See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/275337060

Professional development for enhancing technology-integrated pedagogical

practice: An ethnographic study in a Maldivian teacher education context

Article · March 2015

DOI: 10.62338/bpm03f30

CITATIONS READS

5 1,945

1 author:

Amina Adam
The Maldives National University
14 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amina Adam on 23 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Maldives National Journal of Research 7
Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2015, pp. 7-28

Professional development for enhancing

technology-integrated pedagogical practice:
An ethnographic study in a Maldivian teacher
education context

AMINATH S. ADAM, The Univeristy of Waikato, New Zealand

ABSTRACT A substantial body of literature discusses the complexity of integrating technology

into teachers’ early established pedagogical practices. This paper examines technology-
related professional development and its impact on teacher educators’ technological and
pedagogical practices. The data were gathered from eleven teacher educators through an
ethnographic approach that took place during two visits to the research [Link] respect
to the first visit, the researcher spent six weeks “hanging out” with the participants,
interviewed them individually, and observed six participants’ classroom teaching. Then,
with the second visit, the researcher spent five weeks “hanging out”, and organised focus
group discussions with ten participants. Lastly, she had follow-up interviews to clarify and
validate the main understandings. The findings were generated through various strategies
adhering to grounded theory. Key findings identified two types of professional learning:
one is formally designed by the institution and the other is which occurred informally
between [Link] findings also suggest that teacher educators continued using digital
technologies in their early established pedagogical practices without necessarily bringing a
change to their approaches to [Link] paper argues that the professional development
does not help teacher educators change their pedagogical practices unless it is connected
with their backgrounds and the context of practice.

Key words: professional development; technology; Microsoft PowerPoint; pedagogical

practice

Introduction
Effective teaching with technologies requires teachers’ understanding of
appropriate pedagogical strategies to enhance their student learning. A
number of studies support the argument that the constructivist approach is
the most suitable pedagogical design for using digital technologies in teaching.
For example, Brooks and Brooks (1999) suggested that interactive learning
environments allow learners to become partners in the learning process,
which also leads them to become “autonomous thinkers” (p. 13). Similarly,
Boshuizen and Wopereis (2003) analysed benchmarks for designing learning
with technologies, in which they supported the social constructivist framework.
Pritchard (2007), in his explanation of teaching with the Internet technologies,
noted that the constructivism design of learning allows learners to build
their understanding based on their own “personal experiences” through the
ISSN 2308-5959/21030101 (c) 2015 The Maldives National University
8 A. S. Adam

interaction with others (p. 2). Supporting these arguments, many studies have
examined the nature of learning when digital technologies are implemented
into pedagogical practices. Hsu, Ching and Grabowski (2009), argued that
the use of technologies offers opportunities for students to participate in a
collaborative and interactive culture of learning. Use of technologies also helps
students develop critical and creative thinking (Niess, 1999). Furthermore, some
researchers examined specific activities that could take place in the knowledge
sharing spaces and communities. For example, micro-blogging such as Twitter
can strengthen students’ virtual learning experience to encourage students’
effective collaboration and their reflective thinking (Grosseck & Holotescu,
2008; Hsu & Ching, 2011; Wright, 2010). Lim and Oakley (2013) argued that
technologies enable students to enrich their understanding and develop their
thinking through a multitude of sources and technological resources such as
images, videos, podcasts, e-Portfolios, and blogs. The literature in this regard
suggests that the use of digital technology by teachers ought to help learners
become autonomous and reflective thinkers. This, however, could raise a
question of whether or not the use of technology by itself can bring a change to
teachers’ pedagogical practices.
Some researchers recognised that the use of digital technologies by teachers
does not always change their early established practices (Adams, 2012; Bang &
Luft, 2013; Kurt, 2013; Perkins, 2012; Sipilä, 2010). Adams (2012) investigated
college instructors and students use of PowerPoint in Canada. She argues that
the use of Microsoft PowerPoint in pedagogical practice often relates to student
passivity. Microsoft PowerPoint changes the classroom to “a cinematic space”
(Adams, 2012, p. 147), where the teacher takes the role of orator or narrator
of the Microsoft PowerPoint and students passively watch and listen to what
the teacher narrates. More recently, Kurt (2013) revealed that teachers’ use
of Microsoft PowerPoint mostly supports their traditional teacher-directed
teaching methods in a Turkish school context. Bang and Luft (2013) investigated
beginning teachers’ use of technology over a five-year-period in a United States
school context. Their findings of interviews and observation data indicate that
the most frequently used tool was Microsoft PowerPoint, and it was used by
teachers mostly for supporting traditional teaching methods. These arguments
draw attention to the traditional pedagogical practice being tied with teachers’
use of technologies in their existing pedagogies. These researchers suggest
that often teachers’ early established practices and pedagogical thinking may
influence the way they use technologies in teaching.
Koehler and Mishra (2008) argued that technology introduces additional
variables to the learning and teaching context, which demands teachers change
their practices. The use of technologies thus brings complexity to teachers’
practices in terms of marrying their use of digital technologies with their
pedagogical approaches. Mishra and Koehler (2006) proposed a framework
named Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) for
integrating technology in pedagogical practice. The TPACK model was
originally an expansion of the PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model
theorised by Shulman (1986). Shulman criticised the way the two types of
knowledge: content and pedagogy were being treated in isolation from each
other in teacher education programmes. Shulman (1986) argued that teachers
 Enhancing Professional Development 9

