Science Teachers' Instructional Design Practices

Science Teachers’ Instructional Design Practices for
a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Environment in

New Zealand Secondary Schools
Jiansheng Cui
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Education, The University of Auckland, 2020.
Abstract
An increasing number of New Zealand schools have introduced and implemented bring-your-own-device
(BYOD) initiatives, a significant trend in New Zealand education. A considerable body of literature and
emergent practices have demonstrated how teachers’ effective instructional design practices can influence
students’ abilities to learn and students’ educational attainment. Some research has been carried out on
the impact of technology integration on students’ attitudes and learning performance as well as the
influence of teachers’ professional learning and development in BYOD environments. However, little is
known about teachers’ instructional design practices for a BYOD environment.
This study aims to understand science teachers’ instructional design practices for BYOD environments in
New Zealand secondary schools. It explores teachers’ practices in a BYOD environment and offers new
insights into New Zealand BYOD initiatives. The qualitative study included three phases: Phase 1,
analysis of 222 New Zealand secondary schools’ documents related to BYOD; Phase 2, an open-ended
survey completed by 72 science teachers; and Phase 3, semi-structured interviews with 12 science
teachers and three experts in the field of New Zealand secondary science education. Document analysis
was used for Phase 1 and thematic analysis for Phases 2 and 3 data.
The Phase 1 findings showed that 222 out of 347 New Zealand secondary schools (64%) had adopted
BYOD initiatives at the time of the study. Collating and analysing 837 documents from these 222 schools
revealed seven categories of information, including: vision, enrolment, news, reports, general information
about BYOD, information on responsible use of technology in a BYOD environment, and technical
instruction. The findings from Phases 2 and 3 linked macro-, meso- and micro-level contextual factors with
teacher knowledge, perceived affordances and constraints, professional learning and development
engagement, and instructional design practices. The study found that participating teachers attached more
importance to knowledge of technology and pedagogy than content. When reviewing these teachers’
instructional design practices within the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation,
evaluation) framework, their analysis and evaluation phases appeared to consistently inform the three
phases of design, development, and implementation. Finally, with reference to the SAMR (substitution,
augmentation, modification, redefinition) model, most participating teachers characterised the extent of
their technology use as either modification or redefinition, as they generally felt confident and comfortable
with their current teaching with technology.
These findings provide insights and practical implications for teachers, schools, teacher education
providers, and policymakers, as well as guidance for future studies of BYOD and in the broader field of
technology in education.
i
Dedication
To my beloved family
ii
Acknowledgements
To Associate Professor Cathy Gunn, Dr Rena Heap and Dr Lawrence May, I have been incredibly
fortunate to have you as supervisors who cared so much about my research. Thank you so much for your
patient guidance, exceptional feedback and continuous support. I have learnt a lot from you, and I owe
you my deepest gratitude.
To Dr Claire Valentin from the University of Edinburgh, Dr Hongying Liu from Sun Yat-sen University,
Associate Professor Juan Liu and Ms Qian Li from South China Agricultural University, thank you for
inspiring and encouraging me to pursue my doctoral degree.
To all participants, thank you for generously giving me your time and sharing your insights.
To my peers at Epsom Campus, I will miss our talks, laughs, and hugs.
To my whānau (extended family) and friends, I am so lucky to have you in my life.
To my lovely nieces, your smiles always melt my heart.
To my dear sister and brother-in-law, thank you for believing in me and constantly supporting me.
To my loving mum and dad, thank you for giving me life and providing me with the best education.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... i
Dedication .............................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations............................................................................................................................. xi
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Positioning the Researcher ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Research Context ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.1 Macro context ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Meso context ........................................................................................................................ 9
1.3.3 Micro context ...................................................................................................................... 15
1.3.4 Summary............................................................................................................................ 17
1.4 Research Aims and Questions .................................................................................................. 17
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................... 18
1.6 Thesis Structure ......................................................................................................................... 18
2 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 20
2.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) ................................................................................................. 20

2.2.1 Conceptualising BYOD ....................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment ....................... 23
2.3 Teacher Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1 Teacher knowledge and technology integration ................................................................... 25
2.3.2 The TPACK framework of teacher knowledge ..................................................................... 26
2.4 Instructional Design Practice..................................................................................................... 30

2.4.1 Understanding instructional design practice ........................................................................ 30
2.4.2 The ADDIE framework ........................................................................................................ 31
2.4.3 The SAMR model ............................................................................................................... 33
2.5 Conceptual Framework Overview.............................................................................................. 36

2.5.1 Theoretical perspectives of the study .................................................................................. 36
2.5.2 Visualising the conceptual framework ................................................................................. 40
2.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 42
iv
3 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 43
3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 43

