Title of proposed research: NZ teacher experiences using iPads for

m-learning in a tertiary education environment

1. Research Background
In recent years, interest in mobile technologies for teaching and learning has been increasing.
It has been argued that mobile technologies have the potential to be employed as powerful
teaching and learning tools (Al-Zahrani & Laxman, 2014; El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010;
Herrington et al., 2014);;). According to Traxler (2010), unlike more traditional desktop
technologies, mobile technologies (m-technologies) are more difficult to ignore. He
comments that the interaction with mobile technologies is “woven into all times and places of
students’ lives” (p. 5). Mobile learning tends to focus on the portability of mobile
technologies, “learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of learning
opportunities offered by mobile technologies” (O’Malley et al., 2003). This definition has
been expanded, for example, in the UK mobile learning project MoLeNet, which identified
m-learning as “the exploitation of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless
and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching
and learning … in any location, at any time, including traditional learning environments such
as classrooms” (Hashemi et al., 2011). And even more broadly, “any activity that allows
individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information,
mediated through a compact digital portable device” (Wexler et. al., 2007). The latter
definition will be used for the purpose of this study.

In New Zealand, we see growing numbers of examples of mobile devices, such as

iPad deployment, across the spectrum, ranging from schools that have made a strong
commitment to iPads (Tasman-Jones, 2012) through to those that purchase a small number of
devices to complement other devices already on site. Within the Virtual Learning Network
Groups (www.vln.school.nz), an educators’ social network, one of the largest of these groups
with over 1100 members is dedicated to understanding how to use iPads effectively (Ministry
of Education, 2013). A study by Spencer, Coutts, Fagan, & King (2013) explores ways
teachers can adopt iPads in an early childhood education and care setting in the New Zealand
context. The findings, focused on teachers' practice, showed that the successful use of iPads
depended on teachers considering the interplay between the opportunities that iPads offered,
their own pedagogical views, and children’s learning needs and contexts. In their discussion
of the potential benefits and limitations of the use of Apple iPad in New Zealand schools,
Melhuish and Falloon (2010) argue that “effective, evidence-driven, innovative practices,
combined with a clear-sighted assessment of the advantages and limitations of any product,
should take priority over the device itself” (p.1). However, in a study assessing experiences in
a New Zealand primary school where iPads were deployed, Henderson and Yeow (2012)
observed the positive impacts on learning and argued that these impacts were partially due to
the size of the screen. They posited that the mobile devices encouraged collaboration, as their
size stimulated face-to-face interaction. They suggest that the motivation that derived from
being able to access enjoyable learning content independently encouraged students to take
control of their own learning. These studies show there are multiple factors involved in the
successful use of devices such as iPads.

Overall, the focus of previous studies about iPads’ use in an educational context is on
the impact on students’ learning in the compulsory sector (Cavus & Uzunboylu, 2009; Dale,
2008; Geist 2011; Hamilton & Tee, 2010; Henderson & Yeow, 2012; Kinash, Brand, &
Mathew, 2012; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Mang & Wardley, 2012; Tanaka, Hawrylyshyn, &
Macario, 2012), and research has identified the teacher as a key to transforming teaching and
learning (Gong & Wallace, 2012; Schrum, 1999);. Moreover, little research has examined
how teachers maintain a focus on the principles of good pedagogy while adapting their
teaching practices to the opportunities that technology provides, particularly in tertiary
education settings where class sizes tend to be very large, the technological infrastructure
undergoing rapid change, and levels of technological literacy very diverse (Kim, Mims, &
Holmes, 2006). In addition, the examination of the enablers and barriers to technology
integration indicated that teacher cognition is one of the most influential factors for the
adoption of new practices (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992), if not the most influential. However, a
careful study of the literature reveals that research studies about teacher integration of iPads
in the tertiary sector in New Zealand and how to assist teachers with their classroom teaching
practices have rarely been investigated (King & Toland, 2014; Melhuish, & Falloon, 2010;
Ovens, Garbett, Heap, & Tolosa, 2013; Spencer, Coutts, Fagan, & King, 2013;;). In addition,
there is a need to explore how professional development programmes can enhance teachers’
practices with iPads in teaching and learning (Soykana & Yildiz, 2013).
2. Research design
Design-based research (DBR), also called design experiments (Brown, 1992), design research
(Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004), and educational design research (McKenney & Reeves,
2012) has generated increasing interest among educational researchers in the last decade (T.
Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).

DBR is an approach that supports exploring educational problems and refining theory and
practice by defining a pedagogical outcome and then focusing on how to create a learning
environment that supports the outcome (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2005; Wang &
Hannafin, 2005). The approach has been used across a range of educational settings as “one
of the main motivations behind design-based research is to make learning research more
relevant for classroom practices” (Reimann, 2010, p. 37). The goal of using a design-based
research approach is to “build a stronger connection between educational research and real
world problems” (Amiel & Reeves, 2008, p. 34). Some researchers in educational technology
(Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004; Wang & Hannafin, 2005) call for development research
or design-based research to support the creation of technology-based innovative learning
environments. DBR involves iteratively generating a problem solution based on existing
theories and practice, gathering empirical data to evaluate the solution, and reflecting on the
design experience to refine the solution and to construct theoretical knowledge (Reeves,
1995; Richey, 1998). It is usually a long-term research engagement requiring close
collaboration among researchers and practitioners. Parker (2011) stated that design-based
research “is being used more and more in education” (p. 1) because it “combines research,
design, and practice into one process, resulting in usable products that are supported by a
theoretical framework” (Bowler & Large, 2008, p. 39). Design-Based Research Collective
(2003) indicated that design-based research is “a coherent methodology that bridges
theoretical research and educational practice” (p. 8). Herrington et al. (2007) suggested that,
according to Collins and Brown, design-based research involves:

addressing complex problems in real contexts in collaboration with practitioners;

integrating known and hypothetical design principles with technological affordances to

render plausible solutions to these complex problems; and

conducting rigorous and reflective inquiry to test and refine innovative learning
environments as well as to define new design principles. (p. 4090)
Definition of design-based research
DBR is often defined as a series of approaches, rather than a single approach, allowing for the
flexibility of the research design (Barab & Squire, 2004; The Design-Based Research
Collective, 2003). The coining of the term “design research” in a methodological context is
credited to Ann Brown in 1992 (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). Brown’s (1992)
“design research” united qualitative and quantitative operations, collected multi-layered data
and focused on in-depth proving of theory. Wang and Hannafin (2005) note that similar and
sometimes interchanged terms such as “design experiments,” “design research,”
“development research,” “developmental research” and “formative research” are often
grouped with design-based research. In this paper, the term “design-based research” will be
used. Wang and Hannafin defined it as “a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to
improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and
implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world
settings, and leading to contextually sensitive design principles and theories” (Wang &
Hannafin, 2005, pp. 6–7).