should have a deep understanding of both areas of knowledge, as they are

inter-related. Mishra and Koehler (2006) adopted this view and extended the
argument with a new conceptualisation of teacher knowledge, which can be
understood as three important domains for teacher knowledge: technology,
pedagogy, and content. Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009) believed that
teachers often use digital technology as a transformative tool (a delivering
tool) in their teaching of subject matter. This concludes that teachers use
digital technologies merely to deliver content they want to teach without much
thinking about the implication of their use of technologies on student learning.
Koehler, Mishra and Yahya (2007) suggested that the complexity of marrying
technologies arises due to teachers’ lack of understanding of the relationships
between content (subject matter they teach), pedagogy (appropriate teaching
strategies with technologies), and technology (appropriate use of technologies
for enhancing student learning). The literature here suggests that teachers
require certain competencies in terms of connecting the three types of
knowledge. With this in mind, the researcher sought to understand how
technology- related professional development is designed and its impact on
pedagogical practices in the Maldives.
The literature on the Maldivian contexts, suggests that teaching in Maldivian
classrooms is concentrated on rote learning and memorising both facts and
content (Nazeer, 2006). Mohamed (2006) argued that the Maldivian schools
are examination-oriented and teacher talk-time was remarkably high. Shareef
(2010) confirmed this by observing a focus on transmitting knowledge in the
Maldivian classrooms. In a more recent study, Kinaanath (2013) asserted that
traditional pedagogy is not only rooted in the school systems but also in the
higher education contexts. He described:
The traditional “chalk-board-talk” dominated the teacher-centred methodology
throughout the primary and secondary schools, and even the higher education
institutes. …The assessment-driven methods lacked creativity, which was largely
ignored in tertiary institutions … The tradition of spoon-feeding [means] facts,
lessons and notes were replicated in the exams. Spoon-feeding materials to
students meant that teachers did everything for them or told them everything
that they needed to know. (Kinaanath, 2013, pp. 174-175)

Considering the complexity of marrying technology and pedagogy, particularly

in a context where traditional pedagogical practice has been established, it
raises questions on how and what type of professional development would be
suitable for such a context.

Review of Literature: Professional Development (PD)

Professional development (PD) is designed to enhance teachers’ developing
of their pedagogical knowledge, skills, and practices through workshops,
conferences, and additional courses (Gallant, 2000). Guskey (1999) believed
that running PD programmes can improve “professional knowledge, skills,
and attitudes” of teachers (p. 16). Levin and Wadmany (2008) argued that
along with the access to digital technology affordances, teachers need to learn,
develop, and conceptualise the use of digital technologies in teaching. Through
a three-year longitudinal study, they investigated six teachers’ professional
10 A. S. Adam

learning regarding their developing of using digital technologies in teaching.

Levin and Wadmany (2008) reported that there were two developmental
patterns: one related to human factors such as on-going professional support,
and personal self-organised learning. Similarly, Imants and van Veen (2010)
commented that the nature of professional learning is interrelated with factors
connected to individual, organisational, and on-site and off-site learning. These
researchers draw attention to the importance of PD and how thoughtfully it
needs to be designed in order to enhance teachers’ professional learning in
their workplace.
Over a decade ago, researchers drew attention to how PD must be designed.
Hawley and Valli (2000) completely refuted the idea of occasionally designed
professional learning. Though Hawley and Valli’s study is not concerned
with technology related professional learning, it suggests the importance of
connecting professional learning with teachers’ everyday practices. Similarly,
Avalos (2000) argued that teachers’ careful self-evaluation of their own
practices and their active involvement in the programme over a long-term
period is required. She further suggests, in developing countries, that the focus
on pushing for change is crucial, including “a conceptual shift from teaching to
learning, a focus on effective school results, and the implementation in many
countries of systemic education reforms”(p. 457). Despite Avalos’s (2000) and
Hawley and Valli’s (2000) argument being more than a decade old, their views
of how PD must be designed are still pertinent for this research context, due
to the early established traditional pedagogical practice in the Maldives. As
discussed earlier, literature in Maldivian classrooms demonstrated a traditional
rote learning practice both in schools and higher education. A relatively recent
study by Kramer and Benson (2013) examined a PD programme for a year-
long period, which was targeted at lecturers’ use of digital technologies and
pedagogical change in a university context. They suggested that the programme
enabled lecturers to change the way they see and use digital technologies
in classrooms. Kramer and Benson (2013) further recommended that the
continuous evaluation of the programme is crucial in order to see its success
in pedagogical contexts. This view suggests that PD’s success relies on its
usefulness for teachers and how it can enhance their everyday practices.
Reflecting on Avalos’ (2000) argument regarding the importance of taking
account of developing countries’ contexts, such as the Maldives, the literature
noted several aspects that ought to be considered when designing PD. Firstly,
PD should be designed as a continuous or on-going experience, rather than
one-off sessions (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos,
2009; Gallant, 2000; Guskey, 2003). Secondly, PD must be designed in a
way that teachers can be actively involved in the process of learning (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009; Guskey, 1999). Greene (2001) considered that active
learning can occur through teachers’ reflective role as researchers, who always
seek meanings out of their practices in terms of ambiguities that occur in
everyday teaching. She further affirms that teachers have the tendency to learn
more when they become curious about everyday activities in teaching. Moll
(2001) argued that humans’ thoughts are facilitated through interactions with
others. Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), Guskey (2003), Greene (2001), and
Moll (2001) highlight the importance of teachers’ active involvement and
 Enhancing Professional Development 11