3.2.1 Philosophical underpinnings of research ............................................................................. 43
3.2.2 Three-phase multimethod research design ......................................................................... 44
3.2.3 Trustworthiness .................................................................................................................. 46
3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 47

3.3.1 Phase 1 .............................................................................................................................. 47
3.3.2 Phase 2 .............................................................................................................................. 48
3.3.3 Phase 3 .............................................................................................................................. 49
3.4 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 51

3.4.1 Free and informed consent ................................................................................................. 51
3.4.2 Privacy and confidentiality .................................................................................................. 51
3.4.3 Participants’ right to withdraw.............................................................................................. 51
3.4.4 Data storage, security, destruction, and retention ................................................................ 52
3.4.5 Social and cultural sensitivity .............................................................................................. 52
3.4.6 Access to results ................................................................................................................ 52
3.5 Analytic Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 52

3.5.1 Phase 1 document analysis ................................................................................................ 52
3.5.2 Phase 2 thematic analysis .................................................................................................. 53
3.5.3 Phase 3 thematic analysis .................................................................................................. 53
3.5.4 Coding and theme development ......................................................................................... 54
3.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 56
4 Findings from Study Phase 1 ........................................................................................................... 57
4.2 BYOD Adoption by NZ Secondary Schools............................................................................... 57
4.3 Device Preference by NZ Secondary Schools........................................................................... 59
4.4 BYOD-Related Documents of NZ Secondary School ................................................................ 59

4.4.1 Normative dimension .......................................................................................................... 64
4.4.2 Structural dimension ........................................................................................................... 64
4.4.3 Constituentive dimension .................................................................................................... 64
4.4.4 Technical dimension ........................................................................................................... 65
4.5 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 67
5.2 Participants’ Backgrounds......................................................................................................... 68
v
5.3 The BYOD Environment ............................................................................................................. 69
5.3.1 Digital devices .................................................................................................................... 69
5.3.2 Perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment ....................... 70
5.4 Professional Learning and Development .................................................................................. 78

5.4.1 Provided professional learning and development ................................................................ 78
5.4.2 Personal professional learning and development ................................................................ 80
5.5 Instructional Design Practice..................................................................................................... 82

5.5.1 Changes in instructional practices....................................................................................... 82
5.5.2 Reflecting on the use of technology in education................................................................. 85
5.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 91
6.2 Participants’ Backgrounds......................................................................................................... 93

6.2.1 Expert participants’ backgrounds ........................................................................................ 93
6.2.2 Teacher participants’ backgrounds ...................................................................................... 94
6.3 Contextualising the BYOD Environment ................................................................................... 97

6.3.1 Macro context ..................................................................................................................... 97
6.3.2 Meso context .................................................................................................................... 102
6.3.3 Micro context .................................................................................................................... 106
6.4 Professional Learning and Development and Teacher Knowledge ........................................ 111
6.4.1 Professional Learning and Development ............................................................................ 111
6.4.2 Teacher knowledge ............................................................................................................ 114
6.5 Instructional Design Practice................................................................................................... 121

6.5.1 Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 121
6.5.2 Design .............................................................................................................................. 125
6.5.3 Development .................................................................................................................... 129
6.5.4 Implementation ................................................................................................................. 134
6.5.5 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 140
6.6 Chapter Summary..................................................................................................................... 149
7 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 151
7.1 Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 151
7.2 On Reflection ............................................................................................................................ 151

7.2.1 Review of the research ..................................................................................................... 151
7.2.2 BYOD environments and wider contexts ........................................................................... 153
7.2.3 Teacher knowledge ........................................................................................................... 161
7.2.4 Instructional design practices ............................................................................................ 164
7.2.5 Beyond instructional design practice: Digital divide ........................................................... 176
vi
7.3 Theoretical Implications........................................................................................................... 178
7.4 Practical Implications............................................................................................................... 180