The main purpose that using DBR aims at achieving is to “address complex problems in
educational settings” (Sari & Lim, 2012, p. 2) in order to “build a stronger connection
between educational research and real-world problems” (Amiel & Reeves, 2008, p. 34), while
“supporting design and development of prototypical products to solve complex authentic
context specific problem” (Lai et al., 2009, p. 120). More specifically, by using design-based
research different outcomes can be obtained (Design- Based Research Collective, 2003; Juuti
& Lavonen, 2006). One of these outcomes is the production of design principles (Bowler &
Large, 2008; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006), which “can be implemented by others interested in
studying similar settings and concerns”(Amiel & Reeves, 2008, p. 35) in order to address
complex problems in educational settings. Furthermore, DBR can generate new theories or
help develop existing ones (Bowler & Large, 2008; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006), but generating
new theories according to Amiel and Reeves (2008), can “only occur after long-term
engagement and multiple design investigations” (p. 35).
Characteristics of design-based research
Characteristics Explanations
Pragmatic • Design-based research refines both theory and practice.
• The value of theory is appraised by the extent to which principles
inform and improve practice.
Grounded • Design is theory-driven and grounded in relevant research, theory and
practice.
• Design is conducted in real-world settings and the design process is
embedded in, and studied through, design-based research.
Interactive, iterative • Designers are involved in the design processes and work together with
participants.
• Processes are an iterative cycle of analysis, design, implementation, and
redesign.
• The initial plan is usually insufficiently detailed so that designers can
make deliberate changes when necessary.
Integrative • Mixed research methods are used to maximise the credibility of
ongoing research.
• Methods vary during different phases as new needs and issues emerge
and the focus of the research evolves.
• Rigour is purposefully maintained and discipline applied appropriate to
the development phase.
Contextual • The research process, research findings, and changes from the initial
plan are documented.
• Research results are connected with the design process and the setting.
• The content and depth of generated design principles varies.
• Guidance for applying generated principles is needed.
Table 1: Characteristics of design-based research.

An increasing number of researchers (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Design-Based

Research Collective, 2003; Reeves et al., 2004) propose that design-based research is an
appropriate research approach for generating design guidance for practitioners. A few authors
have attempted to prescribe research procedures to guide those interested in carrying out
design-based research. Reeves (2000) describes design-based research as a process (see
Figure 1) that consists of the following steps: (a) analysis of practical problems by
researchers and practitioners, (b) development of solutions within a theoretical framework,
(c) evaluation and testing of solutions in practice, and (d) documentation and reflection to
produce design principles.
 Figure 1 Design-based research (Reeves, 2006, p.59)

For the purpose of completing this research proposal, Design-based research and doctoral
students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal which introduced by Herrington,
McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver (2007) will be followed based on figure 1.

PHASE 1: Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners working in

collaboration.

Main question: 1. What problems are associated with the teaching and learning using
iPads in tertiary foundation course? (Phase 1)
1.1 Analysis of a practical problem

Research setting

The first step in McKenney and Reeves’ (2012) framework is analysis of a practical problem
by researchers and practitioners and identifying the research setting. In the context of the
current research project, the main research site for data collection will be a private training
institute (PTI) which is identified in its promotional material as “New Zealand’s largest
private educational provider of school education, university foundation studies and tertiary
training programmes.” It aims to prepare international students for entry into undergraduate
degree programmes through a foundation studies programme. In contrast to English language
schools, where the main focus is language learning, foundation studies programmes act as a
bridging programme to further tertiary study. In addition to EAP (English for Academic
Purposes), subjects such as Accounting, Biology, Chemistry, Design, Economics, Geography,
Mathematics and Physics are taught to students preparing to enter degree programmes. The
goal is to ensure that students not only meet the entry requirements for university enrolment
but are also prepared for the challenges of higher education degree programmes.

The institute chosen as the subject of this research exclusively delivers the ‘Certificate in
Foundation Studies’ for number of New Zealand universities. This setting was chosen partly
because it has one of the important features identified by Silverman (2006) as being desirable
in a purposive sample; the study site is able to provide reasonable and fast access to the
phenomena being studied: that is, teacher pedagogic practices and perceptions after the
introduction of mobile devices as a teaching and learning tool. Over the past 2 years, the
subject institute has been trialling the use of iPads with a number of teachers and students in
different classes within the campus. After careful consideration, it has been decided that
students joining the Certificate programme will be given the use of an iPad for the duration of
their course and the iPads will be employed as a teaching and learning aid inside and outside
the classroom.

1.2 Consultation with researchers and practitioners

As noted by Bannan-Ritland (2003): “The first phase of [design-based research] … is rooted

in essential research steps of problem identification, literature survey, and problem
definition” (p. 22), the first step in this process is a consultation with practitioners who are
familiar with the problem area of the research, this meeting can provide rich insights into
complexities inherent in a significant educational problem (McKenney & Reeves, 2014),
because these insights are based upon their intimate and practical understanding of the issues.
For this reason, the following steps have been undertaken to identify the research problem:

1- An informal focus group interview: A focus group took place in November 2014.
The meeting focused on identifying the teacher’s beliefs and knowledge surrounding
digital teaching approaches and their classroom practices in this area.
2- An informal interview with the principal: The principal’s perspective is important
not only because of his role in the school but because he is a major driver of the
introduction of mobile devices and m-learning into the school. The interview with him
also took place in November 2014. Topics discussed were the institution’s plan to
integrate m- learning, introducing iPads into the learning and teaching environment
within the institute, and the aims that the institute would like to achieve from this
programme.
 3- An informal discussion with the professional development programme coordinator
at the institute. The aim was to gain extensive information on what the everyday
activities and issues relating to the problem area meant to practitioners and other
stakeholders. It also identified the challenges facing the professional development
committee in providing PD sessions for teachers and their plan to overcome such
difficulties was presented.
4- Participant observation and conversations: Participant observation by immersion in
the setting provides an excellent opportunity to observe first-hand the setting and the
‘cognition involved’ in exploring the parameters of the problem. The researcher has
been invited to attend PD sessions with the other teachers at the subject institute. This
gives the researcher an opportunity to observe more closely the institute’s
environment and gain a better understanding of the PD programme in the context of
the research objective.
The data collected from consultations with practitioners have been analysed for themes and
issues, and importantly to provide background for the research project and help better
understand the research context. In addition, the data will help to determine whether any
practice-based advice can be obtained to inform the design of the intervention and to form the
basis of draft principles for use in the design phase of the research.