the connections between PD and actual practices. Bearing in mind that the
Maldives has a long history of rote learning pedagogy, that aspect needs to be
carefully considered when designing PD in this research context.
Thirdly, designing PD involves concentrating on the context and situation
where teachers practise. Van Driel and Berry (2012) believed that PD should
address certain instructional strategies and specific areas in which teachers can
reflect on what they teach. These researchers drew attention to the importance
of PD as an experience that supports collaboration and collegial interaction
within their context of practice. This means that through professional learning
teachers should be given opportunities to collaborate and interact with
colleagues to enhance their pedagogical practices. Timperley, Wilson, Barrar,
and Fung (2007) argued that teachers can effectively develop theoretical
knowledge (such as TPACK, for example) when the professional learning
is connected with their contexts. Timperley (2008) further recognised the
importance of considering a) factors such as socio-economic status, home,
and community, b) factors related to complex teaching processes, such as
teacher knowledge, beliefs about what is important, and how students learn,
and c) factors related to professional learning such as workplace culture and
the community they work with. These aspects are pertinent when designing
PD in the Maldivian context, due to the established rote learning and teacher-
centrism practices as mentioned earlier.
This paper examines how PD is designed and its impact on teacher
educators’ formed pedagogical practices with digital technologies in a teacher
education context in the Maldives. The findings shared in this paper are
selected parts from a four year doctoral research project (2011-2014). The next
section explains the research design adopted by the researcher for exploring
her research focus.

Research Design

This study adopted an ethnographic methodology to investigate how PD is

designed and its impact on teacher educators’ use of digital technologies in
their pedagogical practices in the Maldives. The ethnographic methodology
considered two focuses: Firstly, the researcher sought to understand the natural
milieu (teacher education context) of the teacher-educators’ existing pedagogical
practices. According to Hammersley and Atkinson (1995), ethnography
emphasises in-depth understanding of the real world of participants. Charmaz
(2006) defines ethnography as understanding about a “particular group”
(teacher educators) which thus entails sustained participation and observation
in “their milieu” (workplace), “community” (professional interaction with
other colleagues), or “social world” (professional social world) (p. 21).
Secondly, since the research is involved in understanding teacher educators’
views, experiences, and practices about their formed pedagogical practices
and how the PD was designed for them, the researcher required an approach
that would allow her to work closely with the participants. Reeves, Kuper and
Hodges (2008) argued that ethnographers’ engagement and involvement with
the natural setting is necessary. This ‘in turn’ allows ethnographers to provide
“thick descriptions” about individuals’ social context (Geertz, 1973, p. 10).
12 A. S. Adam

Research Process
Prior to conducting this research, the ethical approval from the University
of Waikato was sought and granted on 5th May 2011. After gaining consent
from the institution (a teacher education institution, located in the Maldives)
through a permission letter, the researcher formally invited teacher educators
who work in this institution. Participants were approached through purposive
sampling depending on their interests and familiarity with digital technologies,
and accordingly gained voluntary participation from eleven teacher educators.
The sample was thus out of a total of 49 teacher educators employed at the
time of the data collection, which represented approximately a fifth of the
academic staff members.
In order to gather data, the researcher visited the research site twice: once at
the beginning of 2012 and again in 2013. During the first visit, the researcher
interviewed eleven teacher educators individually and “hung out” (spent time
with them during their work hours) with them for about six weeks. “Hanging
out” is a term used to describe ethnographers’ field experiences and their
involvement with the participants during the field work (Bloor & Wood, 2006).
The hanging out experiences and the data from the interviews allowed her
to explore the initial background about teacher educators and how their PD
was designed. After generating a preliminary analysis, the researcher observed
classroom teaching of six participants. These observations enabled her to link
the teacher-educators’ shared comments in their interviews with their actual
practices in the teaching context. Eleven months later, the researcher organised
focus group discussions on issues generated from her preliminary findings of
the first visit. She explored more about participants’ pedagogical practices.
During the same visit, the researcher had another five weeks of “hanging out”
with participants, which helped her to scrutinise institutional influence on
teacher educators’ shaping of specific pedagogical practice including how PD
was designed and helped their everyday practices. Lastly, the researcher had
follow-up interviews with five participants to clear her understanding of teacher
educators’ formed practices. The research process is illustrated in Figure 1.
The findings were analysed through various strategies adhering to grounded
theory. Grounded theory is a process of qualitative analysis, which consists
of features such as inductive generation of ideas, coding paradigms (looking
for key words from data), and constant comparison (cross-checking) (Strauss,
1987). Through Seidel’s (1998) qualitative data analysis model - notice, collect
and think–, the researcher developed emerging themes from the data. With
these initial themes, the researcher worked iteratively within and across data.
In order to mitigate Seidel’s (1998) notion of the blind spot, described as
things perhaps misunderstood or not realised, the researcher used the thinking
aloud approach with her supervisors and other doctoral colleagues to clear her
thoughts. The researcher also used diagramming as suggested by Buckley and
Waring (2013), to make sense of and synthesise emerging ideas for answering
her research questions.
 Enhancing Professional Development 13