7.4.1 Implications for digital initiatives and BYOD policies .......................................................... 180
7.4.2 Implications for professional learning and development..................................................... 181
7.4.3 Implications for instructional design practices.................................................................... 183
7.5 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 184
7.6 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................. 185
7.7 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................ 186
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 188
Appendix A. Phase 2 Online Survey Questions ............................................................................ 188
Appendix B. Phase 3 Indicative Questions for Interview with Science Teachers ....................... 190
Appendix C. Phase 3 Indicative Questions for Interview with Science Education Experts ........ 192
Appendix D. Phase 2 Survey Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form for Principal and
Board of Trustees (School Access) ............................................................................................... 195
Appendix E. Phase 2 Survey Invitation Letter to Online Newsgroups and Participant Information
Sheet for Science Teachers ........................................................................................................... 199
Appendix F. Phase 3 Interview Participant Information Sheet, and Consent Form for Science
Teachers ......................................................................................................................................... 204
Appendix G. Phase 3 Interview Participant Information Sheet, and Consent Form for Science
Education Experts .......................................................................................................................... 208
References ......................................................................................................................................... 212
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. A schematic view of NZC........................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. ILE spatial design example. ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Dovey and Fisher’s learning space typologies (2014), adapted by Cleveland et al. (2016)........ 12
Figure 4. The TPACK framework and its knowledge constructs. ............................................................. 26
Figure 5. Representation of the conceptual framework for the TPACK context. ....................................... 29
Figure 6. The ADDIE framework............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 7. The SAMR model. ................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 8. Conceptual framework of the study. ......................................................................................... 41
Figure 9. Stages of coding and theme development. .............................................................................. 55
Figure 10. Three conceptual strands and their relations with the five subsidiary research questions
and three phases. .................................................................................................................. 153
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Learning Area of Science............................................................................................................. 7
Table 2 BYOD Models of Technology Provision and Descriptions........................................................... 22
Table 3 Knowledge Constructs of the TPACK Framework ...................................................................... 27
Table 4 Concepts and Common Procedures of the ADDIE Framework ................................................... 32
Table 5 Research Design and Methods .................................................................................................. 45
Table 6 The Use of CAQDAS Tools in Data Analysis.............................................................................. 54
Table 7 BYOD Adoption by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1.................... 57
Table 8 BYOD Adoption Rate by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1 ........... 58
Table 9 Comparison of Findings Between the Two Studies..................................................................... 58
Table 10 Device Preference by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1.............. 59
Table 11 Collated BYOD-Related Documents and Lenses of Analysis from Document Data in
Study Phase 1.......................................................................................................................... 61
Table 12 Years of Schools' BYOD Adoption from Document Data in Study Phase 1 ............................... 66
Table 13 Demographic Summary of the Teacher Participants in Study Phase 2 ..................................... 69
Table 14 Types of Digital Devices Used by Participants and Their Students from Survey Data in
Study Phase 2.......................................................................................................................... 70
Table 15 Perceived Affordances and Constraints through Technological and Pedagogical Lenses
from Survey Data in Study Phase 2 .......................................................................................... 71
Table 16 Summary of Provided and Personal PLD Availability from Survey Data in Study Phase 2 ........ 78
Table 17 Summary of Provided PLD Opportunities from Survey Data in Study Phase 2.......................... 79
Table 18 Summary of Personal PLD Opportunities from Survey Data in Study Phase 2.......................... 80
Table 19 Changes in Instructional Practices for a BYOD Environment from Survey Data in Study
Phase 2.................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 20 Reflecting on the Use of Technology in Education Using SAMR Model in Study Phase 2 ......... 86
Table 21 Reflection on the Use of Technology to its Best Advantage in Study Phase 2........................... 89
Table 22 Expert Participants in Study Phase 3 ....................................................................................... 94
Table 23 Teacher Participants in Study Phase 3..................................................................................... 95
Table 24 Demographic Summary of the Teacher Participants in Study Phase 3 ..................................... 96
Table 25 BYOD Implementation Progress in Participants’ Schools from Interview Data in Study
Phase 3.................................................................................................................................. 103
ix
Table 26 Participants’ TK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3...................................... 115
Table 27 Participants’ PK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3 ..................................... 116
Table 28 Participants’ CK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3 ..................................... 117
Table 29 TPACK-Development Approaches and Strategies from Interview Data in Study Phase 3 ....... 119
Table 30 Analysis Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3............................................................ 123
Table 31 Design Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3 .............................................................. 126
Table 32 Development Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3 .................................................... 130
Table 33 Implementation Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3................................................. 135
Table 34 Summary of Participants’ Positive Comments of their Instructional Design Practices from
Interview Data in Study Phase 3 ............................................................................................. 141
Table 35 Self-Reflection Using SAMR Model and Future Improvement from Interview Data in
Study Phase 3........................................................................................................................ 144
Table 36 Linking the Findings from Three Phases with the Macro–Meso–Micro Contexts ..................... 152
Table 37 Comparing Branch’s (2009) 21 Common Procedures with Teacher Participants' Common
Procedures that Emerged in Study Phase 3............................................................................ 165
Table 38 Summary of Student Characteristics Based on Findings from Study Phases 2 and 3 ............. 168
Table 39 Linking the Science Teachers’ Instructional Objectives Identified in Phase 3 with the Key
Competencies in the NZC and the NOS Substrands ............................................................... 170
Table 40 Linking Instructional Events to Teacher Participants' Common Instructional Activities