These preliminary data have been thematically categorised and displayed in the Table 1: The
insights of the preliminary data gathered from the informal interviews with participants,
which has been addressed in Appendices

1.3 Research problems

Preliminary research suggests that:

 A lack of teachers’ knowledge in using mobile devices for teaching and learning
inhibits teacher adoption of iPads and consequently reduces the effectiveness of iPad
use in blended classroom environments.
 There is inconsistency between teachers’ expressed beliefs and their practices with
iPads.
 Even if the teachers know how to use technology in their classrooms, they may still
lack the confidence needed to actually use it in their classrooms.
 Teachers need to feel comfortable with the new technology, and have opportunities to
collaborate with peers.
  Ongoing in-service teacher PD activities, support, follow-up, and mentoring are
needed for successful integration of iPad practices by teachers.
1.4 Research questions

1. What is the relationship between New Zealand tertiary teachers’ cognition and
their classroom practices using iPads?
1.1 What are the factors that shape and inform tertiary teachers’ knowledge
and practices with iPads?
1.2 To what extent do tertiary teachers’ confidences align with their
pedagogical practices?
1.3 Can self-reflection, peer observation, and peer feedback affect teachers’
knowledge and their confidence in using iPads for teaching and learning?

2. What are the perceived barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of
iPads in the classroom?

2.1 To what extent do community of practice support teachers’ to develop

their practices with iPads?
2.2 What impact has the design of this research (DBR) on improving teachers’
knowledge and confidence to be able to use iPads in their classroom?

3. To what extents can an online professional development programmes enhance the

teachers’ cognition in developing their practices with iPads.

3.1 To what extent do the iPDP programme impact on developing teachers’

confidence and their pedagogical practices?
3.2 How iPDP programme structure improves teachers’ knowledge and time
management skills?

PHASE 2: Development of solutions informed by existing literature review , design

principles and technological innovations

Main question: 2. What does the literature say about the perceived barriers and
facilitators to the successful implementation of iPads in the classroom in tertiary
education? (Phase 2)

Phase two is significant because it encompasses the development of interventions informed

by existing literature review and design principles, identifying the theoretical framework, and
the main data collection period.

2.1 Reviewing the Literature to Determine the Significance of the Problem

The review of relevant literature is an important part of DBR. One of the roles of the
researcher in this study will be to bring relevant literature to the attention of participating
teachers to support the development of solutions informed by the design principles identified
as a result of collaboration between the teacher participants and the researcher. After the
problems were identified, the literature was reviewed to examine whether the problem to be
addressed had significance not only within the current context but also to the tertiary
education community as a whole. Identifying the significance of the problem is an important
step in the DBR process. In the literature review …… (not completed )

2.2 Theoretical framework

(Not completed )

2.3 Draft principles to guide the design of the intervention

In design based research the design principles are viewed as providing a bridge between
theory and practice. They “speak to the pragmatic aspects of practice while also informing
theories of learning” (Bell, Hoadley, & Linn, 2004, p. 81). For this reason draft design
principles are identified at this stage, These principles will be refined and developed in the
evaluation/reflection phase where reflection which “involves active and thoughtful
consideration of what has come together in both research and development (including
theoretical inputs, empirical findings, and subjective reactions) with the aim of producing
new (theoretical) understanding” (McKenney & Reeves, 2013, p. 151).

The considerable amount of educational literature focused on teacher knowledge, teacher

learning, and teacher change over the last 15 years has resulted in professional development,
and in particular characteristics of effective professional development, emerging as a topic of
study and review. Historically “traditional” professional development of teachers has been
considered ineffective and an “incoherent and cobbled-together non-system” (Wilson &
Berne, p. 174) that has little to no effect on teachers’ instructional practices (Corcoran, 1995;
Guskey, 1986). However, there is an intention to improve professional development to a high
standard, and improve coherence and in-depth learning opportunities for teachers. To this
end, researchers have started to synthesise the literature on what constitutes effective and
high-quality professional development (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, Yoon, 2001;
Guskey, 2000; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson,
2003; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Based on the literature, the current research will be designed
according to two sets of principles, for effective online iPads professional development,
learning principles and design principles (see Table 2&3 in Appendix). Five major guiding
principles have been generated and identified by the researcher and teacher participants for
the phases and activities of the current research design. Based on these guidelines, an iPDP
programme will be designed and implemented in the subject institute and the outcome will be
evaluated. The aim of the iPDP intervention is to provide teachers in this research project
high quality professional development, which is reflected in the following guiding principles;

The five major guiding principles are:

1. Teacher ownership of learning goals
2. Encouraging teachers’ self-reflection and focus on classroom outcomes
3. Focusing on teachers’ own practices with the help of video – stimulated recall
4. Collaborative learning at the workplace in the form of peer support
5. Creating conditions for iPDP programme at the institute

More details of the five principles with a summary of the design characteristics for the iPDP
programme will be included in Table 4 in the Appendix 1.

Description of proposed intervention

The proposed solution to the nominated educational problem will be developed from
consideration of relevant literature, consultation and collaboration with researchers and
practitioners, and as an instantiation of the principles derived from these sources. It is
unlikely that an accurate description of the intervention or learning environment can be given
at this stage. Nevertheless, it is important to describe how the intervention will be
conceptualised and developed.

The intervention in DBR

DBR studies use the term intervention to denote the object, activity, or process that is
designed as a possible solution to address the identified problem. McKenney and Reeves
(2012) identified intervention as a broad term used “to encompass the different kinds of
solutions that are designed” (p. 14); these solutions include educational products, processes,
programmes, and policies. The current study identifies the iPad Professional Development
Programme (iPDP) as the intervention that will be developed as a potential solution to the
perceived need to improve the teachers’ practices in using iPads in tertiary education. Design
considerations for the iPDP will be drawn from the scholarly literature on teachers’
development, and learning theory; the researcher’s professional experience; consultation and
collaboration with researchers and practitioners; the unique characteristics of the iPad
technology; and from instantiation of the principles derived from these sources. The proposed
programme aims to support adoption of technology, specifically iPad tablets, in tertiary
education teaching. Given the critical need to transition from PD for teachers to PD with
teachers (inspiring a sense of ownership and co-design in the participants and allowing
teachers to explore who they are and what their PD goals are), iPDP will provide an
opportunity to connect to the PD content and display their own individuality in the process.
The iPDP intervention will include a short five to ten minute video as a practical guide to
using iPads in different subject areas, posted weekly on the Blackboard online system.
Regular weekly posting and the brevity of the video should encourage teachers to improve
their practices by applying what they have learned and enhance their knowledge. It will also
save time compared with traditional lecturer PD sessions. The content of the two-minute
video will focus on area such as iPedagogy, different practices with iPads, keeping up with
upcoming innovations and inspiration for creative practices with iPads. Before and during the
first stage of iPDP, different strategies will be used as evaluation tools for the programme
such as online surveys, goal setting activities, self-observation and self- reflection, peer
observation, and peer feedback. An online community of practice will be established to help
teachers interact with each other, and share their experiences and learning, and get support
from their peers. These activities will take place over 2016. Each iteration of this programme
will follow the process shown in Figure 3.The intended outcome of an iPDP is the increased
adoption of iPads into teaching and learning practice at the subject institute.
PHASE 3: Iterative cycles of testing and refinement of solutions in practice

