing, December 2018).
26 Chapter 2: Technological context
avatar and must trade within the virtual community, in order to stay alive (and thus continue
to stimulate the economy). The mechanics of the PierSim Business Island Simulation
revolves around an economic system that allows for the practical application of course
material in different areas of business management. A key difference of the PierSim
Business Island Simulation to other game-based educational programs is that the PierSim
Business Island Simulation allows the teacher to log in as the “Virtual Administrator” and
control certain elements of the students’ businesses so as to stimulate economic and
environmental scenarios for classroom learning purposes.
The PierSim Business Island Simulation attempts to create a learning experience that
encourages the students to engage in strategic business decision-making within a unique
learning environment. Using the principles of experiential learning, students are able to
action their strategies and reflect on the outcomes. The experience engages the learner and
develops the skills of self-evaluation, reflection and initiative that are essential skills in the
constructivist learning environment. By immersing the student in a challenging learning
environment, the student has to actively problem solved with others and to evaluate the
effectiveness of their solutions. Anecdotal evidence illustrates that students become active
participants in the learning process and become more responsible for their own learning.
Students are faced with the challenge of having to maintain the health, satisfaction and
relationship of their avatars (staff) in order to produce quality products. The student must
manage the profitability of their company, the pricing strategy, the purchasing and inventory
strategy, the sales and marketing strategy, change management, customer relationships and
the risk management strategy. The student must evaluate the moves of their competition and
the changes in the environment. The student must then develop and implement their
competitive responses. This is often performed in the context of a team. They maintain
accounting records and prepare and deliver business plans and annual reports. This enacts
the presence pedagogy described by Bronack et al. (2008) introduced in Sections 1.5, 1.6 and
1.7. This pedagogy:
… advances a peer-based approach to teaching and learning. The model promotes a
flattened approach toward instruction that removes the preset hierarchy of expertise
that is common across most educational models and replaces it with one in which all
members of a learning community share in the responsibility for encouraging,
challenging, and supporting one another. (p. 63)
Once students have participated in the virtual trading environment under “normal”
conditions, they are then presented with a range of scenarios where certain “variables” can
be modified by the teacher. Students must demonstrate effective strategic business-decision
Chapter 2: Technological context 27
making and develop strategies for action so as to respond to the changed market conditions
and continue to successfully operate their virtual business.
The learning environment mixes in- and out-worlds environments to create a seamless
marketplace. Students operate their businesses within the virtual world and the classroom
simultaneously. Screens are placed around the perimeter of the classroom. The students
develop strategies as a management team in the classroom and implement them both within
the virtual world and within the business world of the classroom. The teacher is able to
control all the variables in the game thus enabling the recreation of a wide range of in-world
scenarios. These include events such as booms, recessions, environmental disasters, supply
problems and command economies. The teacher becomes as much a player in the game as
the students. Within the learning environment, the economic decisions of the company
management affect the environment. Students must work on a collaborative approach that
can both sustain the environment and the profitability of the business. The open-ended
environment of virtual worlds is ideal for these ethical decision-making processes as there
are no rights and wrongs only decisions and consequences.
2.1.1 The “islands” and virtual administration
There are five “islands” which comprise the simulation: (i) Location One – Finance Island;
(ii) Location Two – Wholesale Island; (iii) Location Three – Retail Island; (iv) Location
Four – Hotel Island; and (v) Location Five – Legal Island. The activity within the islands is
managed through a Virtual Administration control panel. Figure 2.1 represents the islands
and the connection between them.
28 Chapter 2: Technological context
Figure 2.1. “Map” of the islands in the in-world of PierSim Business Island.
The following sections describe the islands and the control panel.
Location One – Finance Island
When the group of students, operating a virtual business, engages in a round within the
PierSim Business Island Simulation, they must decide how to secure enough funds to
commence operations. Each group initially has a small capital injection of a nominated
amount which is primarily used to pay for their transportation around the island or to
purchase minimal products from the wholesaler. The Finance Island consists of the
“Australian Bank” where students are able to purchase up to three loans within any given
round; the “Virtual Advertising” store which enables students to draw up a contract with this
supplier and purchase advertising space within world; and the virtual stock market board
which provides “real-time” data on the share price of each of the operating stores within the
virtual world for that particular round.
The Australian Bank provides the virtual businesses with the opportunity to acquire up
to three loans within each round. Figure 2.2 is a screen capture showing the avatar, operated
by the students of the associated virtual business, entering the bank to view the available
interest rate on each particular loan. Students, as the business, must adopt a specific business
strategy to determine if the interest rate is suitable at the time of purchase and whether the
Chapter 2: Technological context 29
injection of the loan into the business is potentially going to achieve the Key Performance
Indicator/s (KPIs) that the business is working towards. If the students proceed with the
acquisition of the loan, they must then go out-world (engage physically in the classroom
environment) to source and complete the required loan documents. The completed loan
documents must then be presented to the Board of Directors of the virtual business for
approval. Once approval is obtained, then the students are able to go back in-world to move
their avatar to the “loans counter” where the students then select which loan (at three
aggregated amounts) they wish to acquire. The avatar then confirms the loan and, through
the algorithms within the game, the loan is transferred to the virtual business’s bank account
and interest is instantly charged at frequent intervals throughout the round. In order to
students to quickly repay their loan, they must ensure that their pricing strategy of their
products incorporates a percentage to allow for the efficiency of their loan repayments, as
well as them realising that they must generate enough sales in order to quickly repay their
newly acquired loan.
Figure 2.2. Finance Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.
The Virtual Advertising store enables students to purchase different levels of
marketing campaign packages which allow the virtual business to physically advertise and
promote products within the virtual environment. If students wish to pursue a specific
marketing strategy, they need to develop suitable marketing material out-world through
available software applications, for example, Adobe Photoshop, and then deposit their files
in a specific storage area. Once the students have selected an appropriate marketing package,
they are then able to source an available advertising space of that category, for example, bus
shelter signs or the advertising blimps in the sky. Once selected, the students’ own marketing
30 Chapter 2: Technological context
materials appear on that advertising space within the virtual world. The distinct benefit of
this feature allows students to “visibly” see their creations in-world and have a deepened
sense of ownership of their virtual business. In accordance with the business’s marketing
strategy, the students are then able to promote the sale of their “premium products” through
their advertising material and, if other avatars walk past the business’s advertising and then
directly go to purchase the premium product from the business, then the business receives
extra benefits from the success of their marking campaign. This is calculated through the
program’s “Artificial Intelligence” that is operating behind the scenes within the virtual
environment.
The placement of the share market within Finance Island allows all users to
continually view the current value of their share price within each round. Through the use of
the program’s “Artificial Intelligence”, the shares are calculated based on the business’s
available funds within their bank account, the level of debt within the organisation and the
available products for sale within their stores. The students also have the opportunity to
engage directly in share trading by visiting their own control panel and buying and selling
shares of the other companies within the round. This adds another level of students’
engagement, as the organisation must develop a specific strategy to perform market research
of the share trading patterns so as to work towards making appropriate business decisions as
to the level of investment they wish to participate in. As students become more familiar with
the simulation and develop a more in-depth understanding of corporate business practices,
specifically aimed at senior schooling, they are able to participate in the merger and
acquisition of organisations within the virtual environment. Students need to go out-world to
conduct a Board meeting where they will develop a strategy and plan to merge with or
acquire other businesses. Students will also research the process of merges and acquisitions
within Australia and complete the necessary documentation to simulate what would likely
happen if they were in the real-world completing this transaction. Likewise, for the virtual
businesses that are performing at a loss and are going-concern, they too will participate in
the process of foreclosing their store and going into liquation. Again, students come out-
world to research how this process is achieved within the Australian free-enterprise
marketplace and complete the necessary steps to cease trading as an entity.
Finance Island is managed and operated by the simulation’s Artificial Intelligence in
the beginning phases of students participating in this learning experience. As students
become more familiar with the software application itself, as well as develop a more
comprehensive knowledge and understanding of business management practices, they are
then able to operate the Australian Bank and the Virtual Advertising store as a trading
business. However, through computer algorithms, the computer always maintain control over
Chapter 2: Technological context 31
the virtual share marketing so as to ensure accuracy and accountability of the data being
produced which, in turn, acts as the catalyst for allowing students to participate in effective
strategic business decision-making and respond to the business challenges that are presented
to them.
Location Two – Wholesale Island
Throughout each round, students determine when the most suitable time is to purchase their
inventories for their virtual business. Within the classroom learning environment, students
need to develop an inventory management strategy, for example, just-in-time management,
and then use their business’s avatar to access the Wholesale Island “in world.” Once at the
Wholesale Island (represented in Figure 2.3), students need to firstly examine the market to
locate their specific products for their particular business. Students then need to visit the
ticket ordering area to commence the ordering process. During this timed period, the student
(through his/her) avatar needs to select the appropriate products and then move to the
processing register, in order for the Wholesale business to tally their purchases and confirm
the order. Once a price has been negotiated, the avatar of the business pays for the products.
To simulate appropriate real-world supply chain management practices, the inventories are
then delayed in transit and will soon appear on the shelves of the avatar’s business.
Figure 2.3. Wholesale Island within the PierSim Business Island Simulation.
The Wholesale business is principally owned and controlled by the simulation’s
Artificial Intelligence where products populate within each business’s wholesaling area at
differing intervals. Students are made aware that sometimes their preferred product choice
may not be available for purchase and, therefore, they need to consider this supply chain
management issue within their business decision-making. Additionally, the prices of each of
32 Chapter 2: Technological context
the products available for sale at the Wholesale Island are interchangeable in response to the
current economic condition within the virtual environment. For example, prices will be
automatically altered, by the Artificial Intelligence’s use of algorithms to respond to the
changes in the economy’s inflation, Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the environment’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Artificial Intelligence of the Wholesale Island also takes into consideration the
environmental impact that the businesses collectively have on the eagerness to purchase a
large volume of products. Therefore, as each business continues to purchase their
inventories, the environment starts to deplete. This is evidenced by the trees diminishing
throughout the simulation as more products are purchased. The impact of this is that the
economy starts to become “deleveraged” as businesses are too concerned about making
profit rather than exhibiting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to preserve the
environment. If a suitable environmental policy is not developed by the businesses and
implemented in a timely manner, then the Wholesale Island will cease trade. This, in turn,
would have detrimental impact for each business, as the avatar of each business relies on the
purchase of products for sale from the other businesses, in order to stay alive and continue to
trade with their own organisation. Each business is able to contribute to an “Environment
Fund”; however, there is no minimal amount required unless a deleveraged state occurs, and
then collectively the businesses must raise a certain amount, in order for the Wholesale
business to commence trade again.
As students become more familiar with the trading practices of a wholesale
organisation, there is the opportunity for a group to own and operate the Wholesale Island.
The level of knowledge and understanding required for this specific organisation is more
suited to students studying in the senior secondary curriculum subject area, for example,
Accounting, Economics or Business Management related subjects. A condition of students
operating Wholesale Island is dependent upon these individuals developing a specific action
plan so as to continually engage in market research of the condition of the virtual economy
and then implement effective strategies so as to allow the other retail businesses to respond
to the challenges they have created within each round of the simulation.
Location Three – Retail Island
Retail Island (represented in Figure 2.4) consists of forty stores, ranging from: fast-food
outlets, coffee shops, health care providers, cinema complexes, music and electronics stores,
to name but a few. The stores are located in a two-storey shopping complex that enables each
avatar to be able to explore a range of retail opportunities. The stores are physically designed
to replicate those real-life store equivalents. For example, Domino’s Pizza Enterprises
Limited and Di Bella Coffee have become industry partners of the PierSim Business Island
Chapter 2: Technological context 33
Simulation and these stores have been designed in-world to replicate their out-world physical
corporate stores. Each store is operated by an avatar that symbolises the “health” of the
organisation. Students in the out-world are invited to apply for a position within any
organisation and would submit a Curriculum Vitae (CV) for that position. If successful, they
would be appointed to one of the management roles: Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) within each business. They also encouraged students to practise
their understanding of various HRM issues by responding to the ever-changing HUD levels.
The design of the HUD in the PierSim Business Island Simulation provided teachers with the
capability of showing the implications of how HRM plays a vital role in the vision and
operations of the virtual businesses in real time. Teachers were then able to expand of the
rigour of this particular Content Knowledge (CK) area by introducing students to developing
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) based on these distinct HR portfolios. Again, teachers
demonstrated that their focus was more predominately focussed on realising the potential of
teaching more advanced HRM concepts and practices with the aid of creating learning
experiences using these ICT tools within the program that were specifically designed to
focus on HRM.