Summarised in Findings from Study Phase 3.......................................................................... 171
x
List of Abbreviations
ADDIE Analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation

AR Augmented reality
BOT Board of trustees
BYOD Bring your own device
BYOT Bring your own technology
CAQDAS Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software
CK Content knowledge
CoL Community of Learning | Kāhui Ako
CoP Community of practice
GAFE Google Apps for Education
HOD Head of department
ICT Information and communications technology
ILE Innovative learning environment
ISD Instructional systems design
LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District
LMS Learning management system
MoE Ministry of Education
N4L Network for learning
NCEA National Certificate of Educational Achievement
NOS Nature of science
NZ New Zealand
NZC New Zealand Curriculum
NZQA New Zealand Qualifications Authority
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PCK Pedagogical content knowledge
PIS Participant information sheet
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PK Pedagogical knowledge
PLD Professional learning and development
QLE Quality learning environment
SAMR Substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition
SES Socioeconomic status
SNS Social networking services
SOLO Structure of observed learning outcomes
TCK Technological content knowledge
TK Technological knowledge
TKI Te Kete Ipurangi
TPACK/TPCK Technological pedagogical and content knowledge
TPK Technological pedagogical knowledge
UDL Universal design for learning
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
VLN Virtual learning network
VR Virtual reality
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Chapter Overview

This chapter provides contextual information for a study of science teachers’ instructional design practices
in New Zealand (NZ) secondary schools. It begins by positioning the researcher in the qualitative study
and identifying the relevant research contexts at the macro, meso, and micro levels. The research aims
and questions are followed by a description of the significance of the study. Finally, an overview of the
thesis structure is presented.
1.2 Positioning the Researcher

This section explains the researcher’s personal background and how this relates to the present study of
science teachers’ instructional design practice in NZ secondary schools for bring-your-own-device (BYOD)
environments.
My decision in choosing this topic was affected by my prior education and employment. Growing up in
China, I was accustomed to learning with textbooks and exercises. Academic achievement was regarded
as the most important learning objective by students, parents, teachers, schools, and the authorities.
My first learning experience with technology was doing group projects with a required “collaborative
communication tool” during postgraduate studies overseas. My classmates and I found the system too
frustrating to use so we ended up having in-person meetings. We transcribed our notes onto the system
and had them printed out as proof of teamwork. In this regard, we believed using technology was
unnecessary and that it had become a barrier to learning as it significantly increased our workload.
Comparing this experience with my traditional schooling in China, I started to question the use of
technology in education, especially its actual effects and outcomes. I wondered, if I were the lecturer, how
I would design the instruction differently.
But I have also had some enjoyable learning experiences with technology. For example, I completed a 1-
week self-directed online induction training programme for my first full-time job. The programme was well
designed, and included videos, quizzes and text materials based on the company’s daily business. Aside
from work, I like accessing information I find useful from various sources such as YouTube and TED Talks
videos, and through social networking services (SNS) like WeChat and Facebook.
Reviewing my experience of technology, I was not absolutely for or against using technology in education.
With such mixed feelings, I developed an interest in how teachers approach technology and design
instruction for a technology-rich environment. Researching the context of BYOD in NZ has provided me
with an opportunity to extend my understanding of technology in education.
My understanding of the NZ education system was acquired through Auckland-based work experience, as
well as from the formal data collection phase of the research project. Working for a student exchange
programme, I visited many Auckland primary and secondary schools and had opportunities to observe
classes and meet local principals and teachers. Additionally, I teach at a private training establishment.
These experiences have allowed me to become familiar with the context of NZ education.
1
The main reason that I chose science education as part of the research context is that I believe people
would always need to make sense of science, engage in science-based thinking and conversation, and
make science-related decisions in their everyday life, for example, discussing climate change agenda,
choosing diets, buying products such as supplements. Drawing on my traditional schooling in China, I was
also interested in how NZ secondary schools and teachers approach science education. Moreover,
investigating the setting of NZ secondary schools and having science teachers as participants would help
me to set boundaries and narrow down the scope of my research project.
As an outsider researcher, I had not developed a thorough understanding of the context of the BYOD
implementation and secondary science education in NZ before I commenced this research. This raised
challenges during the study, especially the lack of direct understanding as well as the absence of
sensitivity to language, participants’ experience and expressions. However, according to Berger (2013)
and Le Gallais (2008), studying the unfamiliar from an outsider stance can lead to fresh and different
viewpoints.
To conclude, this section has reflected on how personal educational and professional background helped
shape the researcher’s stance and explained how past experience guided the conduct and development
of the present study.
1.3 Research Context