Main question: 3. What impact does iPad Professional development programme as an

intervention on teachers who are using iPads in their teaching and learning?(Phase 3)
Once a learning environment or intervention has been designed and developed, this phase of
design-based research encompasses the implementation and evaluation of the proposed
solution in practice.

Selection of teacher participants

Participants in a design-based research study in education are central to the investigation, this
due to the highly situated nature of design-based research. Reeves (2006) noted that “Design
research is not an activity that an individual researcher can conduct in isolation from
practice” (p. 59). For the purpose of this research, the participants are teachers (or
cooperating practitioner’s) who involved in the educational community which it is the context
for the study.

Selection of research participants will begin once ethics approval is obtained. The institute’s
principal has already given permission to place a short online survey in the institute’s
Blackboard Learning Management System. The survey will use simple scales and multiple
choice questions to ask teachers about their experience and use of iPads at the institute. This
questionnaire will also be used to recruit participants for the study by including a question
asking if they wish to take part in the research project. This will be followed up with a
seminar at the institute where the researcher will give more information about the project to
help them understand what will be involved if they take part. The aim is to gain as
representative as possible a sample of teachers at the subject institute to obtain rich data about
teaching using iPads in the New Zealand context.

Participants in this project will consist of two groups: the first group will have four
participants, with different background experience in teaching using iPads, who are regularly
using iPads in their teaching and learning. These four participants will co-design the
intervention and work with the researcher and external experts to identify best solutions for
the research problem. If there are more volunteers than needed, they will join the second
group, which will include 7 to 10 participants to take part in the “knowledge sharing events”
with the collaboration of the first four participants. Their role will be to evaluate the
intervention and share their experiences with the teacher participants. The criteria for
selection and the number of participants needed will be clearly explained, so it is not
anticipated that teachers who are not selected will feel slighted.

Data Collection methods

Pragmatic researchers focus on the "what" and "how" of the research problem (Creswell,
2003, p.11). The pragmatic paradigm places "the research problem" as central and applies all
approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003, p.11). With the research question
"central", data collection and analysis methods are chosen for being most likely to provide
insights into the question, with no philosophical loyalty to alternative paradigms. The
pragmatic paradigm provides an opportunity for "multiple methods, different worldviews,
and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis in the
mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003, p.12). Mixed methods will be used to achieve the
objectives of the current research. To clearly explain how the research would be positioned
within a collaborative, ongoing DBR project, it is helpful to use McKenney and Reeves’
(2012) generic model for design research (GMDR) to provide an outline of the iPDP project
phases. The GMDR consists of three main phases, analysis and exploration, design and
construction, and evaluation and reflection that lead to the two eventual outputs of increased
theoretical understanding and effective intervention maturation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Generic model for conducting educational design research (GMDR)

(McKenney & Reeves, 2012)

In design-based research, each phase includes two or more iterations and was guided by main
question. This is because a single implementation is seldom sufficient to gather enough
evidence about the success of the intervention and its impact on the problem situation. A
typical design-based research study would have two or more cycles, where after the first
implementation and evaluation, changes are made to the learning environment to further
improve its ability to address the problem. This is in keeping with the focus suggested by
Reeves (1999) who maintained that ‘our research and evaluation efforts should be primarily
developmental in nature … the purpose of such inquiry should be to improve, not to prove’
(p.18). Figure 3 and Table 2 briefly outlines how the proposed iPDP project aligns with the
initial iteration of the three phases of the GMDR.

Diagram
 Table 2 Alignment of the IPDP with the GMDR
Task Analysis/ Exploration
When? Feb 2015–Oct 2015
*Analysis of practical problems
by researchers in collaboration
Research with practitioners.
activities
Methods:
1. An informal focus group
Aims meeting with teachers (FG1).
2. Informal interview with
Principal (Narrative written)
Methods
3. Analysis of institute's
documents.
*Review the literature to
develop a theoretical
framework, and draft principles
to guide the design of the
intervention.
Nov 2015- Dec 2015
*Examine the level of teachers’
readiness to use iPads, their
knowledge and abilities, their
learning preference, their
professional goals and needs.
*Ascertain teachers’ willingness
to participate in the online
community of practice group
and to take part in the research
project as co-designers.
*Develop a multimedia online
PD programme with
collaboration of teacher
participants and the external
experts.
Methods:
1. An online questionnaire for
all teachers
2. Goal setting activities –
teacher participants.
3. Teachers’ think aloud
activity.
Design /construction and
implementation
Jan 2016–Dec 2016
Stage 1. Introduction of iPDP
intervention. This will be posted
fortnightly on the Blackboard
management system for all
teachers.
Stage 2. Establishing online,
asynchronous community of
practice teachers’ group.
Feb 2016–April 2016
(First iteration)
For: Teacher participants
Methods:
1. Self-observation (video –
stimulated recall).
2. Teachers’ self- reflection.
3. Semi-structured interviews with
teacher participants.
Aug 2016–Oct 2016
(Second iteration)
For: Teacher participants
Methods:
1. Peer observation.
2. Peers feedback (oral or written
report).
3. Semi-structured interview with
PD coordinator (Level 3
evaluation of organisation support
and change).
December 2016
Summative evaluation
Methods:
1. Principal’s reflection
2. Examination of end-of-year
student results (Level 5 evaluation
of student learning outcomes).
Evaluation/ Reflection
May 2016–July 2016
This phase of design-based research
encompasses the implementation and
evaluation of the proposed solution in
practice once a learning environment or
intervention has been designed and
developed.
Activity:
Knowledge-sharing event
For: Teacher participants + teachers in the
online community of practice group.
Aims:
1.To share experiences of iPads’ use in
classroom practices.
2. To reflect on the first round and setting
goals for the next iteration.
3. To evaluate the iPDP programme.
Methods
1. Focus group (FG2).
2. Group Presentation.
3. Teachers’ questionnaire (evaluation of
participants’ reaction Level 1&
participants’ learning Level 2).
Nov 2016–Dec 2016
Knowledge sharing event
For: Teacher participants + teachers in the
online community of practice group.
Aims:
1. Modelling best practice of iPad use in
the classroom to translate what they learnt
into the real world.
2. To evaluate the second iteration and set
goals for the third round if needed.
Methods:
1. Focus group (FG3).2. Group
Presentation, 3. Teachers’ questionnaire
(Level 4, evaluation of participants’ use of
 3. Teachers’ self- evaluation. new knowledge and skills).