In each instance of “creating with ICT,” teachers rose to the challenge posed by the
technology and have made meaningful use of the available functions. They have shown it is
possible to deal with disruption to existing practice by finding new ways to engage students
in the content of Economics and Business (see Section 7.2).
8.2.2 Communicating with ICT
The “communicating with ICT” element of the ICT Capability:
… involves students understanding and using appropriate ICT to communicate with
others.
Students use ICT to share ideas and information to collaboratively construct
knowledge and digital solutions. They develop an understanding of the context when
communicating using ICT, including a sense of the audience, the form of
communication, the techniques used and the characteristics of the users and the
technologies. In developing and acting with ICT capability, students:
collaborate, share and exchange
understand computer-mediated communications.
(ACARA, n.d.-c, para. 1, emphases added)
Communicating in a virtual environment is disruptive in that it changes the roles and
relationships between teachers and students. Teachers have responded to the challenge of
facilitating the organising element of communicating with ICT through an immersive
educational simulation. The way that teachers offered opportunities for communication and
collaboration within the in- and out-worlds have been described in Section 7.2.3, which
presented instances of transformative practice. Specific reference was made to how Carolyn
made use of the in-world chat function to communicate with her students and for them to
184 Chapter 8: Discussion
communicate with each other. It matters little that the communication tools exist within the
simulation, what is critical is the intentional use that the teacher has found for the chat
function. Bronack et al. (2008) explained that:
…. communication and collaboration tools, while necessary, are not sufficient to
encourage and promote community among learners. Presence Pedagogy requires that
these mediated interactions be ongoing and intentional to build into the world an
expectation that students will interact when logged into the world and that these
interactions, whether planned or serendipitous, are an integral part of the students’
coursework” (p. 64).
Therefore, exploration of the “communicating with ICT” organising element of the
ACARA ICT General Capability is important to determine how such tools within the
PierSim Business Island Simulation can be adopted by the teachers to promote the
“collaborative construction of knowledge” in an engaging manner.
8.2.3 Managing and operating ICT
The “managing and operating ICT” element of the ICT Capability:
… involves students managing and operating ICT to investigate, create and
communicate. Students apply technical knowledge and skills to select, use and
troubleshoot appropriate digital technologies. They develop an understanding of
hardware and software components, and operations of appropriate ICT systems,
including their functions, processes, procedures and devices. Students apply
technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and maintain
digital data. In developing and acting with ICT capability, students:
select and use hardware and software
understand ICT systems
manage digital data.
(ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1, emphases added)
The survey findings suggest that students “love to engage with digital devices” [Respondent
14] and that they “prefer using technology” [Respondent 2] (see Section 6.3.3). Despite this
interest and presumed digital fluency, a disruption occurred when the students were initially
faced with as unfamiliar a learning environment as the teachers. The physical design of the
PierSim Business Island Simulation includes five islands (as discussed in Section 2.2.1)
where students navigate their way to establish and operate their virtual business. In addition
to this “virtual reality” simulation that adopts avatars to replicate the Human Resource
Management (HRM) of a particular business, each company also accessed the web-based
“Administration” portal where they are able to view “real-time” data of the progress of their
Chapter 8: Discussion 185
organisation as well as upload documents/files to be embedded within the virtual trading
environment. These two online environments provide an opportunity for interaction and
collaboration between students, their businesses and the teacher. Therefore, teachers needed
to become aware of the purpose and functionality of both of these online environments so as
to structure their lessons appropriately and, in turn, to deal with the disruption caused by the
new environment.
Teachers, initially, responded to this challenge by allowing students to enter in-world
and explore for themselves how to move between the different islands (e.g., Wholesale
Island and Retail Island) and determine the most effective way to purchase products from
other business and sell their range of products to their customers. The ability for teachers to
facilitate students constructing their own business trading environment, enabled the students
to quickly transfer their knowledge of small business management to their virtual businesses.
In the beginning phases of its implementation, interview subjects reported that the
technical issues experienced by the students included: the program “freezing” on the laptops;
the avatars not appearing in-world; and the “virtual reality” simulation not communicating in
“real-time” to the “Administration” portal. While teachers acknowledged that IT Support
was available during these lessons to “fix” the technical glitches, some commented that the
disruption affected students’ interest in being exposed to this unique learning experience.
The teachers interviewed offered that they needed to become more “adaptable” to
the disruption of the changing conditions in the classroom so as to be able to troubleshoot the
technical issues while still providing students with opportunities to practise their learnt
knowledge throughout the lesson. They said that they needed to “persevere” through such
technical glitches and motivate students to remain focussed on the learning activities.
Further, they needed to rely on their learnt Technological Knowledge (TK) to be
able to provide general IT advice to students in order to troubleshoot any issues that arise.
They were not fazed by a lack of advanced understanding of the technical aspect of the
simulation as they were able to still able to navigate their way through the program and
could still assist students in general IT issues that arose.
In interview, relating to the management and operation of ICT, Rose commented that
when she teaches introductory accounting using the simulation, students are able to establish
their online recordkeeping package and record transactions “real-time” which enables them
to view the automatically-generated financial statements. This “real-time” data encourages
students to make more informed decisions when devising appropriate strategies to improve
their business’ performance and positions within the “in-world’s” marketplace. She believes
students take pride and ownership in their learning as they are able to be directly accountable
186 Chapter 8: Discussion
for their business’ income and expenditure. In terms of economics, Rose allows students to
explore a range of macro-economic and micro-economic issues that can be simulated “in-
world.” She primarily achieves this through adopting the role of the government and
imposing certain economic scenarios to allow students to determine the “economic problem”
and assess the environment using the economic indicators, before implementing agreed
recommendations to improve the current situation. She mentioned that this approach is
particularly effective when students participate in a “cost-benefit-analysis” for the business
and explore the “opportunity costs” for their business operations. Rose also communicated
that she is able to provide students with a deeper understanding of the “price mechanism” as
students can directly see how prices changes in-world cause equality between the supply and
demand in the virtual marketplace.
Rose observed how easily most students could navigate their way around the islands
without any real formal instruction. She stated that they were very good with understanding
that concept of where they had to go and what they have to do in order to maintain their
business operations. She realised, however, that students were surprisingly less confident
out-world when it was time to negotiate with other businesses and collectively develop a
strategic plan in order to respond to the imposed natural disaster. Rose reflected that she was
“glad” to have quite a few trial days where students participated in the trading environment
without her introducing them to any scenarios. She commented that “it was hard at first for
them to understand that they were actually running a real-time business that would be greatly
affected by the ever-changing market conditions of both the in- and out-worlds
environments.” However, Rose was pleased by the end of the last normal trading session as
most students “really clued into what was happening” and were well prepared for the
impending natural or economic disaster.
Diana similarly noted that students are initially overwhelmed and are quite reluctant to
use their avatar to commence rigorous trading, not because they did not know what to do but
rather because they lacked confidence in their abilities to be able to respond to the conditions
imposed on them by the program’s Artificial Intelligence (AI). She stated that:
… once the students can get over that initial fear factor of a new technology and they
have a few goes at it, then they’re actually quite excited to use the program to show
their skills in the other areas.
Carolyn recognised that the PierSim Business Island Simulation allows for the
“unknown” and also allows for different groups of students to interact with the technology in
ways they might not have experienced outside of this particular learning experience. Carolyn
admitted that she relied on a multiplicity of approaches to maximise the experiences for her
Chapter 8: Discussion 187
students so that they were able to capitalise on the out-world business decision-making
before applying such strategies to their in-world trading environment.
8.2.4 Summary of response to Research Question 2
This research question (RQ2) was concerned with the challenges and disruptions faced by
teachers in the adoption of immersive educational simulations in the teaching of Economics
and Business. The defining of challenges and disruptions in this study drew on the
understanding that they frequently displace established practices or make them obsolete
(Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; Kilkkia et al., 2018) (see Section 6.5).
The specific disruptions faced by the participants in this study include a break from
traditional modes of delivery of information and skill and an end to the teacher being the
source of all information (see Section 6.5). Every disruption posed a challenge in terms of
how teachers reacted and how they changed their practice in response. This section has
presented how challenges have been met in terms of the ICT Capability, a key dimension of
the Australian Curriculum (see Section 3.3.1, Appendix A): Creating with ICT;
Communicating with ICT; and, Managing and operating ICT: Creating with ICT. Each
instance reported by participants also inform the response to Research Question 4 which
attempts to determine the extent and nature of changes to teachers’ practice and beliefs.
8.3 Research Question 3
Angeli and Valanides (2009) argued that teachers adopting emerging technologies in their
practice should focus on “establishing [the] pedagogical connections between the
affordances of technology and the teaching of a particular content domain” (p. 155). This
argument has influenced the third research question which asked:
What are the pedagogical connections between the affordances of the technology and
the teaching of a particular content domain noted by teachers in the adoption of
immersive educational simulations into their teaching practice within the Economics
and Business curriculum area?
Research Question 3 has two components: “affordances” and “pedagogical
connections.” Affordances have been noted through the thesis. For example, the online
survey identified a number of affordances, described as perceived benefits, of digital
technologies in teaching and learning (see Sections 6.3 and 6.4, Figures 6.1-6.3). These
included: authenticity, collaboration, redefinition and engagement. In terms of learning,
affordances as “characteristics” include: interactive, immersive, constructive and reflective.
The interview data also yielded rich descriptions of the affordances of the simulation
described in terms of transformative practices (see Section 7.2.3). These were: active,
188 Chapter 8: Discussion
constructive, collaborative, authentic and intentional (goal-directed). Figure 8.1 extends the
diagram presented as Figure 6.3 to include (from the outer rim) the affordances identified
through the interviews. The inner concentric circles represent the eight survey items with
specific attention given to Items 3, 4 and 7.
Figure 8.1. Grouping of affordances by meaningful characteristics (after Jonassen, 1990).
This section, in response to Research Question 3, offers a list of the “pedagogical
connections” which, in essence, attempt to explain how the affordances of the simulation are
put to work in achieving learning outcomes for students. They are the outcome of what
Chapter 8: Discussion 189
Thomas had described as designing of lessons using the “unique characteristics” of the
simulation to create authentic learning experiences (see Section 7.2.1).
The following is categorised as: (i) Teaching affordances, which view the learning
experiences from the perspective of the teacher (Section 8.3.1); and, (ii) Learning
affordances, which view the learning experiences from the perspective of the student
(Section 8.3.2). These are revisited in the summary of this chapter (see Section 8.5, Table
8.1).
8.3.1 Pedagogical connections to teaching affordances
The “teaching affordances” listed in this section have been drawn from survey and interview
data. They can be identified within the description of teacher practice provided in response to
Research Question 1 and in several of the tenets of “presence pedagogy” described by
Bronack et al. (2008).
Managing the learning environment: The teachers’ manipulation of the variables of the
simulation to create scenarios such as financial crises, natural disasters, pandemics and
industrial action afford opportunities for active learning, that is, where students work on
meaningful tasks including making adjustments and observing the results. This
affordance was a common theme in the interviews (see Sections 7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.2.2 and
8.2.3) and in the discussion of pedagogical content knowledge and disruptions.
Developing scenarios is a feature of Active Learning, Constructive Learning, Authentic
Learning and Goal-Directed (Intentional) Learning at Transformation level.
Real-time responsiveness: Thomas and Diana both agreed that the “real” benefit is that
the teacher can embed decisions from the “out-world strategy” in the in-world in real
time. This means that the students can see first-hand the outcome of their strategic
decision-making and can, thus, reflect on the implications and consequences of their
decision-making strategies. This pedagogical connection is aligned with the affordance
of experiential learning (see Section 7.1.2).