This study sought to explore science teachers’ instructional design practices for BYOD environments in
NZ secondary schools. It focused on the highly complex and dynamic BYOD environment, which is
shaped by multiple contextual factors. Hence, it was considered necessary to develop rich contextualised
accounts of teachers’ instructional design practices as recommended by Mishra and Henriksen (2015) and
Selwyn (2010).
This section explains the macro, meso, and micro contextual structure proposed by Porras-Hernández
and Salinas-Amescua (2013), and Selwyn (2010), which was used to explore these multiple contextual
factors. It first introduces the macro context, the background of technology development and its adoption
in education, and the NZ education system. It then outlines the meso context, BYOD implementation, and
science education in NZ secondary schools, followed by the micro context, a description of teachers’
instructional design practice and the characteristics of today’s students. The study primarily focuses on the
micro context by linking teachers’ instructional design practices for their BYOD environment with elements
of the meso and macro contexts.
1.3.1 Macro context

This subsection identifies four major macro-level factors related to wider societal conditions that are
related to the move towards BYOD in education: industry involvement, political involvement, the use of
technology in everyday living and learning, and the NZ education system.
Industry involvement
With the ongoing development of information and communications technology (ICT) and the growing
competitive market for digital products and services, people can access a more affordable and diverse
selection and have better user experiences of technology (Costa, 2012; Spring, 2012). The global ICT
2
industry has shown its interest in the education sector, acting as a commercial and economic driving force
of the BYOD initiative. Within the ICT market, the education sector has been specifically targeted for the
promotion of hardware, programs, and platforms with common strategies such as institutional subscription
fees, education editions, and even free-of-charge schemes (Huang, Spector, & Yang, 2019; Phillips,
2016).
Industry involvement also includes engagement with educators through training and certification
programmes (Spring, 2012). Corporations such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple have developed their own
educational frameworks and provided professional learning and development (PLD) programmes to
teachers and educators. Participants successfully completing the courses usually receive certificates and
endorsement from the provider who acknowledges participants’ competence in using certain types of
technology in teaching or teacher education (Zagami, 2015).
However, according to Cuban (2001), many advocates from the ICT industry, driven by economic motives,
share corollary assumptions that increased access to technology will solve most of education’s problems,
and students with increased access to information will become more knowledgeable. While advocates
tend to spout the rhetoric of fundamental change and new revolution in education, few have developed a
comprehensive and deep understanding of the existing educational settings, teachers’ classroom
experiences and expertise, or the constrained choices that teachers face (Bain & Weston, 2012; Cuban,
2001).
Political involvement
The BYOD initiative, in a global context, has been profoundly shaped by governments and policymakers,
meaning it is essential to understand their influence (Selwyn, 2013, 2014). Researchers, such as Phillips
(2016) and Spring (2012), have acknowledged the political power and interests in stimulating and
supporting the increasing acceptance and adoption of technology in education. This driving force has
helped to develop the curriculum framework at both national and school levels in order to identify and
define student knowledge and capabilities related to technology (Adhikari, Mathrani, & Scogings, 2016;
Shea & Stockford, 2015). Within such BYOD initiatives, schools would normally receive support, such as
funding and infrastructure provision, from their national and/or regional governments so as to deliver their
own ICT strategic plans (Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger Hall, Cummins, & Yuhnke, 2016).
Nevertheless, some researchers have expressed concerns about the involvement of governments and
policymakers. For instance, Krumsvik (2012) and Phillips (2016) questioned whether such political
involvement stems from the interests of politicians who want to show their eagerness for educational
development, without thorough consultation or deep analysis. Politicians’ aspirational statements may
influence the public including schools and teachers by reinforcing “the assumption that digital technologies
have the capability to enhance society generally and teaching and learning more specifically” (Phillips,
2016, p. 4).
Spring (2012) used the term corporatism to discuss the collective effect of government and industry on
3
technology in education, examining the case of Florida Virtual School1 as an example. He acknowledged
that online instruction can help address the increasing student–teacher ratio and thus lower the cost of
public education. However, he noted that corporatism is normally driven by a desire for profits, which could
become problematic since promotion of hardware, programs, and platforms may unintentionally become a
priority in classrooms at the expense of effective instruction. As asserted by Herrera (2011), in the case of
Florida Virtual School, effective blended learning—a combination of face-to-face and virtual instruction—
should require teachers’ proper instructional design practice and students’ responsible use of technology.
In the promotion of BYOD initiatives, corporatism would need to balance the demands and readiness of
schools, teachers, and students. The iPad programme initiated by the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD)2 is an example of corporatism that failed to achieve its objectives due to students’ misuse of
technology. LAUSD’s iPad initiative, criticised for its poor planning, administration, and implementation,
was terminated in late 2014 (Saltinski, 2014).
Living and learning with technology