Data collection methods and strategy associated with each phase

Phase one: November 2015–December 2015

Teachers’ online questionnaire

The aim of this survey will be to collect personal data and information on the teachers’
experiences of teaching with/without the support of mobile devices, iPad use at the institute,
personal motivation to use them, views on the conditions necessary for implementing a PD
programme for using iPads in teaching and learning, personal wishes concerning the
continuation of the programme, and individual gain it term of improving their practice.

Goal setting activity

Wang & Ertmer (2003) stated that from the perspective and experiences of teacher
educators, the use of digital devices (such as iPads) and incorporating setting learning goals
may help in-service teachers develop the confidence they need to become effective
technology users within their own classrooms. For this reason, goal-setting activities will take
place at the beginning of the research project and also following each iteration to help
teachers build the confidence they need to use iPads creatively.

Teachers’ think aloud

Ericsson (2006) suggests that “think aloud” sessions are useful in discovering the cognitive
processes that take place during learning activities. In order to understand the cognitive
processes for teachers while setting goals for their learning, participants will be invited to
take part in a think-aloud session with the researcher while they develop a concept map on
the best techniques to improve their knowledge, confidence, and time management skills. The
aim of this exercise is to provide insights into the participants’ thinking processes while they
set their learning goals.
Phase two:

Implementation of intervention (First iteration)

February 2016- April 2016

Self-observation (video – stimulated recall) followed by teachers’ self-reflection

Throughout the study teachers will be encouraged to reflect on their pedagogic practices
using a combination of self-observation (video/stimulated recall) and self-reflection. Using
video-stimulated recall can help teachers gain a new perspective on their practice through
observing themselves. The method involves video recording an activity and then replaying
the recording to participants so they can comment on matters of interest. Over the past 20
years, video-stimulated recall has been increasingly used as a research tool in education,
medicine, and psychotherapy (Rowe, 2009). Han (2004) suggests that using video to observe
and discuss teaching practices offers teachers a new approach: unlike a classroom situation,
they do not have to respond immediately, but instead they have time to reflect, to view it
repeatedly if they wish, and to closely analyse an interaction. Reitano (2005) confirms that
video-stimulated recall has gained popularity as an action research method in the professional
development of teachers, as it provides an opportunity for teachers to recall reasons for the
decisions they have made while teaching. This strategy will be followed by a self- reflection
check list, structured to parallel Bloom's taxonomy. Clegg et al. (2002) stated, “reflective
practice is becoming the favoured paradigm for continuing professional development in
higher education” (p. 131). It is a form of thinking to achieve a particular outcome using
knowledge, understanding, and emotions to process complicated or unstructured ideas
(Moon, 1999).Dewey (cited in Ferguson, 2012) believed that if teachers did not operate
reflectively, they risked basing their practice on prejudice and uninformed or outdated
thinking.

Semi-structured interview
The semi-structured interview has been used in many research contexts. Interviewing
teachers was chosen as a means of eliciting the meanings that teachers attribute to the
phenomena being studied. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2004) argue that interviews are a
superior means of accessing the knowledge, information, values, preferences, attitudes, and
beliefs of research participants. The interviews will be semi-structured, targeting the teacher
participants.
Phase three: Evaluation and Reflection (1)
May 2016–July 2016

Knowledge-sharing event
This phase of the project encompasses implementing and evaluating the proposed solution for
the first iteration once a learning environment and intervention has been designed and
developed. The aims of this meeting are to share experiences of iPads use in classroom
practice after implementing the iPDP, and for the participants to reflect on the first round. In
collaboration with the researcher, teacher participants and teachers in the community of
practice group will set goals for the next iteration and evaluate the iPDP programme through
an online questionnaire (evaluation of participants’ reaction Level 1 & participants’ learning
Level 2). As Hildreth and Kimble (2008) argued that “Teaching is a very personal and
‘individual’ activity, yet teachers benefit greatly from links with other teachers, both with
colleagues in their own establishment and with colleagues in the wider teaching community”
(p. x). Andriessen (2005), in his research into the classification of knowledge community
archetypes, concluded that “the same term of ‘community of practice’ has been applied to
different types of communities, that is, to strategic communities, to informal communities
and to informal networks” (p. 209). In this activity, participants will lead the other teachers in
four focus groups and then present the outcome of their discussions. The strength of a focus
group is that ideas can be bounced off other participants, often resulting in a more robust
understanding of the issues, together with discussing potential solutions and ideas for
designing the intervention.

Phase two:

August 2016–October 2016

Though it is impossible to describe the nature of the second and subsequent iterations of the
intervention, because they are so totally dependent on the findings of the first iteration, it is
useful to describe the process that will be undertaken in the proposal.

Implementation of intervention (Second and further iterations)

Peer observation and peer feedback

Teachers develop confidence by hearing about or observing other teachers’ successful efforts
using technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). One way to accomplish this is
through sharing their success stories, which could be facilitated during staff meetings. Peer
observation is seen as a mechanism through which learning and teaching can be improved. At
its best, the peer observation of teaching is encourages reflection on teaching practice,
identifies developmental needs, and fosters debate and dissemination around best practice
(Brown & Jones, 1993; Fullerton, 1999; Gosling, 2000). Peer observation needs to be central
to tertiary education institutions’ learning and teaching strategies, and linked into continual
PD programmes (Martin & Double, 1998). This is why both peer observation and peer
feedback will be used as part of the iPDP.

PD coordinator’s semi-structured interview

In a semi-structured interview, as Robson (1993) describes it, ‘the interviewer has clearly
defined purposes, but seeks to achieve them through some flexibility in wording and in the
order of presentation of questions’. Thus, the researcher has more freedom to modify a line of
questioning or to follow up unexpected lines of enquiry than would be possible in a
questionnaire or rigidly structured interview. The aim of this interview is to get feedback
from the PD coordinator and evaluate organisational support and change during the second
iteration, which will help develop the next round of the project. (Level 3)

Phase three: Evaluation and Reflection (2)

November 2016–December 2016

Knowledge-sharing event
This event again involves taking part in focus group activities with participants from both
groups. Teacher participants will present the outcomes and their views about the second
iteration and the iPDP programme. The aim of this event is to model best practice of iPad use
in the classroom to translate what they learnt into the real world, as well as evaluating the
second iteration and setting goals for the third round if needed. All teachers will then take
part in an online questionnaire to evaluate the participants’ use of new knowledge and skills
(Level 4).