Figure 1. Ethnographic methodology process

Research Findings
The findings presented in this paper were generated through multiple sources
such as interviews (IN), classroom observations (CO), focus group discussions
(FG), follow-up interviews (F-IN), and hanging out field journal entries
(FJ). This section examines two main themes: One is technology-related
professional learning, and the other is teacher educators’ formed Microsoft
PowerPoint (PPT)-assisted and content-oriented pedagogical practice. Each
of the examined themes is reported in turn.
Technology-related Professional Learning

Technology related professional learning is designed to enhance teacher

educators’ pedagogical practices and their use of digital technologies. The data
identified two types of professional learning. One was formally designed and
the other was informal learning that occurred through corridor talk (sharing
new ideas when meeting colleagues informally).

Formal PD. Many teacher educators raised concerns regarding the formally
designed PD (PD) in their workplace. These concerns were associated with the
way it was designed, as outlined in Table1.
14 A. S. Adam

Table 1
Teacher educators’ comments on formally designed PD

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

Aim of PD • I believe the university promotes These comments
and encourages the idea of using demonstrated that
ICT as they are spending a great regardless of the
amount of money on making investment, the expected
facilities available to us. (Nisha, IN) aims from the PD were
• We know that they [university not achieved.
PD professionals] want to promote
the use of ICT through these PD
sessions; however, it doesn’t work in
the way they expect. (Lamha, IN)
Organisation • Making these facilities part of The conversations clearly
of PD our practice is something that they demonstrated that PD
[university PD professionals] want was not organised well
to happen. It is not done properly by enough to enhance
the institution. (Nisha, IN) teacher educators’
• If there is any…it sort of is not pedagogical practices.
really well organised. (Raufa, IN) They also highlighted
• I think PD needs to be organised that they did not agree
in a way that helps the staff to get with the idea of ‘one off’
familiar with those things and do sessions. Rather they
something instead of having short need PD to continue on
introductory sessions about these a regular basis.
things. (Haula, IN)
• I mean when giving a session about
a new facility or new applications,
not enough support is given at the
early stage. I guess the support
needs to be maintained until we
accept it. (Shaina, IN)
Limited • There are not many programmes In these conversations,
opportunities run at our institution to make us teacher educators raised
of PD learn things. (Shaina, IN) concerns regarding the
• We had very minimal PD about limited opportunities for
using GEM and Moodle... I guess participating in PD.
opportunities for PD …are very
limited. (Nisha, IN)
 Enhancing Professional Development 15

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

• There were only limited, occasional Apart from that,
PD, which were organised. … I organising only one
think they [institution management PD session for each
people] just don’t run too many. programme, such as one
(Zeena, IN) for Moodle or GEM,
• I think the institution runs a seems to be too limited
limited programme in order to get for gaining learning from
teacher educators familiar with these sessions.
these tools. I remember there were
sessions about Moodle, GEM,
IQWeb, Self-service, website
designing. It is like one for each
programme. No one seems to be
learning anything. I don’t think
anyone learnt just by attending one
session. (Alia, IN)
PD sessions • We had very minimal PD about Teacher educators’
are not using GEM and Moodle, and the conversations regarding
connected sort of separate bits are not really the link between the PD
linked to each other. (Nisha, IN). sessions highlighted some
• Though there is PD organised, it is issues:
not helping us to go for it, because 1) PD sessions are
everything they introduce is like a organised occasionally
new idea, and next year they will and separately from each
come and talk about something else other.
again. (Dhimna, IN) 2) When PD sessions
• I remember there were sessions are not linked to each
about Moodle, GEM, IQWeb, Self- other, teacher educators
service, and website designing. But easily forget what is being
they happened only occasionally and introduced.
people tend to forget things easily
because sessions are not linked to
each other. (Alia, IN)
• Most of us forget what we learnt
from the sessions, because they are
not monitored and not linked to
each other. (Shaina, IN)
• They are calling one day to
conduct a session, and another
day running a completely different
session which has no link to the
previous. It feels like it is bit by
bit, normally we are not able to get
the ideas on how to integrate these
things in our everyday teaching
contexts. (Faiha, IN)
16 A. S. Adam