The pervasiveness of technology and access to the Internet has become an increasingly important part of
everyday life (Phillips, 2016; Savin-Baden, 2015). In a recent NZ nationwide survey3 by P. Smith, Bell,
Miller, and Crothers (2016), 76% of respondents (n=1,377) regarded the Internet as important or very
important to their daily life, an increase of 21% compared to 2007 (n=1,455). Globally, an increasing
number of schools have embraced the trend of going digital, normalising the everyday use of technology
by introducing BYOD initiatives (Benade, 2017; M. Lee & Levins, 2012; Parsons & Adhikari, 2015).
The scenario of students using personal digital devices for learning is not only limited to schools and
home; it also extends to other environments, such as libraries and community centres (Erturk & Fail,
2013). The use of personal digital devices has become a significant feature in higher education as well.
Therefore, before entering university, secondary students might need to be familiar with the BYOD
environment (Kobus, Rietveld, & van Ommeren, 2013; Phillips, 2016).
Varghese, Vate-U-Lan, and John (2019) found a significant difference in science examination scores
1
Florida Virtual School is a state online course provider in the United States which offers instruction to Florida
students from kindergarten to the 12th grade. During the 2010–2011 school year, some high schools could not afford
enough teachers to meet the requirement of The Florida Reduce Class Size Amendment 2002 (also known as
Amendment 9). Consequently, some students were placed in virtual classrooms provided by Florida Virtual School
because there was no limitation on virtual class size according to the amendment (Herrera, 2011; Spring, 2012).
2
LAUSD invested more than $US 1 billion to purchase iPads for 650,000 students in 2013. However, hundreds of
students shared hacking techniques and skirted the security wall in order to use iPads for non-educational purposes in
class, such as using SNS. Consequently, iPads were not allowed to be taken home, which defeated the initiative’s
objective of creating a seamless and individualised learning environment at school and after school (Saltinski, 2014).
3
Data was collected from telephone and online survey as well as face-to-face interviews. Respondents were aged 16
and over.
4
between ninth-grade students in BYOD schools and those in non-BYOD schools4 in United Arab Emirates,
and they concluded that technology would have a positive impact on students’ science achievement.
However, there is still little compelling evidence showing technology has a significant lasting influence on
educational achievement or learning performance. For example, Cuban (2001) disagreed with the
prevailing belief that technology is the solution to classroom problems of teaching and learning. He found
that both teachers and students used computers less, and they lose interest and excitement, over time.
After reviewing multiple empirical studies, Bain and Weston (2012) concluded that the increasing use of
technology has little effect on student achievement. A large-scale project on computer use in education
conducted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD; 2015) compared
data from 2009 to 2012, finding that the number of computers in schools and households increased, as
did the time students spent online. In 2012, participating students from OCED countries spent 2 hours per
day, on average, using technology, including 25 minutes at school. However, the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA)5 data from the 2012 survey showed that more time online does
not necessarily equate to better learning performance. NZ was one of the countries with high levels of
computer and Internet use in schools, while experiencing declines in reading, mathematics, and science
performance.
Since there was not a clear causality between technology use and learning performance, the OECD
(2015) called for new approaches to deliver technology’s potential in schools. A similar conclusion was
also reached by M. Johnson, Wood, and Sutton (2014) in their report within the NZ context.
Education in NZ
The NZ education system has three levels: early childhood, primary and secondary, and further higher and
vocational education. Secondary education covers Year 9 (Y9) to Y13,6 students are aged around 13 to 17
(Ministry of Education [MoE], 2018). The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is an official statement of
national policy with respect to teaching and learning in English-medium schools. The MoE (2007b) has
clearly stated the relationship between NZC, school and classroom curriculum:
Curriculum is designed and interpreted in a three-stage process: as the national curriculum, the
school curriculum, and the classroom curriculum. The national curriculum provides the framework
and common direction for schools, regardless of type, size, or location. It gives schools the scope,
flexibility, and authority they need to design and shape their curriculum so that teaching and
learning is meaningful and beneficial to their particular communities of students. In turn, the
design of each school’s curriculum should allow teachers the scope to make interpretations in
4
The study involved 900 students from BYOD schools and 900 students from non-BYOD schools, all from private
secondary schools in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Varghese et al., 2019).
5
PISA is a triennial international survey. It assesses student performance in science, mathematics, reading,
collaborative problem solving and financial literacy. The survey in both 2012 and 2015 respectively involved over
500,000 15-year-old students, representing a total of 28 million students globally (across 65 countries and economies
in 2012 and across 72 countries and economies in 2015; OECD, 2018)
6
In secondary schools, Y9 and Y10 are junior years; Y11–13 are senior years.
5
response to the particular needs, interests, and talents of individuals and groups of students in
their classes. (p. 37)
As described by Vannier (2012), the NZC document consists of two parts. The first part indicates the
vision (“what we want for our young people”), principles (“foundations of curriculum decision making”),
values (“deeply held beliefs about what is important or desirable”), and key competencies (“capabilities for
living and lifelong learning”; pp. 8–12). The second part of the document provides descriptions of the eight
learning areas, including introduction, importance, and objectives as well as the constituent strands. All
eight learning areas are taught to students from Y1 to Y10. Students in Y11 through Y13 may specialise in
different subjects based on their interests and the choices offered in their schools. Figure 1 presents a
schematic view of the NZC.
Figure 1. A schematic view of NZC. From The New Zealand Curriculum: For English-medium Teaching
and Learning in Years 1–13 (p. 7), by the Ministry of Education, 2007, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry
of Education. Copyright 2007 by Crown.
6
Secondary students can seek to obtain formal qualifications through the three levels of the National
Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Students normally study for NCEA Level 1 in Y11, Level 2
in Y12 and Level 3 in Y13 (Hipkins, Johnston, & Sheehan, 2016).
Considering the present study focuses on science teachers’ instructional design practice, it is necessary to
present an overview of the science-learning area in the NZC. The learning area of science in the NZC
consists of one overarching strand—the nature of science (NOS)—and four subject-focused contextual
strands: the living world (biology); planet earth and beyond (geology and astronomy); the physical world
(physics); and the material world (chemistry). Table 1 lists the five science strands and their substrands
along with their overall achievement aims.
Table 1
Learning Area of Science
Science strand Substrand Achievement aim
Overarching strand
NOS Understanding about Learn about science as a knowledge system: the
science features of scientific knowledge and the processes by
which it is developed; and learn about the ways in
which the work of scientists interacts with society
Investigating in Carry out science investigations using a variety of
science approaches: classifying and identifying, pattern
seeking, exploring, investigating models, fair testing,
making things, or developing systems
Communicating in Develop knowledge of the vocabulary, numeric and
science symbol systems, and conventions of science and use
this knowledge to communicate about their own and
others’ ideas.
Participating and Bring a scientific perspective to decisions and actions
contributing as appropriate.
Subject-focused contextual strands