Encouraging higher order thinking: The simulation, through its open-endedness,
encourages students to solve problems and to apply theory to complex unfamiliar
problems. In her response to Item 7 in the online survey, Carolyn offered that “PierSim
is a dynamic learning environment that … activate[s] students’ higher order thinking
skills thus improving their ability to apply learnt theory to real-world practice” (see
Section 6.7). Diana admitted that, while a more traditional pedagogical approach such as
using YouTube clips or delivering content via PowerPoint can be effective at times, she
believes they need to be complemented with the real-world practice of Economics and
190 Chapter 8: Discussion
Business concepts so as to promote higher-order skills. Students have the chance in
PierSim to show their knowledge of the Marketing Management strategies that are
taught in class. Diana explained how she has been able to provide different scaffolded
scenarios to aid the students in their strategic decision-making for their business
operations. This is where she thought that learning experiences became “quite
interesting” as she was able to directly modify the business environment to test the
flexibility and the management skills of each business. She believed that by being able to
make such modifications to the in-world environment, she is able to promote higher
order thinking skills and authentically assess students’ understanding of theory.
Pearl reflected that, for her, placing the same level of importance on the in- and
out-worlds became a:
…very necessary way, I guess, of examples of higher order of thinking in a sense
that once they [students] became comfortable with the content and the technique,
they were actually able to use that knowledge base to refine their skill and to refine
their understanding about how things work in the real-world.
References to higher-order thinking were evident in the discussion of changes to
teaching practice (Section 7.2) and Authentic Learning at Transformation level (Section
7.3.4).
Encouraging critical thinking: Carolyn believes that the simulation forces students to
really question their own business planning model before they see it executed “in-
world.” Students soon realise that they have very limited time in-world to actually
implement their strategies; therefore, progress through the stages of the trading cycle
quite quickly and intentionally to generate desirable profit margins. As a result, she
noted that the students were very orderly and focussed on what they were doing in-world
and were more effective in their questioning of other businesses out-world when
collaboratively responding to specific scenarios imposed on them. A connection was
implied between students’ capacity for critical thinking and their content knowledge.
Scaffolding student learning: The expected form of an educational simulation is that the
learning is programmed within the simulation. PierSim Business Island allows the
teacher to scaffold the students’ learning, typically in the out-world. Pearl, in her
response to Item 7 in the survey, offered that “best results are obtained with there is
facilitation through external activities both before and after the interactive event” (see
Section 6.7). Thomas explained, in interview, that the in-world was supported by the
teaching of Economics and Business concepts in the “out-world.” He further explained
that the structuring of teaching in the particular environment required thought about how
Chapter 8: Discussion 191
he incorporates theory into the classroom. The approach he believes works best is to
have a theoretical session which provides the students with the required knowledge.
Subsequently, he mentioned that it is important to have a debriefing session afterwards
where the entire class explores the learning that took place. These strategies describe
how student learning could be scaffolded in the out-world.
Rose described a way to scaffold student learning within the in-world. She spoke
of her use of the Chat function in-world which she used to pose questions that would
naturally require feedback from each of the groups. Carolyn also used the in-world Chat
function when implementing a natural disaster scenario. Acting as the government, she
made broadcast announcements via the chat function to alert the groups to the impending
disaster. This heightened the students’ excitement and was particularly effective in
allowing her to observe the students’ reactions in real time to the imposed scenario.
Open-ended problems: The outcome of the simulation is driven by students’ actions
rather than predetermined by the simulation. Thomas stressed that the PierSim Business
Island simulation is “non-linear,” meaning that most existing technology-based programs
are linear and once students “crack them” (meaning that they provide the pre-determined
answer), the students then follow the same process to achieve the same output. Whereas,
non-linear programs, like PierSim, constantly change the conditions and outcomes so as
to continually challenge students’ thinking and decision-making of their own actions in
being able to respond to the changing marketplace. This level of flexibility of the
program, in the sense that it can be used to create holistic environments, but it also can
be used to teach a very specific element within the program, allows the teacher to
become quite creative in their approach to teaching the business and economic concepts,
as well as continue to explore “real-life” issues that can be applied as scenarios within
the simulation. Rose believes that the students begin to become the “drivers” of their
learning as they become immersed in both in- and out-worlds that they directly influence
the direction of the learning outcomes. Open-endedness (and open-ended problems)
were referenced in discussion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Section 4.3.2)
and disruptions to teaching practice (Section 7.2.2). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s
(2008) tenet relating to “encouraging exploration and discovery” (see Table 4.1).
Teaching concepts holistically: Thomas and Diana made reference to the fact that while
they try to promote an integrated approach to teaching Economics and Business, they
commonly taught each concept in isolation and had variable experiences of how skillsets
from those different areas in business would work together to make it a successful
business. Both Thomas and Diana felt that, in traditional pedagogy, there was little
integration occurring in terms of understanding how the business concepts and principles
192 Chapter 8: Discussion
work together or how they link with all the other elements that a particular manager has
to encounter in their daily role. References to teaching concepts holistically are
addressed along with Authentic Learning at Transformation level (Section 7.2.7).
Teachers’ redefinition of their role: The capacity for teachers to adopt new/revised roles
is a necessary condition for active and experiential learning. In interview, teachers
described themselves in a range of roles including consultant, advisor and mentor. In
addition, there was the metaphorical role of “anchor” offered in describing the stability
and direction that the teacher brings to a dynamic learning environment (see Section
7.2.2). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenet relating to “stimulating
background knowledge and expertise” (see Table 4.1).
Teacher:student relationship: Interview subjects frequently alluded to a change in their
relationship with their students as a consequence of the change in their role. Rose noted
that her professional working relationship with her students changed as a result of using
the PierSim Business Island Simulation. She commented that she was not the one to
“typically stand in front of the classroom and tell them what to do” as her focus was
primarily on creating an inclusive environment where students would lead the discussion
and interactions amongst each other. It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenet
relating to “capitalising on the presence of others” (see Table 4.1).
8.3.2 Pedagogical connections to learning affordances
In many instances, the “learning affordances” are the obverse or “flip-side” of teaching
affordances. Each is the product of a deliberate action or design of a learning experience, and
each takes advantage of a particular affordance of the PierSim Business Island simulation.
Experiential learning: The simulation, through its immersive format, allows students to
“experience” the concepts of Economics and Business as opposed to simply learning
about them. Carolyn, in particular, explained that the simulation has allowed her to teach
the concepts of Economics and Business differently, that is, applying theory to practice
as opposed to looking at practice to explain the concepts. When asked about teaching
specific theoretical concepts in Economics and Business, Thomas explained that he
approached the teaching of these concepts differently from traditional practice. For
example, he explained that when he was teaching the topics of Marketing Management,
Operations Management, Human Resource Management and some of the Economics
concepts (for example, the circle or flow of income), he had to:
Chapter 8: Discussion 193
… rethink how the interrelationship between these concepts and the real-world
practice of business would be simulated through the program, as opposed to simply
informing students of the concepts through a more traditional method of teaching.
Thomas commented that there is “nothing that he knew of that comes even close
to being able to reproduce this ‘real-world’ level of complexity in any educational
learning environment” for secondary school students. Experiential learning is a feature
of Authentic Learning at Transformation Level (see Section 7.3.4). It rests with
understandings of both active and authentic learning. It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s
(2008) tenets relating to “encouraging exploration and discovery” and “delineating
context and goals” (see Table 4.1).
Immediacy (Feedback): Immediacy also relates to the feedback that students receive in
the in-world. Thomas noted the value of the cause-and-effect impact of students
“actually see[ing] that something like that has a multifaceted impact on the way
businesses run and the way the economy reacts.” References to “real time” and
immediacy were typically in conjunction with descriptions of the scenarios and students’
responses to them.
Students adopting managerial roles: The adoption of managerial roles can be interpreted
as active learning. Having a role affords each student an opportunity to see the team’s
business problems from a specific perspective with specific responsibilities. Pearl
commented that role-playing within and through the simulation cannot be compared to
how she allowed students to adopt roles in a more traditional sense. When she previously
asked students to adopt the role of the Human Resource Manager and role play aspects
of the recruitment process, students would typically engage with this but there was no
sense of “realism.” Whereas, students adopting the specific roles in the PierSim Business
Island Simulation, allows them to become immersed in their specific duties and provides
more “realism” and they can actually see the implications of their actions in-world which
she could not artificially create in other classroom activities as successfully. It is of
interest to note that students experienced little difficulty in moving between the in- and
out-worlds and through one world to the other. Pearl reflected that:
… I find that when … students [are put] into groups and they adopt roles, such as
Financial Manager, Human Resources Manager, Marketing Manager and
Operations Manager, they actually participate and take on those roles with a deal of
sincerity and realism. They really get into it! If I was not to use a virtual
environment to do that artificially, it would lose some of the authenticity of it. Then
when they come to the out- world, they leave that persona or that role in-world and
194 Chapter 8: Discussion
are able to look at it objectively to work out what it is they think they did well at and
perhaps even discuss what other roles in the group did and performed.
This affordance was referenced in regard to Collaborative learning at Transformation
level (Section 7.3.3).
Collaboration. The organisation of students into teams creates genuine purposes for
collaboration. In his response to Item 7 in the online survey, David offered that:
We mainly use it for group work to ensure that a team environment and working
with peers is the main focus. As it is in groups and not the normal classroom
teaching environment, the students do seem to remain generally more focused and
will engage in the activity for longer periods than if it was another individual paper-
based task.
Pearl described the value of collaborating by referring to how “small groups
allow the ability of brainstorming of ideas … and provides a safety net for students
who recognise the weaknesses in their own learning.” Further, Thomas offered that:
Working through a simulated environment and the necessity to work
collaboratively in a competitive arena often provides students new insights into
their own capabilities and shortcomings.
The affordance of collaboration was referenced in discussions of the duality of the
in- and out-worlds (Section 7.1.3) and in discussions of Collaborative learning at
Transformation level (Section 7.3.3). It can be aligned to Bronack et al.’s (2008) tenets
relating to “facilitating interactions and encouraging community” and “supporting
distributed cognition” (see Table 4.1).
Students taking ownership of their learning: Similarly, Pearl explained that she adopted
specific student-centred strategies in the out-world in which students were encouraged to
ask strategic questions in response to the scenarios that had been imposed on the in-
world. Students would then conduct investigative research to gauge how the real-world
markets dealt with similar disasters and then they would, in groups, develop appropriate
strategies that they would implement in-world. Through adopting questioning techniques
out-world, students were able to also write scenarios to different types of questions.
Pearl believed the benefit of having the in-world complement the out-world meant that
students were able to see in-depth interactivity of how their avatar could be manipulated
to represent the findings from their research. Pearl believed that this particular student
focus allowed them to take ownership of their strategic decision-making in ways not
possible in traditional classrooms.
Chapter 8: Discussion 195
Rose, when teaching Financial Management, allowed the students to decide on
how to record each of their business’s transactions. She said that, at first, the students
complained that they did not know how to best do this. In response, Rose encouraged
them to research how real-world businesses in their chosen industry record transactions.
Students began to investigate issues pertaining to Financial Management and became
more engaged when they could customise their recordkeeping system to their particular
operational needs. By not prescribing a process, Rose’s students took ownership of their
learning. Ownership was referenced in discussions of pedagogical content knowledge
(Section 7.2.1) and disruptions to teaching practice (Section 7.2.2).
8.3.3 Summary of response to Research Question 3
This research question (RQ3) was concerned with the pedagogical connections between the
affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular content domain, namely,
Economics and Business. Affordances were represented through the thesis (as drawn from
differing research sources) as benefits, characteristics and themes. They were collated in
Figure 8.1. This section has identified teaching affordances as distinct from but related to
learning affordances (to be extended into the relational schema developed in conclusion to
this chapter) (see Section 8.5). The affordances identified in response to RQ3 are
summarised in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2
Pedagogical connections of affordances
Teaching affordances Learning affordances
Managing the learning environment
Real-time responsiveness
Encouraging higher order thinking
Encouraging critical thinking
Scaffolding student learning
Open-ended problems
Teaching concepts holistically
Teachers’ redefinition of their role
Teacher:student relationship
Experiential learning
Authentic learning
Immediacy (Feedback)
Students adopting managerial roles
Collaboration
Students taking ownership of their
learning
196 Chapter 8: Discussion
There are clear connections between the response to Research Questions 1 and 3.
These connections are evident in Table 8.3 which adds the teaching and learning affordances
identified in RQ3 to the mapping of the findings of RQ1, the roles of technology (identified
in Survey Item 3) and the characteristics of meaningful learning (Jonassen, 1990) as
presented in Table 8.3. The generic and specific roles identified are linked to multiple
teaching and learning affordances.
Cha
pter
8: D
iscu
ssio
n 19
7
Tabl
e 8.