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

PD’s • I believe the sessions do not The comments from
usefulness completely help us to use it in our these teacher educators
everyday practices. (Haula, IN) clearly demonstrated
• I don›t find the information shared their beliefs about the
was much use. (Nisha, IN) PD’s usefulness for their
• Raufa: I don’t think the session pedagogical practices.
provides us much about what we PD only provides an
need to with these tools when it introduction about
comes to our existing practice. various tools, which
Nisha: That’s true; sometimes does not necessarily link
I feel they are just giving us an to teacher educators’
introduction about a tool and that’s pedagogical practices.
it… then what?
Raufa: I sometime wonder how
these things can be useful for our
own practice. They never give us
practical examples on anything that
is meaningful for us particularly.
(Raufa & Nisha, FG)
• Normally we are not able to get
the ideas on how to integrate these
things in our everyday teaching
contexts. When a session is given,
we usually get to know the tool, but
what to do with it and how to do
things are some concerns that are
always raised and later no one is
interested in learning more. (Faiha,
IN)
Reasons for • When given a session about a new These conversations
PD’s limited facility or new applications, not portrayed the teacher
success enough support is given at the early educators’ limited
stage. (Shaina, IN) uptake of introduced
• After the sessions not enough tools through the PD. It
monitoring is done, whether we use resulted from the lack of
those things or not. (Alia, IN) monitoring and support
• I notice the majority don’t use that should go along with
IQWeb because they don’t really PD.
know how to practically use it for
teaching that can only be gained
through practising with it. It means
we will need support for this.
(Haula, IN)
 Enhancing Professional Development 17

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

• I guess the support needs to be
maintained until we accept it [the
tool]. I believe we need some time
to get familiar with the new ideas
and application when given an
intervention. I also believe it needs
to be supported and follow-ups
need to be arranged. Unfortunately
it doesn’t happen. This also means
that there has to be someone who
we are always seeking help from.
Unfortunately such a thing is not
seen in our workplace. (Shaina, IN)

Teacher educators’ comments on how their PD is designed clearly indicate

that it does not help them in the effective use of technologies for their
pedagogical purposes. Thus, regardless of the number of PD sessions that
were organised for them, it is unlikely to lead them to change their use of
technologies, and accordingly, they just follow what best works for them,
rather than thinking about appropriate use of technologies for their teaching.
Besides the formal PD, many teacher educators recognised that they
gained a great deal of technological knowledge through their corridor talks.
Informal CorridorTalk. Some conversations underlined the trend for corridor
talks within the department staff. The institution is divided into academic
departments according to specific subject areas, such as the science department
and mathematics department. Thus, participants meet colleagues in their own
discipline more often than people who work in other [Link] idea here
is when someone learns about a new tool or useful website; it is very likely to be
shared with the person next door. Some of these examples are illustrated inTable 2.

Table 2
Teacher educators’ comments on informal corridor talk

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

Learning • I learn a lot just by trying out Zeena developed many
from others things. Say for example, at first I skills for using PPT with
was not very fluent in using PPT in the help of others.
my teaching. With the help of my
colleagues, I can prepare really good
presentations now. I also think I have
improved a lot... in terms of adding
hyperlinks and videos etc. It is like
18 A. S. Adam

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

when someone knows something or
when you know the other person is
better… you seek help from them.
(Zeena, IN)
• For example, I heard about
Dropbox from … [name removed]. I
learnt to use it with her. (Raufa, FG)
• In talking about informal learning, Both Nisha and Raufa
Nisha said: I like Dropbox too; it learned to use Dropbox
has become very common in our through the corridor
practice. Raufa added: It is sort of conversations they
learning that happens informally. happened to have with
We learn from each other, just by their colleagues in the
observing or knowing that someone same department.
is using a new thing. Then you tend
to tell others about it. Nisha agreed:
That’s true. I actually learnt it from
… [name removed], she once told
me to install it and have a go. It is
a free tool; once it is installed you
get free space. Raufa explained: We
learn a lot from each other. I feel
whenever we find something new we
tend to sell those ideas, we talk about
it within our professional group [who
teach same subject area]. In response
to her, Nisha supported: Yeah that’s
what happens normally; it is like
when knowing about useful websites,
relevant pdfs, learning activities,
tools, videos, and sometimes new
applications too (Raufa & Nisha,
FG)
Sharing and • I think we learn a lot that way… I Meera often shared
learning remember I shared with many people useful ideas related to
ideas about some helpful websites helpful websites with her
and links to get pdfs. (Meera, IN) colleagues
• Faiha: I often discuss what I do Faiha always discussed
with other people in my department. new ideas, websites, and
For example, when I learned about tools with her colleagues.
Dropbox through an email from a She also encouraged
friend. I installed it on my system. I them to use them in their
found it very useful for me. Then I teaching.
talked about it with many others…
[names were removed].
 Enhancing Professional Development 19

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

Zeena agreed: That’s true, I also
learnt it from you … sometimes
things we learn that way are much
more helpful than the things we learn
from the PD, because once the PD’s
done no one is there to seek help
about it. But for example, this way I
always go to … [name removed] and
get her help. Faiha added: Not only
the programmes. We also exchange a
great deal of many helpful websites.
Zeena supported: You recently
mentioned about Google docs, which
was something I want to learn and I
keep thinking about it now.(Faiha &
Zeena, FG)

These comments indicate teacher educators’ enthusiasm for the learning of new
ideas through these informal talks. Comments also suggest that teacher educators
learned some useful technology related skills, but it was clear that most examples
shared through these corridor conversations were simple information that could
be easily learnt by sharing in a minute or so of talk. However, when it comes to
complicated tools and their use in practice, they expect the institution to design
formal PD for them, as reported earlier. The next section identifies teacher
educators’ formed pedagogical practice with their use of digital technologies.