Living world Life processes Understand the processes of life and appreciate the
(biology) diversity of living things
Ecology Understand how living things interact with each other
and with the nonliving environment
Evolution Understand the processes that drive change in
groups of living things over long periods of time and
be able to discuss the implications of these changes
Planet earth and Earth systems Investigate and understand the spheres of the Earth
beyond system: geosphere (land), hydrosphere (water),
(geology and atmosphere (air), and biosphere (life)
astronomy)
Interacting systems Investigate and understand that the geosphere,
hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere are
connected via a complex web of processes
Astronomical Investigate and understand relationships between the
systems Earth, Moon, Sun, solar system, and other systems in
the universe
Physical world Physical inquiry and Explore and investigate physical phenomena in
(physics) physics concepts everyday situations
7
Science strand Substrand Achievement aim

Physical concepts Gain an understanding of the interactions that take
place between different parts of the physical world
and the ways in which these interactions can be
represented
Using physics Apply their understanding of physics to various
applications
Material world Properties and Investigate the properties of materials
(chemistry) changes of matter
The structure of Interpret their observations in terms of the particles
matter (atoms, molecules, ions, and sub-atomic particles),
structures, and interactions present;
Understand and use fundamental concepts of
chemistry.
Chemistry and Make connections between the concepts of chemistry
society and their applications and show an understanding of
the role chemistry plays in the world around them.
Source: MoE (2007a, p. 23)
While the four subject-focused contextual strands are self-explanatory, the NOS strand is less familiar to
most people. The NOS is an overarching and unifying strand in the science-learning area, which “is about
how science knowledge is created, validated and used. Understanding the discipline of science helps
students to engage with science in their lives” (Joyce, 2014, p. 1). The NOS is a way of thinking, helping
students to learn “what science is and how scientists work” (MoE, 2007b, p. 28). The NZC achievement
objectives portray the NOS via four broad substrands: understanding about science, investigating in
science, communicating in science, and participating and contributing in science. These four NOS
substrands relate to the NZC values and key competencies (Vannier, 2012). Additionally, since the NOS
strand unifies the four subject-focused contextual strands, science teachers need to weave the NOS
strand through the four contextual strands in their instructional design process (Hipkins et al., 2016).
However, many teachers find NOS challenging to understand and cover in their instruction, mainly due to
its recent introduction into the curriculum and therefore a lack of teacher knowledge and confidence
(Hipkins, 2012; Vannier, 2012). Another possible reason is that the NOS strand does not have a
meaningful alignment with the current NCEA evaluation focus (Hipkins, 2012).
The NZC also highlights the importance of the use of technology and encourages schools to explore how
technology can supplement traditional instruction (MoE, 2007b). According to a nationwide survey, by
2017, 74% of schools (n=464)7 had their own ICT strategic plans for the deployment and use of digital
technologies, and most of the schools’ ICT strategic plans covered policies for a safe digital learning
environment, teacher PLD, network infrastructure, and pedagogy (M. Johnson, Maguire, & Wood, 2017).
Researchers, such as Bolstad and Buntting (2013) and Buntting (2012), encouraged science teachers to
take advantage of technology to engage with a wider science community and support students’ learning.
The use of technology has been applied in assessment as well. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority
(NZQA), as the NCEA administration authority, has operated a digital assessment scheme since 2014,
7
The 464 participating schools included 339 primary schools and 125 secondary schools (M. Johnson et al., 2017).