3
Sum
mar
y of
affo
rdan
ces a
nd p
edag
ogic
al c
onne
ctio
ns o
f the
Pie
rSim
Bus
ines
s Isl
and
Sim
ulat
ion
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (g
ener
al)
(RQ
1)
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (E
cono
mic
s and
Bus
ines
s)
(RQ
1)
Teac
hing
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Lear
ning
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Rol
e of
tech
nolo
gy
(Eco
nom
ics a
nd
Bus
ines
s)
(Sur
vey
Item
3)
Cha
ract
eris
tics o
f m
eani
ngfu
l le
arni
ng (J
onas
sen,
19
90)
mak
es “
lear
ning
exc
iting
, le
arni
ng fu
n, le
arni
ng
enga
ging
and
lear
ning
m
eani
ngfu
l”.
en
gage
s stu
dent
s in
Econ
omic
s and
B
usin
ess c
once
pts a
nd
proc
esse
s.
enga
ges s
tude
nts i
n a
rang
e of
rese
arch
ac
tiviti
es.
M
anag
ing
the
lear
ning
en
viro
nmen
t
A
uthe
ntic
lear
ning
Expe
rient
ial
lear
ning
A
uthe
ntic
ity
En
gage
men
t
Red
efin
ition
A
ctiv
e
Aut
hent
ic
In
tent
iona
l
is c
ritic
al to
the
supp
ort o
f th
e le
arni
ng e
nviro
nmen
t.
enac
ts c
urric
ular
ob
ject
ives
Man
agin
g th
e le
arni
ng
envi
ronm
ent
Red
efin
ition
Act
ive
Inte
ntio
nal.
enab
les t
he c
reat
ion
of
open
-end
ed p
robl
ems w
ith
no d
efin
ite so
lutio
n.
pr
ovid
es th
e op
portu
nity
for
stud
ents
to b
e re
flect
ive
and
to
enga
ge in
eva
luat
ive
prob
lem
-sol
ving
.
prov
ides
the
oppo
rtuni
ty fo
r st
uden
ts to
eng
age
in
high
er-o
rder
thin
king
.
allo
ws s
tude
nts t
o te
st
thei
r kno
wle
dge
by
En
cour
agin
g hi
gher
or
der t
hink
ing
En
cour
agin
g cr
itica
l th
inki
ng
O
pen-
ende
d pr
oble
ms
A
uthe
ntic
lear
ning
Aut
hent
icity
Act
ive
A
uthe
ntic
Inte
ntio
nal.
198
Cha
pter
8: D
iscu
ssio
n
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (g
ener
al)
(RQ
1)
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (E
cono
mic
s and
Bus
ines
s)
(RQ
1)
Teac
hing
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Lear
ning
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Rol
e of
tech
nolo
gy
(Eco
nom
ics a
nd
Bus
ines
s)
(Sur
vey
Item
3)
Cha
ract
eris
tics o
f m
eani
ngfu
l le
arni
ng (J
onas
sen,
19
90)
appl
ying
it to
un
fam
iliar
pro
blem
s. ca
n ch
ange
the
way
te
ache
rs te
ach.
requ
ires a
stud
ent-
cent
red
appr
oach
to
teac
hing
.
allo
ws a
n as
sess
men
t of
stud
ent l
earn
ing
at a
de
ep ra
ther
than
su
perf
icia
l lev
el.
Sc
affo
ldin
g st
uden
t le
arni
ng
Te
achi
ng c
once
pts
holis
tical
ly
Red
efin
ition
Aut
hent
ic
Inte
ntio
nal.
use
enco
urag
es te
ache
rs to
re
flect
on
prac
tice.
Te
ache
rs’
rede
finiti
on o
f the
ir ro
le
Red
efin
ition
Act
ive
A
uthe
ntic
In
tent
iona
l. al
low
s tea
cher
s to
be
desi
gner
s of c
reat
ive
lear
ning
exp
erie
nces
.
Teac
hers
’ re
defin
ition
of t
heir
role
Ex
perie
ntia
l le
arni
ng
R
edef
initi
on
A
ctiv
e
A
uthe
ntic
Inte
ntio
nal
allo
ws a
shift
from
teac
her-
to
stud
ent-
cent
red
lear
ning
.
al
low
s stu
dent
s to
prog
ress
ivel
y ta
ke
owne
rshi
p of
thei
r le
arni
ng
Te
ache
r:stu
dent
re
latio
nshi
p
Stud
ents
ado
ptin
g m
anag
eria
l rol
es
St
uden
ts ta
king
ow
ners
hip
of th
eir
lear
ning
R
edef
initi
on
A
ctiv
e
Con
stru
ctiv
e
Coo
pera
tive
A
uthe
ntic
Inte
ntio
nal
enga
ges s
tude
nts.
St
uden
ts ta
king
ow
ners
hip
of th
eir
lear
ning
Expe
rient
ial
lear
ning
En
gage
men
t
Act
ive
C
onst
ruct
ive
C
oope
rativ
e
Aut
hent
ic;
In
tent
iona
l pr
ovid
es im
med
iate
fe
edba
ck to
stud
ents
.
R
eal-t
ime
resp
onsi
vene
ss
Im
med
iacy
(F
eedb
ack)
Enga
gem
ent
A
ctiv
e
Cha
pter
8: D
iscu
ssio
n 19
9
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (g
ener
al)
(RQ
1)
Rol
e of
dig
ital t
echn
olog
y (E
cono
mic
s and
Bus
ines
s)
(RQ
1)
Teac
hing
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Lear
ning
Aff
orda
nce
(RQ
3)
Rol
e of
tech
nolo
gy
(Eco
nom
ics a
nd
Bus
ines
s)
(Sur
vey
Item
3)
Cha
ract
eris
tics o
f m
eani
ngfu
l le
arni
ng (J
onas
sen,
19
90)
C
onst
ruct
ive
In
tent
iona
l al
low
s a c
hang
e in
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
teac
hers
and
stud
ents
.
Teac
her:
stud
ent
rela
tions
hip
C
olla
bora
tion
R
edef
initi
on
C
oope
rativ
e In
tent
iona
l
can
chan
ge th
e w
ay th
at
stud
ents
inte
ract
with
co
nten
t and
the
way
that
co
nten
t ski
lls a
re
deve
lope
d.
C
olla
bora
tion
R
edef
initi
on
A
ctiv
e
Con
stru
ctiv
e
Coo
pera
tive
A
uthe
ntic
Inte
ntio
nal
can
chan
ge th
e w
ay th
at
stud
ents
inte
ract
with
eac
h ot
her.
pr
ovid
es th
e op
portu
nity
for
colla
bora
tion
betw
een
stud
ents
to so
lve
unfa
mili
ar p
robl
ems
Col
labo
ratio
n
R
edef
initi
on
C
oope
rativ
e
Inte
ntio
nal
help
s dev
elop
skill
s for
st
uden
ts a
s pre
para
tion
for
the
real
-wor
ld.
Ex
perie
ntia
l le
arni
ng
A
uthe
ntic
ity
A
uthe
ntic
Inte
ntio
nal
200 Chapter 8: Discussion
The most frequently occurring teaching affordances ((N=12) were “managing the learning
environment” and “teachers’ redefinition of their role” (n=2, 16.67%). All other teaching
affordances are represented in Table 8.4 once. The most frequently occurring learning
affordance (N=13) was “experiential learning” (n=4, 30.77%) followed by “collaboration”
(n=3, 23.08%). There were two instances each of “students taking ownership of their
learning” and “authentic learning” and single instances of “immediacy (feedback)” and
“students adopting managerial roles.” In sum, there clear pedagogical connections between
the affordances of the technology and the teaching of a particular content domain noted by
teachers in the adoption of immersive educational simulations into their teaching practice
within the Economics and Business curriculum area.
8.4 Research Question 4
To further investigate teacher practice within and through the PierSim Business Island
simulation, the fourth research question asks:
To what extent and in what way do teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy
change as a result of teaching within and through an immersive educational
simulation?
Participants provided information on the extent and manner of change to their pedagogical
practice and beliefs. They were asked, where relevant, to give examples of purposeful
changes made to their practice and the impact of these changes to their beliefs. The response
to this research question, presented in this section, is based on the career stages of the
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) (see Section 3.2.1) and existing
models of pedagogical practice (see Section 4.4). Each allows the measurement of change
which is integral to this research question and the broader aim of the study.
8.4.1 Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2014) were introduced in
Section 3.2.1 in regard to the professional demands on teachers to adopt digital technologies
in their practice. As noted, the standards are categorised in progressive career stages:
Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead. Those standards relating to digital
technologies, as ICT, are: Standards 2.6, 3.2 and 4.5 (see Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).
This study was not a longitudinal investigation of change but a sense of change over
time can be gained from teachers’ recounts of their initial reactions to and experiences when
beginning to teach within and through PierSim Business Island. In regard to Standard 2.6,
evidence of the proficient, highly accomplished and lead stages can be found in Diana’s
interview and survey responses (presented respectively throughout Chapters 6 and 7),
Chapter 8: Discussion 201
including recollection of her first using the simulation (summarised in Figure 8.2). The
APST differ in nature to the adoption models referred to in this thesis in that they map out
increasing collaboration with colleagues and leadership in the field as well as mastery of the
intent of each standard.
Figure 8.2. Mapping of Diana’s recount to the career stages of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
Diana demonstrated the “proficient” stage by recalling that, when she began, she stayed
within traditional patterns of presenting the content and applying the concepts in the in-
world. She offered only one scenario until she gained more confidence and better
understood students’ reactions (see Section 7.2).
Diana demonstrated the “highly accomplished” stage by describing the scenarios she has
designed including natural disasters, financial crises and a pandemic. She has also
modified scenarios in real time in response to students’ capacity, for example, she
escalated a rise in interest rates into a full financial collapse (see Section 7.2.5). Doing
this revealed a solid understanding of the purpose of the “islands” to allow students to
“see” the connections between the key concepts of Economics and Business.
Diana demonstrated the “lead” stage by involving colleagues in activities such as the
mock interviews for students applying for management roles (see Section 7.1.2).
Elsewhere, she alluded to her leading and supporting colleagues by saying that she “was
excited to share the experience with the students and other teachers” (see Section 7.2).
202 Chapter 8: Discussion
8.4.2 Models of teacher technology adoption
The models of teacher technology adoption presented in the literature review (see Section
4.4, Figure 4.5) all begin in unfamiliarity and share an endpoint which involves
transformative teacher practice which makes creative use of digital technology to achieve
learning outcomes. Each implies a change in beliefs and dispositions towards the use of
digital technology in teaching and learning. For example, the seminal ACOT framework
(Dwyer et al., 1990) placed Invention as its culminating level. This level is characterised by
teachers using technology to experiment with teaching styles such as team-teaching and
instructional strategies such as project-based learning. The SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006)
and LoTi (Moersch, 2010), through levels respectively labelled as Redevelopment and
Refinement, describe teaching practices which seamlessly incorporate digital technologies.
A useful model to consider in the response to this research question (and in the
development of a new model in the following chapter) is the Teacher Professional ICT
Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002). Figure 8.3 repeats the model (see Figure 4.3)
adding examples from this study to demonstrate the range of levels apparent in what
appeared to be a cohesive homogenous group of teachers who have shared similar training
and preparation. The most important part of the framework is the inclusion of the “critical
use border” which marks the point at which digital technology is integral, rather than
ancillary, to the learning activities designed by the teacher.
Chapter 8: Discussion 203
Figure 8.3. Extended Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002).
The “inaction” stage was exemplified by only one participant, namely Survey
Respondent 5 (see Section 6.9.1, Sample profiles), who demonstrated little or no “buy-in” to
the use of the simulation in his/her practice. Of particular interest is Respondent 5’s
reference to boredom in diametric opposition to comments from other participants who
commented on the engagement that the simulation engenders in students (see Section 6.3.3).
Further, Respondent 5 spoke of the simulation having an “ancillary” role (see Section 6.3.4),
a view which is clearly “below” the critical use border.
The “investigation” stage which is marked by the beginnings of interest and
involvement is exemplified in part by Survey Respondent 10 who, as noted in Section 6.9.1
(Sample profiles), was the most cautious of all participants, offering a neutral response to the
204 Chapter 8: Discussion
question of “enjoyment” of teaching within and through the simulation. Respondent 10
expressed a similar view to Respondent 5 about the supporting role of the simulation,
referring to as an “addition to content resources” (Section 6.3.4). The prospect for change
was evident in Respondent 10’s remarks regarding the experiential nature of the simulation
offering that it was “an interactive teaching method to replace real-world experiences if real-
world experiences are not possible, or as a practice for real-world experiences” (Section
6.9.1, Sample profiles).