Phase three: Evaluation and Reflection (3)

December 2016
To complete a “Summative evaluation” (Gusky, 2000), the institute’s principal will provide a
narrative written reflection and teachers’ self-evaluation reports will be collected. Moreover,
an examination of students’ end-of-year results will be reviewed to evaluate student learning
outcomes (Level 5).
Evaluation Model of the iPDP programme for Phase three:
Guskey and Sparks (1996) suggested a model for professional development programme
evaluation, based on the premise that the quality of professional development is influenced by
content, context and process factors. Content factors include the knowledge and skills to be
developed, as well as the degree of change required to enact the new knowledge and skills in
the classroom. Context factors include the ‘who, when, where, and why’ of professional
development. Process refers to professional development delivery format and instructional
strategies. Guskey and Sparks claimed that these factors would affect the quality of
professional development programmes, which in turn would influence outcomes (knowledge,
confidence, and practice) for teachers. These outcomes will have a three-step impact on
student learning. First, professional development enhances teacher knowledge, skills,
confidence, and motivation. Second, better knowledge, skills, confidence, and motivation
improve classroom teaching. Third, improved teaching raises student achievement
(Schildwacht, 2012).

To be able to achieve the objectives of an iPDP programme, it must be of high quality in its
theory of action, planning, design, and implementation. Guskey (2000) developed this line of
thought into an expanded model for evaluating professional development programmes. It
includes five levels as follow:

1. Participants’ reactions: at this level evaluators ask the participants whether they liked
the PD through questions and interviews.
2. Participants learning: at this level evaluators ask the participants whether they learned
the intended knowledge and skills. Evaluators gather evidence through tests,
presentations, and artefacts.
3. Organisational support and change: at this level evaluation is concerned with the
impact of PD on the organisation (institute). Questionnaires, interviews, and artefacts
can provide such information.
4. Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills: at this level evaluation focuses on how
participants apply their new knowledge and skills in their classrooms and schools.
Evaluators use questionnaires, interviews, written reflections, and observations as
evidence.
5. Student learning outcomes: at this level evaluation addresses the impact of PD on
student achievement, performance, attitudes, and confidence. Evidence of the impact
 of PD on students comes from school records, questionnaires, interviews, and
artefacts such as tests.

Desimone (2009) proposed a similar core framework of critical features of teacher learning
and recommended its use for studying teachers’ professional development. The core theory of
action for PD should follow four steps:

1. Teachers experience effective PD.

2. PD increases teacher’s knowledge and skills and/or changes attitudes and beliefs.
3. Teachers use their new knowledge and skills, attitudes, and beliefs to improve the
content of their instruction, their approach to pedagogy, or both.
4. The instructional changes foster increased student learning.

Based on these models, an overview of definitions of the research model for iPDP, the
evaluation scope, and data collection methods in this study are displayed in the following
table:

1 2 3 4 5
Participants’ Participants’ Organizational Participants’ use Student learning
reactions learning support and of new outcome
impact on knowledge, skills,
organization motivation or
belief
Refers to the Can refer to all kinds Refers to the support Focuses on how Address the impact of
degree that of learning outcomes for the programme participants use their PD on student
teachers liked the such as cognitive and and impact on the new knowledge, skills achievement, attitudes,
programme, or to motivational organisation in and motivation in their and confidence.
Definition

the aspects the outcomes; relation to classrooms (e.g.,

teachers reacted improvement in self- commitments and changes in teachers’
to positively. confidence and goals. self-understanding,
changes in beliefs changes in
and practices. performance and
confidence).

- programme - pedagogical and - institute polices Stages of concern - impact on students’

content technological - resources and time - awareness performance and
- programme knowledge and - involvement of - self achievement.
What

process understanding management - task

- programme - skills and - impact
context confidence
- attitudes and beliefs
- questionnaire - self- observation - questionnaires - self- reflection - observation notes
- observation - peer observation - semi- structured - peer- observation - questionnaire
How

feedback - knowledge sharing interviews - peer feedback - document analysis

- semi -structured event (presentations) - semi- structured (e.g., student records)
interviews interviews
- focus group
Data management and analysis

This study proposes to use NVivo 10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2006) for data
management. All data collected will be recorded, transcribed, reviewed for accuracy, and
entered into NVivo 10 as field notes and reflective memos.

In DBR, the data analysis methods need to be appropriate to the type of data collected and the
research questions posed by the study (Ezzy, 2002). How the design might be refined in
further iterations of evaluations also needs to be considered (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). As
the data collection method is based on mixed-methods strategies, two data analyses will be
considered in this research; content analysis and thematic analysis. Content analysis is a
deductive method that allows data analysis categories to be determined from pre-existing
theory (Ezzy, 2002), while thematic analysis is an inductive method that allows themes to
emerge from data that are then related back to the theory (Ezzy, 2002). Thematic analysis
strategy will be deployed simultaneously with content analysis to gain knowledge and
empathy about phenomena that will be investigated. Applying these strategies during
problem framing helps researchers move from a broad reading of the data toward discovering
patterns and framing a specific research question (Boyatzis, 1998). They help gain insight
and knowledge from data gathered, and enables researchers to develop a deeper appreciation
for the group or situation they are researching (Howitt & Cramer, 2007).

These processes involve the following steps:

1- Collecting data from sources such as questionnaires, observation, interviews, and

focus groups.

2- Coding data through NVivo 10 software. According to Boyatzis, a “good code” is one
that captures the qualitative richness of the phenomenon. Codes become the
foundation for the themes that are going to be used by the researcher. Thematic codes
should address five main elements: What am I going to call it? How am I going to
define it? How am I going to recognise it in the data? What do I want to exclude? and
What is an example? (Heading & Traynor, 2005).

3- Code validation to ensure the integrity of the codes and that they have not been
misinterpreted and are free of researcher bias. The data will be developed and
reviewed by the researcher and the primary supervisors. The researcher will read and
 re-read the data, double-checking the codes for consistency and validation. Integrating
the codes from the data becomes the codebook from which themes emerge (Boyatzis,
1998).

4- Theme identification from the codebook, in which the researcher will identify themes
and sub-themes that emerge from the coded data. The researcher will then adequately
define each theme so that it is clear to others exactly what the theme is.