Teacher Educators’ Formed Microsoft PowerPoint (PPT)-assisted

and Content-oriented Pedagogical Practice
Many teacher educators used PPT as the main tool supporting their
pedagogies. Moreover, informal observation through the “hanging out”
approach also documented a number of journal entries, which complemented
this understanding. This understanding was drawn from some teacher
educators’ comments and written field journal entries as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3
Impact of PD: PPT-assisted and content-oriented pedagogy

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

Using PPT • ICT [PPT] helps me to cover Raufa believed that PPT
for teaching heavy content subjects. I put all helps her to cover heavy
content- heavy the important ideas that I need to content subjects.
modules explain in my slides. (Raufa, IN)
20 A. S. Adam

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

• For example, instead of answering Faiha realised the
a question or showing an answer suitability of PTT for
on the board, it would help me … discussing answers for
to show and discuss the answers by students’ queries.
going through the slides ... It won’t
take much time because I don’t
need to write on the board. It saves
time. (Faiha, IN)
• When talking about the use of Both Zeena and Faiha
PPT Faiha said: Using PPT is found PPT useful for
the most common thing in our their explaining of the
teaching. I think it helps a lot for content, as it allows them
our teaching. Zeena added: We to use diagrams, images,
can use attractive and interesting audio, and videos.
visual materials such as diagrams,
concept maps, images, audio,
and videos while explaining…
[referred to use of PPT]. Faiha:
For me, using many tables, concept
diagrams and images is very helpful
for students’ understanding…
The best thing is … we go to the
classroom having all that in our
slides. (Zeena & Faiha, FG)
• I often hear many of my Teacher educators spent
participants complaining about great amounts of time in
spending a great amount of time preparing their lessons,
for lesson preparation. Later, I because they normally
started realising what they really include all that they need
meant. In fact, I started noticing to explain in the slides.
many of them spending time
sitting at their computers, flicking Data in both journal
the pages of the books, online entries (22 and 25
materials, webpages, images from January) suggested
Google, and so were very much that teacher educators’
involved in preparation of PPT. I understanding of
observed this in most of my visits effective use of PPT
to my participants’ work stations. involves putting all that
Today, for example, I visited six of they need to teach in the
my participants’ rooms. I found presentation slides.
all of them occupied with PPT
preparation. (22 January 2012, FJ).
 Enhancing Professional Development 21

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

When I went to Nisha’s room,
I observed that she had loads of
books piled on her desk. I asked
her: You seem to be really busy
with your work. What’s on today?
Nisha: Yeah, this is a new subject.
It is really hard to get everything
written down. I am trying to bring
all the important ideas into these
slides. (25 January 2013, FJ)
PPT is • Haula: Most of our staff, what Haula and Meera
replacing the they teach through ICT [PPT] is believed that PPT
board only delivering information using is often used as a
PowerPoint presentations. I don’t replacement of a board
see much change in the teaching. when teaching. This
Meera: That could be true in the means that it is used the
sense that most of our teaching same way that they would
remained as it was before these have used the board in
facilities became available. I would teaching.
say, instead of using the board
when we were students, we sort of
changed it to PowerPoint.
Haula: I believe PowerPoint is a
very powerful tool, but we don’t
seem to be using it the best way.
(Huala & Meera, FG)
• Nisha: In traditional teaching, Nisha agreed that PPT
you sort of write everything on the is often used as a board
board, and explain while writing. to help them explain the
And students take notes or and lesson. However, she saw
listen. But when ICT is used all the it is much more helpful
information you need to explain is and easier than using a
written ahead of time. When you board.
want to explain you can put on the
slide you want on. You don’t need
to write much on the board. … it
is much more helpful for teaching
than the board, because we get
enough time to discuss in the class
instead of spending time writing
notes on the board. (Nisha, FG)
22 A. S. Adam

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

• At the very beginning of the Meera used PPT as
lesson she [Meera] put her slides a major tool for her
on. She explained important teaching for explaining
points related to some theoretical the lesson content.
knowledge. She continued
explaining what is written on each
slide until she finished ten slides at
a stretch. (Meera, CO)
• She [Faiha] started her lesson Faiha used PPT as a
with a question on her first slide. major tool too. However,
She talked with her students for her presentation
2-3 minutes. Then she started her contained many
explanation regarding the main diagrams, pictures,
ideas of the lesson. She had many graphs, tables, and video
diagrams, pictures, graphs, videos, for helping her students’
and tables… in her slides. But learning.
mostly they related to the content
she covered in that lesson. (Faiha,
CO)
Interactive but • The meaning of student Nisha viewed the
the interaction and engagement for me meaning of interaction as
concentration is trying to ask questions in relation helping her students to
is on teaching to the content I teach. Normally, talk so that she can check
content it is a way of checking whether my their understanding of
students understood or followed what is explained.
the explanation or not. (Nisha,
F-IN)
• I use many interactive activities Faiha used PPT and
when teaching. I often open it helped her to open
discussion points when I explain. students’ discussion and
I bring real examples to make clarifies her students’
them learn better. I provide understanding of what
students time to think in order she teaches.
to understand the concepts and
generate their own ideas. (Faiha,
IN)
• We explain the content through Meera believed PPT
PowerPoint presentation, we helps her teaching, as
give activities to students, we it allows her to discuss
also discuss while presenting. I the content and give
guess you are right, that we use activities to the class.
PowerPoint more often. It is
basically the major teaching tool.
(Meera, FG)
 Enhancing Professional Development 23