The “application” stage, given the circumstances of the study and the involvement of
all participants in teaching within and through the simulation, was expected to be a common
or minimum level of adoption. This stage is where teachers use “ICT regularly with students;
and can do so competently and confidently.” The majority of survey respondents indicated
that they were confident in their technical competence (see Table 5.4) with some, in
interview, admitting to having been “nervous” or “terrified” at the beginning (see Section
7.2). The survey revealed that most participants enjoyed teaching with the simulation, with a
third indicated strong agreement. The high levels of enjoyment thus expressed by some was
echoed in the interviews where terms such as “enthusiasm” and “excitement” were
occasionally used by the interview subjects to discuss how they felt about aspects of their
practice (see Section 7.2). Technical competence and confidence may be necessary
conditions for a change in practice. Thomas, in interview and as previously cited, noted that
teachers need to become fully conversant with the simulation and understand what this
technology is capable of doing. He quickly went on to say that this knowledge be put to use
in designing meaningful learning experiences.
The observe of the singular necessity of technological knowledge, that is a lack of
competence and confidence, may delimit the opportunity for change. Respondent 5, who was
profiled as the most negative participant (see Section 6.9.1, Sample profiles) and as being at
the Inaction stage, indicated “discomfort” with the survey items relating to technological
knowledge (Items 6a and 6b) (see Appendix D). This claim is not supported, however, in the
case of Respondent 7 who similarly noted “discomfort” in the technical aspects of the
simulation (Item 6e) but clearly grasped the affordances of students’ interacting
collaboratively within the simulation and for student engagement.
The “integration” stage is where teachers have crossed the “critical use border.” It is
where the “use of ICT becomes critical to the support of the learning environment and the
opportunity for students to achieve learning outcomes through the learning experiences
provided.” In many ways, the participants in this study had crossed the border by default by
teaching with the simulation because the reliance on technology is self-evident. This study
Chapter 8: Discussion 205
has been less about the selection of the technology and more about coming to terms with it as
the unfamiliar environment in which teaching and learning occurs.
There were a number of instances of teaching practice reported in this study which
demonstrate “integration” stage. Many relate to how the teachers made use of the in-world,
particularly in the development of scenarios and their observation of how students responded
to them. A feature of the in-world is the Heads-Up Display (see Section 2.2.1, Figure 2.5)
which, if used appropriately, informs students and teachers of the status of the virtual
businesses. Students interact as avatars and navigate their way within the in-world, that is,
between the five islands (see Section 2.2.1).
The “transformation” stage is where the teacher is able to take on leadership roles
(formal or informal) in the use of ICT and be knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by
themselves and others. This stage is noted through specific learning experiences and the
identification of differing affordances for learning that they represent (see Section 7.2.3).
The transformation stage is also evident in the expression of personal teaching philosophies
relating to the use of digital technologies in teaching and learning. This expression is
indicative of teachers’ knowledge and reflection and their capacity to extract abstract
understandings from the experience of teaching within and through the simulation. An
example is Thomas and David’s assertion that the simulation is “not about the technology”
(see Section 7.2.1). This means that, as for Watson (2001), pedagogy comes before
technology and should drive any decisions about teaching and learning.
8.4.3 Summary of response to Research Question 4
This research question (RQ4) was concerned with the extent and nature of change to
teachers’ practice and beliefs through their experience of teaching with an immersive
educational simulation in Economics and Business. The majority of participants indicated
that they believed that their practice had changed, and such change had been made
deliberately in response to the challenges and disruptions created by the use of an unfamiliar
learning environment (see Response to Research Question 2). This section made use of the
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes
to indicate change in teacher practice.
8.5 The development of a relational schema as a theoretical model
While the models of teacher technology adoption presented in the literature review (see
Section 4.4, Figure 4.5) involve the presence of transformative teacher practice, a gap exists
in the literature to identify the presence of teaching and learning affordances of a specific
disruptive technology; in this case, an immersive educational simulation in a secondary
206 Chapter 8: Discussion
education setting. Research Questions 1 and 3 developed for this study, raised an awareness
of the need to identify the roles of technology in teaching and learning as well as specifically
in teaching Economics and Business (see Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3). The emergence of specific
affordances of teaching and learning from the online survey and interview data is represented
through the construction of a relational schema as a new theoretical model in this thesis (see
Figure 8.4).
Chapter 8: Discussion 207
Figure 8.4. A relational schema as a theoretical model to map teaching and learning affordances to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation.
208 Chapter 8: Discussion
The relational schema (see Figure 8.4) reveals that some roles have both teaching and
learning affordances while others have one or the other. It identifies that teaching
affordances, while discrete, can be grouped to represent how they impact on differing roles.
Further, some roles draw on multiple learning affordances. There is an interconnectedness
between roles and affordances. Each can also be seen as an indicator of how the teachers in
this study have re-interpreted their practice in the face of disruptive technologies. The
relational schema also identified the pedagogical connections between the affordances and
the teaching of Economics and Business.
The responses to the research questions offered in this chapter will contribute to the
discussion in the following chapter which introduces a new signature pedagogy to address
the overarching aim of the study, that is, how teachers interpret their own pedagogy in the
face of immersive educational simulations. The key to change and re-interpretation of
practice appears to be willingness to change and to adopt new technologies, to hand
ownership of learning to students, and to welcome disruption.
8.6 Chapter summary
This chapter has presented a response to each of the four research questions which guided
this study. As noted, data was drawn from the online survey and interviews. The chapter
began with a summarised account of teacher practice which, while providing illustrations
and examples to illustrate all responses, also addressed the role of ICT (Information and
Communication Technologies) in education in general and more specifically, in the teaching
of Economics and Business. The chapter then addressed Research Question 2, which
considered the challenges and disruptions faced by teachers through the lens of the
Australian Curriculum: ICT Capability. Challenges and disruptions caused by the simulation
have been recorded elsewhere in the thesis, particularly, Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.
The response in this chapter, in particular, considered the challenges and disruptions in terms
of the organisational elements of creating with ICT, communicating with ICT, and managing
and operating ICT. In response to Research Question 3, the pedagogical connections
between the affordances of the technology and the teaching of Economics and Business was
described in terms of teaching and learning. The chapter discussed how Research Question 4
asked about the extent and means that teachers’ practice and beliefs about pedagogy have
changed as a result of teaching with an immersive educational simulation (see Section 8.4).
Specifically, Research Question 4 asked about the extent and means that teachers’ practice
and beliefs about pedagogy have changed as a result of teaching with an immersive
educational simulation (see Section 8.4). The response used the career stages of the
Australian Professional Standards as an indicator of the extent of change. The means of
Chapter 8: Discussion 209
change were demonstrated through the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework
(Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005). Finally, the development of a relational
schema as a theoretical model was then proposed to map teaching and learning affordances
to the identified roles for an immersive educational simulation. The following chapter will
present a new signature pedagogy to inform teaching practice with immersive educational
simulations.
210 Chapter 9: Conclusion
Chapter 9: Conclusion
This study sought to investigate how teachers re-interpret their own pedagogy in the face of
immersive educational simulations. The study accepted the view that immersive educational
simulations represented a positive addition to promote real-world connections within
education (Barkand & Kush, 2009; Duncan et al., 2012; Farley, 2014; Johnson et al., 2012;
Savin-Baden et al., 2010). This aligns with Bronack et al.'s (2008) suggestion that:
… that place where we can think and how beyond ourselves, via mediated interactions
with others using tools, techniques and technologies that are both familiar to us and
also invisible. (p. 64)
Based on Sendov’s (1986) seminal question “how do we build education in the
presence of the computer?” (p. 16), the overarching aim of this study was to investigate
teachers’ re-interpretation of pedagogy in the face of immersive educational simulations.
This qualitative study, informed by Grounded Theory, revealed that existing
theoretical understandings of pedagogical practice did not satisfy teachers’ beliefs to
transform the teaching and learning experience within and through such advanced
technology. A “trial and error” approach to teaching within and through immersive
educational simulations did not satisfy those teachers who had begun to interrogate the
disruptive technology to ensure it provided opportunities for students to demonstrate higher-
order thinking skills. It became apparent that those teachers who adopted a lead role in the
implementation of the immersive educational simulation would need to effect change to their
own current pedagogical beliefs in order to confidently and competently teach
simultaneously and contiguously in these in- and out-worlds environments.
A new theoretical understanding of teaching within and through immersive
educational simulations was emerging, and the development of a contemporary pedagogy to
support the teaching within and through immersive educational simulations became evident.
In this study, a signature pedagogy emerged when teaching Economics and Business within
and through an immersive educational simulation. This chapter, as the conclusion to this
thesis, will describe this pedagogy and explain its components.
9.1 The development of a signature pedagogy – Emergence Pedagogy
The “emergence pedagogy” as a signature pedagogy for the teaching of the Australian
Curriculum: Economics and Business within and through an immersive educational
simulation is illustrated in Figure 9.1. “Emergence Pedagogy” was chosen as a label for this
Chapter 9: Conclusion 211
new signature pedagogy on the basis that an emergence typology provided an apt
relationship when engaging with Grounded Theory; in this case, the adoption of Charmaz’s
(2006) version which employed ontological and epistemological frameworks to describe
findings from a constructivist paradigm (Levers, 2013). De Haan (2006) recognised the
importance of characterising “emergence” as a unique or unexpected phenomenon that
transcends the thing that produces it. This typology relied on the researcher, being as
objective as possible, constructing theory that aimed to reduce the complexity found in the
data gathered, did not have a linear relationship with the data and was still recognised as an
independent entity (Levers, 2013). There was a direct relationship between how the
researcher interpreted the data and this form of interpretation being influenced by the
emerging theory (Levers, 2013).
For this study, and key to Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist paradigm, was the idea
that the data was observed from a critical realist ontological perspective whereby there were
real-world connections that allowed the researcher and participants to be able to access in
order to explain the data and theory. Teachers, through their reflections of their own teaching
practice within and through the immersive educational simulation, were able to make real-
world connections through the in- and out-worlds environments. The researcher was also
able to make real-world connections when interpreting the data, which revealed a strong link
to teachers’ content knowledge and industry currency knowledge to inform one’s approach
to teaching within and through the immersive educational simulation. Concurrently, the
researcher was able to construct a theory that simplified the complexity of teachers teaching
simultaneously and contiguously in- and out-worlds, which portrayed the characteristics of a
subjectivist epistemological perspective (Levers, 2013). This, in turn, acknowledged how
“emergence” could be conceptualised when using Grounded Theory (Levers, 2013).
212
Ref
eren
ces
Figu
re 9
.1.
“Em
erge
nce
Peda
gogy
” ba
sed
on th
e am
alga
mat
ion
of th
e Te
chno
logi
cal P
edag
ogic
al C
onte
nt K
now
ledg
e (T
PAC
K) m
odel
(Koe
hler
&
Mis
hra,
200
9); t
he T
each
er P
rofe
ssio
nal I
CT
Attr
ibut
es F
ram
ewor
k (N
ewho
use
et a
l., 2
002)
; and
the
Aus
tralia
n C
urric
ulum
Org
anis
ing
Elem
ents
of t
he IC
T G
ener
al C
apab
ility
(AC
AR
A, 2
014)
.
Em
erg
en
ce
P
ed
ag
og
y
TEAC
HIN
G
AFFO
RD
ANC
ES
AFFO
RD
AN
CES
LEAR
NIN
G
Chapter 9: Conclusion 213
The implication for teachers to successfully employ this emergence pedagogy for
immersive educational simulations, is that they must explicitly address the “duality”
approach of the in- and out-worlds learning environments. Figure 9.2 shows the model of the
emergence pedagogy with the in- and out-worlds creating a boundary. This figure, as with
Figure 9.1, is symbolically modelled on the universally recognised Wi-Fi symbol to
emphasise the importance of the teacher being able to evolve (or “beam out”) to the next
level of digital technology (in this case – using immersive educational simulations) while
maintaining a connection to their pedagogy and the curriculum.
Figure 9.2. The in- and out-worlds marking the boundary of the emergence pedagogy.