The researcher finalises the name of each theme, writes its description, and illustrates it with
a few quotations from the original text to help communicate its meaning to the reader (Howitt
& Cramer, 2007).

PHASE 4: Reflection to produce “design principles” and enhance solution

implementation

Main question: 4. What principles can be derived to advise teachers who integrate iPads
into their learning and teaching in tertiary foundation course? (Phase 4)

Design-based research involves outputs in the form of both knowledge and products. In the
research proposal, it is difficult to specify these outputs in advance. However, it will be useful
to describe the process of their development.

In this research project it anticipated that the research outputs will include three areas which
are as follow:

Scientific outputs: Design principles

The knowledge claim of design-based research takes the form of design principles which can
develop design principles is part of an ongoing DBR process that may eventually lead to
theoretical understanding and inform future development and implementation decisions
(Linn, Davis & Bell, 2004; van den Akker, 1999). The outcomes of design-based research are
a set of design principles or guidelines derived empirically and richly described which can be
implemented by others interested in studying similar settings and concerns. The generation of
design principles will take part in an evaluation/reflection phase where reflection “involves
active and thoughtful consideration of what has come together in both research and
development with the aim of producing new (theoretical) understanding” (McKenney &
Reeves, 2014, p. 151). Design principles can be further refined by sharing them with other
researchers and practitioners, through presentations and publications. Peer review of design
principles is essential for the overall enhancement of professional practice to eventually yield
improved educational outcomes (McKenney & Reeves, 2014).

Practical outputs: Designed artifact

In design -based research, the product of design is viewed as a major output. A design artifact
in this research is a professional development programmes to improve teachers’ practices
using iPad (iPDP). As a design field, the dominant research goal in educational technology
should be solving teaching, learning, and performance problems. It is hoped that this
programme can help teachers to overcome the challenges that they are currently facing in
order to integrate iPads to their teaching and learning.

Societal outputs: Professional development of participants

The collaboration that is so essential to the process of defining and accomplishing a design -
based research project has an additional benefit to the extent that it enhances the professional
development of all involved.

7. Challenges and limitations of Design-Based Research

In common with all research, this study has limitations. Because DBR is highly contextual,
the first limitation to be considered is to what extent the design principles generated by any
DBR can be generalised from one context to others. However, Edelson (2006) states that
design research should result in generalisable theory. While the findings of DBR cannot be
generalised to the same extent as can research findings based on other methods, this does not
prevent design principles identified by the research to be related to some broader theory or
contribute to the development of strategies that can be used in other contexts.

Barab and Squire (2004) point out that “if a researcher is intimately involved in the
conceptualization, design, development, implementation, and researching of a pedagogical
approach, then ensuring that researchers can make credible and trustworthy assertions is a
challenge” (p. 10). Because DBR is a collaborative process in which the researcher is directly
involved there is a greater danger of researcher bias than in some other research approaches.
However, engaging in DBR does not remove the researcher’s ability to reflect critically on
their involvement or to apply rigour. Furthermore, the proposed use of multiple sources,
different forms of data collection, and incorporation of ongoing participant and researcher
evaluation will help ensure the validity and reliability of the research findings

Finally, while most research is carried out under some time restriction, the proposed timeline
presented later in this proposal shows that it should be possible to conduct three iterations of
the interventions developed through the DBR within the available time.

8. Trustworthiness of Design-Based Research

The primary objective behind maintaining trustworthiness in research is to support the

significance of the research and ensure that the results are “worth paying attention to”
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). Trustworthiness of design-based research comes from
“making the reasoning behind generalized claims explicit, public, and open to critical
reflection and discussion” (Obrenović, 2011, p. 59). However, as with any other research
methodologies, design-based research faces different challenges that might threaten the
trustworthiness of its findings (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Dix, 2007; Juuti &
Lavonen, 2006; Plomp, 2007). These are reflected in data collection and analysis techniques,
which represent “the heart of rigour” (Hoadley, 2004, p. 203). Accordingly, Design-Based
Research Collective (2003) indicated that design-based research is “empirical research,” so
objectivity, validity, and reliability are all necessary to ensure the findings of design-based
research meet acceptable standards. Indeed, design-based research literature has not yet
provided strict criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of the findings of design-based
research in terms of objectivity, validity, and reliability; rather, it includes discussions of
these issues and some suggested strategies that can be used for achieving trustworthiness
(Juuti & Lavonen, 2006; Plomp, 2007). Therefore, Kelly (2004) emphasised that design-
based researchers should pay considerable attention to developing clear criteria to ensure the
trustworthiness in the findings of design-based research. Plomp (2007) suggested employing
Shavelson and Towne’s guiding principles for scientific research. Shavelson and Towne
(2002) developed six guiding principles that underlie education research. These guiding
principles suggest that a researcher should

 pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically;

 link research to relevant theory;

  use methods that permit direct investigation of the question;

 provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning;

 replicate and generalise across studies; and

 disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique. (pp. 3–5).

More specifically, for achieving trustworthiness of the findings of design-based research in

terms of objectivity, validity, and reliability, the following procedures will be employed.

Objectivity

Objectivity, which “deal[s] with the idea of neutrality or the extent to which the research is
free of bias in the procedures and the interpretation of results” (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, &
Razavieh, 2010, p. 504). Nevertheless, achieving objectivity in design-based research is not
an easy task (Akilli, 2008; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Hoadley, 2011;
O’Donnell, 2004) because “researchers conducting design-based research usually, if not
always, need to immerse themselves in the research context and intensely interact with
participants. As a consequence, it is difficult to keep being objective and neutral”
(Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia, 2006c, para, 2).
However, the researcher will maintain a reflexive journal through field notes and memos that
will record the researcher’s thoughts and beliefs in relation to the research. Such a journal
will provide written confirmation that the findings are based on the raw data, as opposed to
the researcher’s beliefs and perceptions. Additionally, the results will also be submitted as
conference papers in a timely manner to maintain objectivity via a blind peer review process;
this process will maintain the integrity of the research.

Validity

Validity concentrates mainly on two aspects;

1- External validity:

This aspect refers to “the extent to which the findings of a study can apply to a wider
population … which is generalizable enables the results and implications of a study to be
brought into more general use” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 93). However, design-based
research literature agrees completely that the findings of design-based research cannot be
generalised from a sample to a large population (Akilli, 2008; Barab & Squire, 2004;
Hoadley, 2011; O’Donnell, 2004; Plomp, 2007) because design-based research has a “highly
contextualised research agenda and its heavy reliance on thick description for data analysis”
(Instructional Technology Ph.D students at the University of Georgia, 2006c, para, 3).
Therefore, the literature suggests that design-based research should result in generalisable
theory from its context to other contexts (Bowler &Large, 2008; Edelson, 2002; Plomp,
2007). Moreover, Edelson (2002) stresses that design research should be evaluated from the
point of view of how productively knowledge, gained through design-based research, helps to
explain educational phenomena. From the pragmatic viewpoint, the researcher will show that
through the process new knowledge has been produced and that based on testing and
revising, it improved teaching in certain contexts (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006).