Sub-themes Data/Source Interpretations

• Shaina explained a large amount Shaina explained
of definitions that students were definitions, followed by
required to learn. Every time she questions for helping her
finished explaining a definition, students rehearse the
she asked questions regarding it content delivered.
and students were asked to answer.
Students were asked to give the
same sort of examples that were
discussed in the explanations.
Though students interacted with
their teacher or with the student
next to them, they were mostly
discussing the knowledge that was
explained to them. Shaina did try
to increase students’ interaction
and engagement. However, their
engagement and interaction
was concentrated on learning
knowledge and memorising
the content covered in Shaina’s
explanation. (Shaina, CO)

Since the use of Microsoft PowerPoint was the most common tool in teacher
educators’ teaching, the researcher sought to understand their pedagogical goals
for using this particular tool. Data from multiple sources indicated that teacher
educators selected this particular tool due its convenience for teaching content-
heavy [Link] main findings presented are discussed in the following section.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings suggest that regardless of the many PD sessions that were formally
designed in relation to a number of digital tools, teacher educators have limited
use of these tools in their pedagogical practices. Some PD sessions, which
introduced GEM, IQWeb, Self-service, and Moodle, did not help teacher
educators use them in teaching. Therefore, these tools were scarcely mentioned
when teacher educators talked about the digital tools they used in teaching.
The findings thus indicated that the PD sessions designed were not appropriate
for enhancing teacher educators’ use of digital technologies in teaching. Some
concerns regarding these issues were raised by Nisha, Shaina, Zeena, Faiha
and Meera. They highlighted that professional learning was designed as ‘one
off’ sessions’, not connected with each other, ‘not focused on pedagogy’, and
moreover ‘merely introduction of the tools’, and which perhaps made them
continue their pedagogical practice as content focused or centred on using one
specific tool. A number of researchers argued that professional learning should
be designed in an on-going (Guskey, 2003), reflective thinking (Greene, 2001),
active (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Guskey, 1999), and context focused
manner (Van Driel & Berry, 2012). These researchers recommended that PD
24 A. S. Adam

should be successful for bringing a change into teachers’ practice.

This paper argues that professional learning ought to be designed in ways that
help teacher educators bring a change in their pedagogical practices. Findings
indicate that teacher educators continued using what was mostly available and
convenient for them to deliver content, without necessarily thinking about the
pedagogical implications for their student learning. For example, Raufa found
PPT useful for covering content of the lesson, whilst Faiha found it useful for
her explanations as it allowed her to answer students’ questions. This could
mean that Faiha might have found its relevance in this particular incident,
as PPT allowed her to get everything written down ahead of her class. This
means that it would save a lot of time for her when explaining whenever a
student asks a question that needs clarification. Data in this regard suggest
that teacher educators used PPT as a transformative tool (a delivering tool), as
argued by Harris et al. (2009). This also means that these teacher educators are
unable to conceptualise appropriate pedagogical approaches to using digital
technologies in teaching. Koehler et al. (2007) suggest that the complexity is
associated with teachers’ lack of understanding of the relationships between
content, pedagogy, and technology and the context within which they function.
Table 2 illustrates that regardless of the time it takes to prepare presentations
(to put everything that needs to be explained in the slides), teacher educators
found it useful because of its convenience for them to prepare the content to
be taught ahead of their teaching, as indicated in (22 and 25 January 2012) the
field journal entries. Data on the theme ‘PPT is replacing the board’ suggests
that PPT is used by teacher educators the same way they would have used a
board. Nevertheless, the difference is as they all agreed that it is ostensibly
more helpful than a board because PPT permits teacher educators to include
diagram, video, and tables more easily and efficiently.
This finding suggests that teacher educators’ use of PPT was married
with their early established pedagogical practices. This understanding clearly
supports the arguments raised regarding the influence of early established
practices on teachers’ use of technologies (Adams, 2012; Bang & Luft, 2013;
Kurt, 2013; Perkins, 2012; Sipilä, 2010). Although comments by some teacher
educators indicated that they provide many activities during their use of PPT,
their classroom teaching demonstrated contradictory evidence. For example,
in both Meera and Faiha’s teaching, they used PPT for their explanations of the
lesson. Though it may have helped their students’ engagement and interaction,
PPT did not make much difference to the main pedagogical approach, because
it was merely used for delivering the content that they wanted to cover. This
finding in this regard, suggests that professional learning in this context ought
to be designed focusing on changing early established pedagogical practice in
order to help teacher educators develop theoretical understanding of using
digital technologies in teaching.
Some findings related to informal professional learning (Table 2) suggest
that teacher educators are more willing to use digital tools when they receive
support from their colleagues who understand what they need. For example,
Zeena, Raufa, Nisha and Faiha started using Dropbox without it being
introduced through a formal PD sessions. Some teacher educators excitedly
discussed that they learn a lot about using digital technologies through sharing
 Enhancing Professional Development 25