At the “surface level” (Shulman, 2005), teachers must exploit their Content
Knowledge (CK) of the key Economics and Business concepts and principles to critically
apply advanced scenarios to ensure that students are able to demonstrate their ability to
practise higher-ordering thinking skills of establishing and operating their virtual businesses
within a range of complex market conditions. This level of Content Knowledge (CK)
requires teachers to reflect on their own personal industry experience and engagement of
current business situations. The ability for teachers to exercise an ease of transferring current
industry knowledge and experience, allows for more contextual understanding of the
implications for business within differing trading marketplaces. The level of personal
industry exposure to specific areas of business operations (e.g. Financial Management,
Operations Management, Human Resource Management and Marketing Management),
214 Chapter 9: Conclusion
allows the teacher to lead “expert” discussions out-world with the students and
collaboratively forecast how the outcomes of such discussions will translate in the in-world
virtual trading environment. The ability for teachers to demonstrate how the scenarios will
be enacted and help students to then create solutions to the presented challenges, allows
teachers to demonstrate “concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning” that specifically
encourages “interacting and withholding, of approaching and withdrawing” in order to elicit
a different level of higher-order thinking amongst the students (Shulman, 2005, p. 54).
The emergence pedagogy also allows teachers to demonstrate a “deep structure”
(Shulman, 2005). Teachers have formed the assumption that by referring to their own
industry currency when engaging as the “Administrator” role “in-world,” enables them to
adopt a pedagogical approach that relies on the “know how” (Shulman, 2005) of Business
Management within an Australian context. By doing so, they are able to be discriminating in
their questioning techniques, so as to ensure alignment with the “Content Descriptors” of the
Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business, as well as achieving the intent of the
syllabus document by providing a real-world context. This assumption adopted by the
teacher, demonstrates a leadership role of imparting a subject-specific body of knowledge.
This, in turn, promotes a sense of “authenticity” in that teachers experiencing similar market
forces issues with their own businesses (or the company/ies they worked for), were able to
realistically guide students to reflect on the feasibility of their strategic business decision-
making practices, and achieve a more successful learning outcome when applying this to the
immersive educational simulation.
For teachers to feel confident at the “transformation stage”, they have demonstrated
that their pedagogical approach has an “implicit structure” (Shulman, 2005), as their own
“professional attitudes, values and dispositions” (Shulman, 2005, p. 55) have aided their
ability to implement the immersive educational simulation using effective pedagogical
design and strategy. This moral dimension, focussing on how teachers demonstrate a set of
moral beliefs about the immersive educational simulations is characterised by these teachers
employing certain professional values when teaching within and through the immersive
educational. When designing and developing the unit planning for the incorporation of the
immersive educational simulation, teachers placed “value” in ensuring that a level of
“authenticity” was at its core focus. Teachers would collaboratively create activities that
would mimic what would happen in the real-world of Economics and Business. Allowing
students to experience a number of key roles in business (e.g., CEO, CFO, COO and CMO)
provided insight as to how these corporate roles effect change to the success of a particular
business. Teachers placed value in exploring a range of pedagogical strategies to enable
students to participate in collaborative activities that promoted a real-world sense of
Chapter 9: Conclusion 215
interaction that was “encouraged by the nature of the competition, to implement and assess
the merits of key business decisions and strategies” (see Section 6.4.2, Respondent 8).
Providing an authentic learning platform indicates teachers’ belief of facilitating team
interaction and encouraging the development of interpersonal skills necessary for the
simulation of interacting with real-world Economics and Business environments. Teachers
then placed professional “value” in how students “consolidated” in the learning process by
providing the structured and unstructured learning experiences, which enabled the students
to practise business-related interactions to consolidate the students’ understanding of the
Economics and Business concepts. Teachers also placed professional “value” in how
students “engaged” with the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business. Encouraging
students to be actively involved in the key business decision-making and strategic planning
of their businesses, enabled teachers to demonstrate professional “value” in the belief of
“engaging” students in becoming fully involved in the learning of the curriculum.
Teachers also placed importance on their own professional “attitudes” towards the
intent of integrating the immersive educational simulation within the curriculum and were
willing to provide a learning environment that encouraged the pursuit of “experiential”
learning. Teachers provided “as real an environment as possible that is simulated and
controlled by the teacher to provide students the opportunity to run a business in an easily
accessible format” (see Section 6.4.6, Respondent 14). The professional “dispositions”
adopted by teachers were influenced by the level of “interactivity” they encouraged students
to participate in. This pursuit of exploring ICTs to support students’ learning experiences
practically demonstrates the implications of students’ business decision-making within the
real-world context of the virtual trading environment.
Teachers’ professional “dispositions” were also characterised by their connection to
the in- and out-worlds learning environments and the importance of exploring these learning
platforms to promote higher-order thinking skills. The consideration to implement the
immersive educational simulation as a “practical way to reinforce and consolidate the
concepts of entrepreneurship, marketing, some understanding of finance and production, in a
simulated environment where risk is minimal” (See Section 6.4.2, Respondent 4), enabled
teachers to reflect on their own belief for the purpose and importance of working in these
two different learning platforms. Teachers became aware of potential affordances of
incorporating immersive educational simulations in order to teach Economics and Business
concepts and principles.
216 Chapter 9: Conclusion
9.1.1 Emergence pedagogy – engagement with the immersive educational simulation
When faced with implementing the PierSim Business Island Simulation into the learning
environment in order to teach the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business, teachers
recognised that they needed to “transform” their pedagogical practice. They needed to adopt
a “lead” role when designing and developing the curriculum, assessment and resources to be
able to competently teach with the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Teachers realised
that simply “applying” prior pedagogical practices to this new learning environment, would
only allow students to consolidate their understanding of key Economics and Business
concepts and skills, and students would not be able to extend their higher-order thinking
skills in business decision-making. Teachers had moved across the “critical use border”
(Newhouse et al., 2002) by realising that the successful implementation of the PierSim
Business Island Simulation was dependent on the teachers’ belief that this immersive
educational simulation was critical in supporting a “best practice” learning environment for
students to effectively practise real-world business scenarios. Figure 9.3 adds the application,
integration and transformation levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework
(Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) to the emergence pedagogy model.
Figure 9.3. The levels of the Teacher Professional ICT Attributes Framework (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et al., 2005) within the emergence pedagogy.
Application of the immersive educational simulation
The teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by firstly recognising his/her ability to
regularly use the immersive educational simulation with students and know how to do so
competently and confidently (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Newhouse et al., 2002). The teacher
is able to competently and confidently make appropriate connections between the concepts
Chapter 9: Conclusion 217
and principles of the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business)
through the immersive educational simulations (in this case – PierSim Business Island
Simulation) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to “create” pedagogical
connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages the appropriate
generation of “ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to respond to
questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks” (ACARA,
n.d.-d, para. 1). The teacher is then able to “communicate” these appropriate pedagogical
connections through the immersive educational simulation which allows for the sharing of
“ideas and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and digital solutions”
(ACARA, n.d.-c, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can “manage and operate” the appropriate
pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation by taking into
consideration the technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and
maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).
Integration with the immersive educational simulation
The teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by firstly recognising that the immersive
educational simulation (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation) “becomes critical
to the support of the learning environment and the opportunity for students to achieve
learning outcomes through the learning experiences provided” (Newhouse et al., 2002). The
teacher is able to seamlessly make effective “real-life” connections between the concepts and
principles of the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business) through
the immersive educational simulations in order to advance the students’ knowledge and
understanding of the content area (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation)
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to effectively “create” enhanced
pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages the
meaningful generation of “… ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to
respond to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”
(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). The teacher is then able to convincingly “communicate” these
appropriate pedagogical connections through the immersive educational simulation which
promotes the sharing of “ideas and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and
digital solutions” (ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can confidently “manage and
operate” the pedagogical connections with the immersive educational simulation by taking
into consideration the technical knowledge and skills to efficiently and securely manage and
maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).
Transformation with the immersive educational simulation
Within the “transformation stage,” the teacher is able to interpret their own pedagogy by
recognising that they adopt a leadership role (both formal and informal) in the teaching of
218 Chapter 9: Conclusion
the subject-specific curriculum, in this case Economics and Business, through the immersive
educational simulation of the PierSim Business Island Simulation. Critical to this is the
ability for the teacher to become “knowledgeable/reflective on its integration by themselves
and others” (Newhouse et al., 2002). The teacher is able to demonstrate “expertise” in
advancing the subject-specific curriculum (in this case – Economics and Business) through
the immersive educational simulations in order to evolve the students’ knowledge and
understanding of the content area (in this case – PierSim Business Island Simulation)
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The teacher is also able to “create” exemplary pedagogical
connections with the immersive educational simulation that encourages other teachers to
successfully generate “… ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to
respond to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”
(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Additionally, the teacher is then able to meaningfully
“communicate” these pedagogical connections through the immersive educational simulation
which advocates for the sharing of “ideas and information to collaboratively construct
knowledge and digital solutions” (ACARA, n.d.-c, para, 1). Finally, the teacher can
effortlessly “manage and operate” the pedagogical connections with the immersive
educational simulation by taking into consideration the technical knowledge and skills to
efficiently and securely manage and maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1).
Teachers reflected that the desired curriculum outcome was concerned with the
teacher being able to exploit the characteristics of the technology in order to provide an
enhanced level of pedagogical practice for student learning within the constructivist learning
environment (Newhouse et al., 2002). The multifaceted design of the PierSim Business
Island Simulation allowed for a greater vision and belief of how such a virtual trading
platform could promote a level of “authenticity” that had not been witnessed in more
traditional classroom learning activities. Therefore, teachers acknowledged the complexity in
designing the unit of work to reflect the differing stages of knowledge utilisation when
establishing and operating the virtual business worlds.
9.1.2 Emergence pedagogy – alignment to the organising elements of the ICT General Capability
When faced with implementing the PierSim Business Island Simulation into the learning
environment in order to teach the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business, teachers
reinforce that a different pedagogical approach is needed to ensure the “duality” of teaching
in- and out-worlds is effectively practised. Teachers “create” exemplary pedagogical
connections with both in- and out-worlds to effectively promote an environment where
students can create “ideas, plans and processes that clarify a task or steps in order to respond
to questions, realise creative intentions and create solutions to challenges and tasks”
Chapter 9: Conclusion 219
(ACARA, n.d.-d, para. 1). Secondly, teachers meaningfully “communicate” these
pedagogical connections by advocating for students to participate in the sharing of “ideas
and information to collaboratively construct knowledge and digital solutions” (ACARA,
n.d.-c, para. 1). Finally, the teacher can effortlessly “manage and operate” the pedagogical
connections when implementing the immersive educational simulation by taking into
consideration the Technological Knowledge (TK) to enable students to “efficiently and
securely manage and maintain digital data” (ACARA, n.d.-j, para. 1). Therefore, this level of
engagement allows teachers to promote that in order “to participate in a knowledge-based
economy and to be empowered within a technologically sophisticated society now and into
the future, students need the knowledge, skills and confidence to make ICT work for them”
(ACARA, n.d.-g, para. 2). This concept that technology is not fixed and is responsive to
ongoing developments, enables teachers to transfer these skillsets across different learning
environments, in order to achieve maximum desired learning outcomes.
In summary, the adoption of an immersive educational simulation enabled teachers to
adopt an “emergence pedagogy” to actively promote the “transformation” of learning within
the in-world (which is reliant on the ability for students to practise their enterprising
skillsets) and the out-world experience of the classroom (which encourages the driving force
behind effective strategic business decision-making processes). Therefore, by clear
interpretation of their own practice and adoption of the “emergence pedagogy”, teachers are
rising up with students by working alongside of them to respond to unknown situations
(within and through the immersive educational simulation environment) and are able to
effectively “create with ICT”, “communicate with ICT”, and “manage and operate with ICT”
as a result of the consultancy approached engrained in currency and authenticity; thus truly
promoting “lead” status in accordance with the descriptors of Standard 2.6 of APST.
Therefore, the key success of implementing immersive educational simulations, such as the
PierSim Business Island Simulation, is determined by how teachers interpret their own
pedagogy and recognise the power of in- and out-worlds duality of learning.