2- Internal validity:

Internal validity refers generally to “the degree to which the investigator’s conclusions
correctly portray the data collected” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 148). Different factors may
threaten the validity of design-based research, so Hoadley (2004) suggested that validity has a
larger sense, involving “the likelihood that our interpretation of the results accurately reflects
the truth of the theory and hypotheses under examination” (p. 204). Therefore, adopting many
iterations of the phases of design-based research over time as well as repeating analysis
through cycles of iterations can result in strengthening the internal validity of the findings of
design-based research (Bloor & Wood, 2006; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003; Dix,
2007).

Reliability

Reliability refers generally to “the extent to which research produces the same results when
replicated” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 147). Achieving reliability in design-based research also
has challenges, so using triangulation through multiple data sources contributes to improved
reliability in the findings of design-based research (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003;
Dix, 2007; Akilli, 2008; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). In addition, the use of multidisciplinary
research teams through the inclusion of several expert groups throughout the study to
evaluate the materials and data collection instruments and interrogate the findings, is seen as
providing a greater breadth of understanding being brought into the research environment
(Kennedy-Clark, 2013; Reeves et al., 2005; Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
9. Ethical considerations

The research process followed by this study takes into account procedures that have been put
in place in order to ensure that the study is ethically justified:

1. Consent and ethical approval to undertake the study will be sought from the Faculty
of Education, The University of Auckland.
2. Recruitment notices and letters of invitation to participate in the study specify that
participation in the study is completely voluntary.
3. Participants will be provided information relating to this study in written form.
4. Participants will be required to sign an informed consent declaration before
participating in the study.
5. The participants will be made aware of the purpose, methodology and nature of the
study.
6. All participants will be informed in writing of their right to withdraw from the
study.
7. All interviews, analyses, and theory development will be conducted in way that
maintains the confidentiality of the research participants and the universities they
represent.
8. Data will not be used in any way to evaluate individual teaching practices or the
practices utilised by the institutions that the participants represent.
9. The information obtained will not be used to compare and contrast the practices of
institutions that the participants represent.
10. Participants will have the opportunity to obtain a copy of the transcription of their
interviews and the research results.
11. All raw data will be kept in a locked cabinet at the researcher office in UoA.

10. Thesis organisation

It is intended to produce a thesis by publication. Using this method, the core chapters of the
thesis are produced as a series of published or publishable papers. Together these papers
constitute a coherent body of work and tell the story of the research. In common with a
traditional thesis, the structure of a thesis by publication includes a literature review, a
methodology chapter and a conclusion. I anticipate that my thesis will be organized as
follows:
1 An Introduction which provides an overview of my interest in this subject and the
significance of this research. The introduction will also describe the educational context
in which the research will take place and the structure of the thesis.
2 A Literature review which will review research and theoretical concepts related to the
study of teachers’ knowledge, confidences and their practices in relation to digital
technologies and Professional Development. (Publish as journal article).
3 A paper presenting the Methodology used which justifies and explains in detail the
research orientation adopted. It also includes the specific questions motivating the
research, the selection of participants, and the methodologies used in data collection and
analysis. (Publish as journal article)
4 The Research findings or results of the implementation of the collaboratively produced
interventions and answer the research questions will be presented as a series of papers.
Each paper will include a summary of the:
 Conceptual framework and the design based approach taken
 Participants and context of the study
 Procedure/Data collection
 Data analysis, and
 Proposed revisions to intervention
It is anticipated that each iteration of the interventions and the development of design
principles and products will be presented separately. (Publish as journal articles)

5 An Integrative Discussion will reflect on the overall research project and discuss the
research findings from a more abstract perspective. (Publish as journal article)
6 The Conclusion of the thesis will discuss the contributions, implications, and limitations
of the study. It will highlight the implications of the study for the New Zealand university
context in which the study is set and identify areas for further
7 Each paper will contain relevant citations and references; however the References will
also be presented separately. This applies to any relevant Appendices.
11. Proposed Timeline

Months Year 1 (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017)

April Start date 1st of April Creating Data collection

Meeting with supervisor instruments for (design 2)
Setting goals for analysis
provisional year.
Begin preliminary
reading.

May Undertake Diagnostic Complete

English Language Needs review of
Assessment (DELNA) provisional
and participate in the registration
language enrichment form.
recommended by the Complete Post
DELNA Language DELNA
Advisor. Diagnosis
Assessment
Apply for six
months
extention

June Attending Doctoral Start second Start third year Thesis

workshops (Academic year of study 1st of study 1st submission
writing, IT skills, June June Final
Academic integrity) Data collection Literature publication,
(needs and review preparation for
context analysis) Analysing defence.
findings,
redesign of
intervention

July Suspension of studies Analysing initial Data collection

data (design 3)
Begin
dissertation
writing
August Suspension of studies Literature
review
Mutual
adaptation &
refinement of
research.

Septembe Identify the research Designing Synthesize Defence

r focus/ questions intervention and findings, revisit
data collection literature
instruments

October Literature review Planning and Data analysis

implementing Planning final
intervention round

November Working with Data collection Paper writing ,

practitioners (design 1) Participation in
to define best scenarios International
for research conference

December Study Leave Study Leave Study Leave

January Literature review Analysing Data collection

(continuing) findings ( evaluation)

February Refining theoretical Literature

framework. review
Planning intervention Redesign of
(iPDP) innovation
12. Proposed expenditure

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Consumables $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
supplies &
services
Conferences Domestic $500 Int $2500 Int $ 2500
Field trips / $ 200 $ 200
Research travel
Photocopying/ $ 200 $ 200 $ 500
Printing
Other $ 500
Total $1200 $ 3400 $ 3200 $1000
Budget source Press account Press account + Press account+ SACM
SACM SACM

13. Provisional Goals

Activity Date Achieved

Full thesis proposal submitted.
Literature review completed.
Presentation of the proposal e.g. seminar, research group,
conference.
Ethics approval/s and/or permissions obtained for the research
(if required).
Attendance the Doctoral Skills Programme Induction Day. 26/11/2013 √
Undertake Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment 16/05/ 2014 √
(DELNA) and participate in the language enrichment
recommended by the DELNA Language Advisor.
Successful completion of the Academic Integrity Module 09/01/2014 √
14. Bibliography