and learning from each other on a regular basis. This idea suggests that teacher
educators in this context do not need one-off or occasional sessions, rather on-
going PD sessions are pertinent to support their everyday teaching practices.
Timperley et al. (2007) argue that teachers can effectively develop theoretical
knowledge (such as TPACK, for example) when the professional learning is
connected with their contexts. This paper, therefore, suggests that PD in this
context should consider the complexity of marrying technologies with effective
pedagogical approaches and also taking account of early established pedagogical
practices in the Maldivian context. In short, the PD must be designed in ways
that teacher educators can be actively involved and experiment with a variety
of digital technologies in an on-going and inquiry learning process.

References

Adams, C. (2012). PowerPoint and the pedagogy of digital media technologies.

In M. Orey, S. A. Jones & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and
technology yearbook (Vol. 36, pp. 49-65): New York, NY: Spring.
Avalos, B. (2000). Policies for teacher education in developing countries.
International Journal of Educational Research, 33(5), 457-474.
Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in
the classroom during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 29(4), 118-126.
Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Wopereis, I. G. J. H. (2003). Pedagogic benchmarks
for information and communications technology in teacher education.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 149-159.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publication.
Buckley, C. A., & Waring, M. J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research
process: Examples from grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 148-
172.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. London, England: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S.
(2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Gallant, G. M. (2000). Professional development for web-based teaching:
Overcoming innocence and resistance. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2000(88), 69-78.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5019). New York, NY:Basic
books.
Greene, M. (2001). Reflections on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching. Washington, D.C: American Educational Research
Association.
26 A. S. Adam

Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2008). Can we use Twitter for educational
activities. 4th international scientific conference, eLearning and software for
education, Bucharest, Romania. Retrieved from [Link]
multimedia/PDFsMM09/Can%20we%20use%20twitter%20for%20
educational%[Link]
Guskey, T. R. (1999). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective
professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin,
87(637), 4-20.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice.
New York,NY: Routledge.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-
based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (2000). Learner-centered professional development.
Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research, 27, 7-10.
Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2011). Microblogging for strengthening a
virtual learning community in an online course. Knowledge Management &
E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 3(4), 585-598.
Hsu, Y.-C., Ching, Y.-H., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Web 2.0 technologies as
cognitive tools of the new media age. Handbook of research on new media
literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges, 353-371.
Imants, J., & van Veen, K. (2010). Teacher learning as workplace learning.
In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of
Education (pp. 569-574). Oxford,England: Elsevier.
Kinaanath, M. (2013). The use of information and communication technology
in teaching and Learning within higher education sector of a small island
developing state: The case of the Maldives (Doctoral thesis, Victoria University,
Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from [Link]
handle/10063/2977
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE (Ed.),
Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators
(pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of
teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and
technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Kramer, S. R., & Benson, S. A. (2013). Changing faculty use of technology—
one cohort at a time. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 5(2),
5-5.
Kurt, S. (2013). Examining teachers’ use of computer-based technologies: A
case study. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 557-570.
 Enhancing Professional Development 27

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective
integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental
scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233-263.
Lim, C. P., & Oakley, G. (2013). Information and communication technologies
(ICT) in primary education. In L. Y. Tay & C. P. Lim (Eds.), Creating
holistic technology-enhanced learning experiences (pp. 1-18).Singapore: Sense
Publisher.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from [Link]
journal_articles/[Link]
Mohamed, N. (2006). An exploratory study of the interplay between teachers’
beliefs, instructional practices and professional development (Doctoral thesis, The
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://
[Link]/Thesis_Naashia.pdf
Moll, L. C. (2001). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on
teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on [Link],
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Nazeer, A. (2006). Teaching economics at secondary school level in the maldives:
a cooperative learning model (Doctoral thesis, The University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand). Retrieved from [Link]
Niess, M. L. (1999). Collaborative inquiry in science, math, and technology.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(4), 266-267.
Perkins, R. (2012). Are most investments for technology inschools wasted?
TechTrends, 56(1), 10-11.
Pritchard, A. (2007). Effective teaching with internet technologies: Pedagogy and
practice. London,England: SAGE Publication.
Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative Research
Methodologies: Ethnography. British Medical Journal, 337(7668), 512-514.
Seidel, J. (1998). Qualitative data analysis. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/pub/[Link]
Shareef, M. (2010). Environmental education in the Maldives:The implementation
of inquiry-based learning at the primary level (Master’s thesis, Unitec Institute
of Technology Auckland., Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://
[Link]/10652/1471
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knolwedge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sipilä, K. (2010). The impact of laptop provision on teacher attitudes towards
ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 3-16.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY:
University Press.
Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development (Vol. 18).
Perth, Australia: International Academy of Education and International
Bureau of Education.
 28 A. S. Adam

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional
learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing
on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26-28.
Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: Reflecting on practicum
experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
25(3), 259-265.

View publication stats