Being exposed in the face of an immersive educational simulation presents teachers
with the opportunity to reflect quite deeply on who they are as teachers and how they
reconnect with the content. Therefore, it is timely that this new pedagogy is actually
practised and recognised because it is a change in the shift in teacher thinking and teacher
beliefs. Teachers, in this subject-specific curriculum area, now place a different focus on the
expertise required of their own content knowledge and their own industry experience of
economics and business. Therefore, teaching within and through the immersive educational
simulation is “disruptive” – the disruption is not an obvious one but is quite intangible – it is
about teachers’ relationship with content, their command in content and their confidence
220 Chapter 9: Conclusion
with content. This, in turn, encourages lead teachers to adopt emergence pedagogy which
enables them to feel confident and competent when teaching simultaneously and
contiguously between the in-world and the out-world.
9.1.3 Emergence pedagogy – teaching affordances
When faced with implementing the PierSim Business Island Simulation into the learning
environment in order to teach the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business, teachers
became aware of their own affordances to their teaching practice when presented with such a
disruptive technological environment. Those who adopted a “lead” role demonstrated
specific affordances to effect change to their teaching of the specific Economics and
Business concepts while promoting real-world scenarios. Figure 9.4 shows the presence of
teaching affordances when simultaneously and contiguously interacting within and through
the immersive educational simulation.
Figure 9.4 Adding teaching affordances to the emergence pedagogy.
These pedagogical connections between the affordances and the teaching of
Economics and Business enabled teachers to rethink how they allow students to experience
the Economics and Business concepts and skills. The teaching affordances were described in
Section 8.3.1 in response to Research Question 3. They are:
1. Managing the learning environment
Chapter 9: Conclusion 221
2. Real-time responsiveness
3. Encouraging higher order thinking
4. Encouraging critical thinking
5. Scaffolding student learning
6. Open-ended problems
7. Teaching concepts holistically
8. Teachers’ redefinition of their role
9. Teacher:student relationship
The mapping of these teaching affordances to the identified roles for an immersive
educational simulation, namely in teaching and learning and within Economics and Business,
is illustrated in Figure 8.4. Teachers became very aware of how to manage the learning
environment (first teaching affordance) by manipulating variables within the immersive
educational simulation so as to allow the Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the program to alter
the environment as a result of the change to the economic and business conditions imposed.
The teacher’s belief in real-time responsiveness (second teaching affordance) of current
authentic business issues and strategy was needed to encourage students seeing “first-hand”
the implications of their strategic business decision-making processes. This, in-turn, created
a learning environment that encouraged higher order thinking (third teaching affordance) as
the open-endedness of the in-world experience enabled teachers to support students in being
able to solve “real-time” problems and have them visibly demonstrate their ability to apply
learnt theory to practice. Teachers employed the notion of higher order thinking to
encourage critical thinking (fourth teaching affordance) as the effective integration of the
immersive educational simulation forces students to question their own business planning
before applying such planning within the trading environment. This approach demonstrated a
real connect between students’ capacity for their own critical thinking and their engagement
with their content knowledge of Economics and Business.
The deliberate pedagogical practice of encouraging higher order thinking and
Steps were taken to lessen the impact of these limitations. For example, the
development of open-ended questions allowed teachers to come to terms with the
introduction of new technologies. Further, the researcher focussed the interviews on the
learning and teaching environment rather than an individual’s capacity to use or master the
technology thus countering the second and third limitation.
Chapter 9: Conclusion 227
9.4 Recommendations for further research
This study was developed from the desire to explore how emerging “disruptive”
technologies inform a teacher’s pedagogical practice. Therefore, since this is a relatively new
area of research, a number of research directions could be explored. Some areas for further
investigation could include:
investigating how students respond to immersive educational simulations as this will
continue to inform a teacher’s pedagogical approach;
examining a wider sample of teachers (if the program becomes more popular) over a
longer period of time to determine how these teachers evolve their pedagogical practice;
investigating how revisions of the Australian Curriculum: Economics and Business
could impact a teacher’s pedagogical belief and attitude towards the adoption of such
“disruptive” technologies;
examining how a teacher’s pedagogical approach to the teaching of a specific year level
of the Australian Curriculum for Economics and Business is impacted by the immersive
educational simulation;
investigating how the teachers exploit the characteristics of ICT to guide student-
learning within a constructivist learning environment (Newhouse et al., 2002; Trinidad et
al., 2005), particularly for immersive educational simulations;
investigating how teachers interpret their own pedagogy when teaching other business
subjects’ concepts and skills within and through immersive educational simulations; and
exploring how teachers interpret their own pedagogy when implementing immersive
educational simulations for other curriculum learning areas.
9.5 Endnote
The reason I undertook this study was to explore how such a “disruptive” technology, an
immersive educational simulation, could be adopted by teachers to change the way in which
Economics and Business was taught to students. While the very idea of implementing a
virtual reality component to the curriculum seemed quite exciting, I was more interested to
see how teachers, with a range of experience and technological expertise, would cope with
the implementation of such an emerging technology. I wanted to explore how teachers would
reflect on their own pedagogy and belief about emerging technologies, in order to now
respond to the demands of a changing educational landscape for teaching this subject-
specific curriculum area. Initially, I was eager to see how teachers simply accepted that this
was yet another aid to assist them in teaching Economics and Business (as they were used to
228 Chapter 9: Conclusion
previously incorporating a range of ICT tools). However, I became more intrigued with how
teachers began to show visible signs of relying on their own business industry experience
when teaching the key concepts of Economics and Business within this technology platform.
As the study progressed, I was quite surprised at the level of significance teachers
placed on their pedagogical approach when in- and out-worlds. This sparked a keen
interested in delving into the reasons why teachers were keen to explore new ways of
teaching as a result of having to teach simultaneously in- and out-worlds. The rich
discussions amongst the teachers surrounding this “duality” approach began to create a
renewed sense of excitement amongst the teachers in how they were creating engaging
learning experiences for their students. It was at this stage that I sensed something exciting
was emerging as teachers were really beginning to engage in deep reflection of their own
pedagogical practice and trialled a range of existing pedagogical strategies to inform their
teaching within an immersive educational simulation. After variable success, teachers began
to innately resort to their own business industry experience to respond to the Artificial
Intelligence (AI) of the PierSim Business Island Simulation program. I believe that this was
a key turning point in how teachers viewed this immersive educational simulation. No longer
did they see the program as a way to consolidate students’ understanding of the key
Economics and Business concepts and skills, but rather saw this as an opportunity with work
with students to begin working against the program.
Teachers began to realise how powerful the AI was within the program and viewed
PierSim Business Island Simulation as an assistant to the learning experience. They became
confident in consulting with students, using their expert industry experience and content
knowledge, to guide students in being able to respond to and forecast how the AI would
change the market conditions within the virtual trading environment. It was exciting to
observe the dynamics change in the classroom, from listening to the interviewees’ responses.
The literature suggested that teachers would simply resort to traditional pedagogical
practices and use the technology to consolidate students’ understanding of the content being
delivered to them. However, while aspects of this were relevant in the initial phases of the
interviews and survey responses, it was clear that, as the interviews progressed, the teachers
delved into more complex applications of integrating the PierSim Business Island Simulation
program. Therefore, teachers began to pioneer ways in how to effectively teach both in- and
out-worlds. It was refreshing to see how teachers relied on their expertise as a teacher and
their wisdom from their own business industry experience to devise pedagogical strategies
that would enhance the learning experiences for the students.
While this study only focussed on a small sample size, it was pleasing to see that this
group of teachers demonstrated exemplary teaching practice by responding to change in such
Chapter 9: Conclusion 229
a professional manner with the students’ best interests always at the forefront of their own
reflections. Hopefully, this study will allow for further study in the design and development
of effective pedagogical practices when implementing such disruptive technologies as
immersive educational simulations.
I believe we are only just starting to see a glimpse of the real potential that AI, virtual
reality and even mixed reality has to offer the secondary schooling learning environment and
I truly am privileged to be a part of this next exciting era for Economics and Business
Education. Perhaps it is timely to advocate that:
“Nobody wants to use technology to recreate education as it is”
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 256)
References 231
References
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-a). Aims. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/economics-and-business/aims
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-b). Applying social and ethical protocols and practices when using ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Applying+social+and+ethical+protocols+and+practices+when+using+ICT&level=Level+4
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-c). Communicating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Communicating+with+ICT&level=Level+1&level=Level+2&level=Level+3&level=Level+4&level=Level+5&level=Level+6&page=2
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-d). Creating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?element=Creating+with+ICT&level=Level+4&searchNodeId=14423&searchTerm=AUDIENCE
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-e). Economics and Business. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/economics-and-business/
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-f). General capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-g). Information and communication technology (ICT) capability. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-h). Information and Communication Technology Capability learning continuum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/1074/general-capabilities-information-and-communication-ict-capability-learning-continuum.pdf
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-i). Investigating with ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/learning-continuum/?isFirstPageLoad=false&element=Investigating+with+ICT&level=Level+4
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-j). Managing and operating ICT. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2014). Australian Curriculum: Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences
Adams, J., & Morgan, G. (2007). “Second Generation” E-learning: Characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft-skills development. International Journal on ELearning,6(2), 157-185.
Adu, E. K., & Poo, D. C. C. (2014). Smart learning: A new paradigm of learning in the Smart Age. Paper presented at TLHE 2014: International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, National University of Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/Tlhe/tlhe2014/abstracts/aduek.pdf
AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). (2014). Australian Professional Standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers. No. 41. Paris OECD.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Apple, M. W. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Attewell, J. (2004). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Australian Curriculum. (n.d). Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences
Barkand, J., & Kush, J. (2009). GEARS: A 3D Virtual Learning Environment and Virtual Social and Educational World used in online secondary schools. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(3), 215-224.
Becker, J. H., & Riel, M. M., (2001). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist compatible computer use (Report No. 7). Teaching, Learning and Computing Project. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7/startpage.html
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75275
Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C.M. (1995, January–February). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
References 233
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis - Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1080/09523980701847115
Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J., & Matzen, N. (2008). Presence pedagogy: Teaching and learning in a 3D Virtual Immersive World. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-69.
Brown, T. (2005). Towards a model for m-Learning in Africa. International Journal of ELearning, 4(3), 299-315.
Buckberry, N. (2005). More than a vision for learning. British Journal of Administrative Management, 45, 28-29.
Butler, A.E., Copnell, B., & Hall, H. (2018). The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian, 25, 561-566. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.01.002
Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 2, 22-28.
Campbell, C. (2009). Learning in a different life: Pre-service education students using an online virtual world. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1) 3–17. Retrieved from http://www.jvwresearch.org/index.php?_cms=default,3,3
Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2010). Grounded Theory as an emergent method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy, (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 155-170). New York: Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2
Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, L., Çallı, L., & Çallı, F. (2014). 3D printing and co-creation of value. Paper presented at the 12th International IADIS Conference, Portsmouth, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.port.ac.uk/14538/1/IADIS_Conference_2014_Final.pdf
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 39(5). Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/red/39/conole.pdf
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. doi:10.1007/s10639-009-9106-z
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). “Disruptive technologies,” “pedagogical innovation”: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511-524. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009
234 References
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1007/BF00988593
Cox, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University: Provo, UT. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=etd
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends Linking Research Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 60-69.
Craven, D., & Weir, S. (n.d.). A new virtual simulation experience for business education. Retrieved from http://piersim.com/beaq
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18-28. doi: 10.5204/jld.v6i3.155
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004813
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a Virtual World. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x
de Haan, J. (2006). How emergence arises. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 293–301. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.003
Denessen, E. (2000). Opvattingen over onderwijs (Beliefs about education). Apeldoorn: Garant.
Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245–256.
Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary-school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503-535. doi: 10.1080/00220270701305362
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1897/1972). The psychological aspect of the school curriculum. In J. A. Boydston & F. Bowers (Eds.), The early works of John Dewey, 1882-1898 (Vol. 5, 1895-1898) (pp. 164-177). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinios University Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
References 235
Dickerson, J., & Kubasko, D. (2007). Digital microscopes: Enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 279-292.
Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121. doi: 10.1080/01587910303047
Dickey, M. D. (2005a). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1-2), 121-137. doi: 10.1080/10494820500173714
Dickey, M. D. (2005b). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge Framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346. doi: 10.2190/EC.41.3.d
Duncan, I., Miller, A., & Jiang, S. (2012). A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 949-964. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01263.x
Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Haymore-Sandholtz, J. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices. ACOT Report #8. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt08.pdf
Ellis, S. (1996). Presence of mind: A reaction to Thomas Sheridan’s ‘Further musings on the psychophysics of presence’. Presence: Virtual and Augmented Reality, 5(2), 247–259. doi: 10.1162/pres.1996.5.2.247
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61. doi: 10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. doi: 10.1007/bf02504683
Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2015). Essentials of PBL implementation: Fostering collaboration, transforming roles, and scaffolding learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 89–106). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(1), 423-435. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. R. Fives & M. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs (pp. 403–418). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
236 References
Farley, H. (2014). Virtual worlds in higher education: The challenges, expectations and delivery. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum Models for the 21st Century (pp. 325–349). New York: Springer.
Fernández, W. D. (2004) The Grounded Theory method and case study data in is research: Issues and design. In D.N. Hart & S.D. Gregor (Eds.), Information systems foundations: constructing and criticizing (pp. 43-59). Canberra, Australia: ANU E-Press.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education & technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Flavin, M. (2017). Disruptive technology enhanced learning: The use and misuse of digital technologies in higher education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Fram, S. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/fram1.pdf
Gazzard, A. (2009). The avatar and the player: understanding the relationship beyond the screen. In G. Rebolledo-Mendez, F. Liarokapis & S. de Freitas (Eds), Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, (pp. 190–193). IEEE Computer Society, Coventry, UK, 23–24 March.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for Virtual Worlds: A communal constructivism case study. Computers & Education, 55(1), 342-349. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.020
Girvan, C., & Savage, T. (2012). Ethical considerations for educational research in a Virtual World. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(3), 239-251. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.641678
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2005). Skype and podcasting: Disruptive technologies for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 9-12. doi: 10125/44026
Goodman, J. (2012). Reforming schools: Working within a progressive tradition during conservative times. New York: SUNY Press.
Gregory, S., Butler, D., de Freitas, S., Jacka, L., Crowther, P., Reiners, T., Grant, S. et al. (2014). Rhetoric and reality: Critical perspective on education in a 3-D virtual world. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational Technology (pp. 279-289). Proceedings of the 31st Annual ASCILITE Conference (ASCILITE 2014), November 23-26, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Gros, B. (2016). The design of smart educational environments. Smart Learning Environments, 3(15), 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s40561-016-0039-x
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.
References 237
Hallberg, L. R. M. (2006). The ‘core category’ of Grounded Theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1, 141- 148. doi: 10.1080/17482620600858399
Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. Tech Trends, 60(5), 433-441. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Harmes, J. C., Welsh, J. L., & Winkelman, R. J. (2016). A framework for defining and evaluating technology integration in the instruction of real-world skills. In S. Ferrara, Y. Rosen, & M. Tager (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Technology Tools for Real-world Skill Development (pp. 137-162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Vol. 95, pp. 131-171). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hattie, J. (2017). Hattie’s 2017 Updated list of factors influencing student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hatties-2017-updated-list
Hattie, J., & Anderman, E.M. (Eds.), (2013). International guide to student achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hedberg, J., & Alexander, S. (1994). Virtual reality in education: Defining researchable issues. Educational Media International, 31(4), 214–220. doi: 10.1080/0952398940310402
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hew, K., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive Virtual Worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and the community, Loveland, CO: Learning Centre Publications.
Hill, S., & Jacka, L. (2013). Fad or future? Exploring affordances of virtual worlds for music performance education. Paper presented at the Australian Society for Music Education 3-5 October 2013, Canberra.
Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. London: Blackwell Science.
Holmes, A., Polhemus, L., & Jennings, S. (2005). A blended approach to situated professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 381-394. doi: 10.2190/F97W-QUJ4-G7YG-FPXC
Howell, J. (2012). Teaching with ICT: Digital pedagogies for collaboration and creativity. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, H-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
238 References
Huang, R., Yang, J., & Zheng, L. (2013). The components and functions of smart learning environments for easy, engaged and effective learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 7(1), 4-14.
Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441-456.
Jacka, L. (2015). Virtual worlds in pre-service teacher education: The introduction of virtual worlds in pre-service teacher education to foster innovative teaching-learning processes. Unpublished PhD thesis, Southern Cross University. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a429/50f6151778c0f230df512844c829ff9bd78b.pdf
Jacka, L. (2018). Using virtual worlds in educational settings: Making learning real. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture – Media education for the 21st Century (Part Two). Retrieved from https://www.idunn.no/file/pdf/33191596/confronting_the_challenges_ofparticipatoryculture_-_media_education_for_the.pdf
Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in “Second Life.” International Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 3, 180–186.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2012-horizon-report-k12
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/46484
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Gottdenker, J. (2005). Modelling for meaningful learning. Learning Sciences and Technologies Group (Ed.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 7–28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
Kenny, J. (2002). What did we get for our training money? Retrieved from http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=357732
Kilkkia, K., Mäntyläa, M., Karhua, K., Hämmäinena, H., & Ailistob, H. (2018). A disruption framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 275–284. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.034
Kimmons, R., Miller, B. G., Amador, J., Desjardins, C. D., & Hall, C. (2015). Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 809–829. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9394-5
King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 11 - 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
References 239
Kirriemuir, J. (2008). Measuring the impact of Second Life for educational purposes. EduServ Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/sl/uksnapshot052008
Kirschner, P. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7-47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P.J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. doi: 10.1007/BF02504675
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. doi: 10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In American Association of College for Teacher Education. (AACTE) (Ed.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 60-70. doi: 10.1177/002205741319300303
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563-573. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/88181
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wengner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levers, M-J. (2013). Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. SAGE Open, October-December 2013, 1–6. doi: 10.1177/2158244013517243
Li, M.N., Porter, A. L., & Suominen A. (2018). Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 285-296. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.032
Lim, K.F. (2013), The signature pedagogy in chemistry education. Chemistry in Australia, 2013, p. 35. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30058946
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Blackwell Science.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lingard, L., Albert, M. & Levinson, W. (2008, August 23). Qualitative research: Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ, 337, 459-461. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
240 References
Livingstone, S. (2012) Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38 (1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938
Lloyd, M. (2016). National and international frameworks for teacher competency. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 295-306). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Lloyd, M. (2018). Imagining the affordances of mobile devices as a mechanism in teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 37-48. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/ijet/index.php/ijet/article/view/32
Lukman, R., & Krajnc, M. (2012). Exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual and real-world environments. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 237-247.
Lundin, J., & Magnusson, M. (2003). Collaborative learning in mobile work: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 273-283. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00029.x
Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Type II applications of technology in education: new and better ways of teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1/2), 1–5. doi: 10.1300/J025v23n01_0
Makki, T.W., O’Neal, L., Cotten, S.R., & Rikard, R.V. (2018). When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second- and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education, 120, 90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.005
Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded Theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. doi: 10.1177/002188638602200207
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.
McCarney, J. (2004). Effective models of staff development in ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1080/0261976042000211801
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (1999). The Adelaide Declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic,R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J.J. & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2007 Conference, Singapore. Retrieved from https://researchbank.acu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com.au/&httpsredir=1&article=3049&context=fea_pub
McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative
References 241
communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 107-116. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.784930
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moersch, C. (1995, November). Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(3), 40–42.
Moersch, C. (2010, February). LoTi turns up the H.E.A.T. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37(5), 20–23.
Morrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2000). Qualitative research for counseling psychology. In S. D.Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 199–230). New York: Wiley.
Newhouse, P., Trinidad, S. & Clarkson, B. (2002). Quality pedagogy and effective learning with Information and Communications Technologies (ICT): A review of the literature. Perth, Australia: Specialist Educational Services.
Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. doi: 10.2190/EC.44.3.c
Nocchi, S. (2017). The affordances of virtual worlds for language learning: An activity theoretical study. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Dublin City University. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/468f/9ed48d4facdfb7f5c89f618b852607239dfb.pdf
Noddings, N. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Orland-Barak, L. (2002). The theoretical sensitivity of the researcher: Reflections on a complex construct. Reflective Practice, 3(3), 263-278. doi: 10.1080/1462394022000034523
Orman, E., Price, H.E., & Rusell, C.R. (2017). Feasibility of using an augmented immersive virtual reality learning environment to enhance music conducting skills. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 27(1), 24-35.doi: 10.1177/1057083717697962
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2000, October). Making the transition: Helping faculty to teach online. Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE 2000, Nashville. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0006.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Measuring integration of Information and Communication Technology in education: An item response modeling approach. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1247-1259. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.015
242 References
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013
Phillips, M. (2015). Digital technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 318-331). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, M., & Li, J. (2016). Disrupting teachers’ knowledge and practice: Augment reality in out-of-classroom settings. Proceedings ACCE 2016, 164-172.
Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the assessment of educational technology professional development in a culture of learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 126-131.
Postman. N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Psotka, J. (2013). Educational games and virtual reality as disruptive technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 69–80.
Puentedura, R. R. (2006). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf
Robbins-Bell, S. (2008). Higher education as virtual conversation. Educause Review, 24(34). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0851.pdf
Romrell, D., Kidder, L., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. OLJ, 18(2). doi:10.24059/olj.v18i2.435
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309-309. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42433
Savin-Baden, M. (2010). A practical guide to using “Second Life” in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M., Gourlay, L., Tombs, C., Steils, N., Tombs, G., & Mawer, M. (2010). Situating pedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research, 52(2), 123-133. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.482732
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 256-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schofield, K., Melville, B., Bennet, D., & Walsh, A. (2001). Professional practices online: Renovating past practices or building new ones? Paper presented at the Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
References 243
Schultze, U., & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.11.001
Sendov, B. (1986). The second wave: Problems of computer education. In R. Ennals, R. Gwyn, & L. Zdravchev (Eds.), Information Technology and Education (pp. 14-22). Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
Sexias, P. (2001). Review of research on social studies. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 545-546). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E. & Thompson, A. (2009). Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through course experiences. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4152-4159). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. doi: 10.1162/0011526054622015
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Soraker, J.H. (2009). Virtual entities, environments, worlds, and realities: Suggested definitions and taxonomy. Paper presented at The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, August 13-15, University of Oslo, Norway.
Sternberg, R. J., & Preiss, D. D. (Eds.). (2013). Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. London: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd.ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toffler, A. (2013). Revolutionary wealth. New Perspectives Quarterly, 30(4), 122-130. doi: 10.1111/npqu.11414
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Toomey, R. (2001). Schooling Issues Digest No 2: Information and Communication Technology for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2001/digest/technology.htm.
244 References
Tooms, A., Acomb, M., & McGlothlin, J. (2004). The paradox of integrating handheld technology in schools: Theory vs. practice. T.H.E. Journal, 32(4), 14-17.
Treharne, G. J., & Riggs, D. W. (2015). Ensuring quality in qualitative research. In P. Rohleder, & A. Lyons (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Clinical and Health Psychology (pp. 57-73). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2005). Framework for implementation of ICT in schools. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Parramatta, November-December. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2005/tri05123.pdf
Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057–1060.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadhwa, V. (2014, December 21). 5 waves of technology disruption that are just getting started. VB News. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/21/5-waves-of-technology-disruption-that-are-just-getting-started
Wang, T. J. (2011). Educating avatars: On Virtual Worlds and pedagogical intent. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(6), 617-628. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2011.570433
Warburton, S. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.00952.x
Ward, L., & Parr, J. M. (2010). Revisiting and reframing use: Implications for the integration of ICT. Computers & Education, 54(1), 113-122. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.011
Watson, D. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251-267. doi: 10.1023/A:1012976702296
Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s Technology Integration Matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69–71.
West, D. M. (2012). Digital schools: How technology can transform education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Winn, W. D. (2005). What we have learned about VR and learning and what we still need to study. In Proceedings of Laval Virtual Conference (pp. 8–17), Laval, France.
Woodward, N. (2007). To make change, manage them. HR Magazine, 52(5), 62-68.
Zeleny, M. (2012). High technology and barriers to innovations: From globalization to relocalization. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11(2), 441-456. doi: 10.1142/S021962201240010X
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00170
Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1-17.
245
Appendices
Appendix A ICT Continuum (ACARA, n.d.-f).
Table A1: Applying social and ethical protocols and practices
Table A2: Investigating with ICT
Table A3: Creating with ICT
Table A4: Communicating with ICT
Table A5: Managing and operating ICT
Appendix B Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) (Welsh et al., 2011)
Appendix C Online Survey questions: questions, rationale, and relationships to