8
aiming to move to a digital examination environment within a decade (NZQA, 2019b). From 2014 to 2018,
trials and pilots of digital assessments were designed with schools for feedback and improvements. Near
three-quarters of NZ secondary schools and more than 30,000 students were involved in the trials and
pilots (NZQA, 2019a). From 2019 to 2020, most exams were available digitally as substitutes of the paper
versions. From 2021 onwards, the future digital NCEA exams will be “different from the paper versions,
assessing the same things in new ways. More innovation in exams [will be] introduced” (NZQA, 2019b, p.
1). The BYOD initiative and the NCEA digital assessment practice can be considered as leading to a
culture of change in education by promoting new digital initiatives and policies at the national level (Costa,
2012; Fullan, 2007; Hipkins et al., 2016).
To support schools in succeeding with the use of technology in education, the MoE has devised multiple
digital initiatives, including the school network upgrade project, TELA+ scheme (supplying digital devices
for teachers and principals), virtual learning network (VLN),8 government-funded managed Internet service
Network for Learning (N4L),9 online assessment tools (e-asTTle), the innovative learning environment
(ILE) initiative, and the Te Kete Ipurangi (TKI)10 online platform (MoE, 2015b). These initiatives represent
the technical and professional support for schools and teachers, including infrastructure, digital
assessment framework, and PLD for teachers.
1.3.2 Meso context

This subsection explains four meso-level factors related to schools’ BYOD implementation and science
education: schools’ considerations, the socioeconomic status (SES), the ILE initiative, and science
education in NZ secondary schools.
Considerations from schools

As mentioned earlier, schools are required to follow the NZC framework in designing and developing their
school curriculum (MoE, 2007b). Considering the role of technology in the NZC pedagogy as well as the
MoE’s digital initiatives, many schools have been exploring possibilities, setting up a series of ICT
strategic plans, and gradually adopting BYOD initiatives (M. Johnson et al., 2017). Some schools regard
full BYOD implementation as a long-term goal of their ICT strategies (Benade, 2017; D. Martin, 2014;
Senior, 2015). Additionally, NZQA (2013) outlined three stages to implement digital assessment:
foundation (from 2012/2013 to 2014/2015), process optimisation (from 2015/2015 to 2016/2017) and
transformation (from 2017/2018 to 2021/2022). In this case, many schools are under considerable
pressure to foster the integration of technology into instruction.
Cost is another factor affecting schools’ BYOD implementation. Many schools are facing financial
pressure, making it difficult to offer a free digital device to each student (Parsons & Adhikari, 2015; Stavert,
2013). Shifting the cost of purchasing devices from schools to parents could help relieve the schools’
financial stress, but may aggravate educational inequality (Erturk & Fail, 2013). Furthermore, at the
8
VLN is a platform for NZ teachers, schools and other educational organisations to connect and network with each
other. See https://vln.school.nz/
9
N4L is a Crown-owned company that provides a fully funded managed network for NZ public schools.
10
TKI, the online knowledge basket, is a Māori-English bilingual education portal with information, resources, and
curriculum materials for schools, teachers and students. See https://www.tki.org.nz/
9
preliminary stage of BYOD deployment, the cost for schools can be expensive, for example, infrastructure
establishment and maintenance, institutional subscriptions to programs and platforms, and the additional
PLD programmes for teachers (Alberta Education, 2012; M. Lee & Levins, 2012).
Socioeconomic status
The decile ratings system is an SES indicator in the NZ educational system, which helps determine how
much government funding a state or state-integrated11 school can receive. Five SES factors of the
school’s neighbourhood are examined to calculate a school’s decile rating: household incomes,
occupation of employed parents, household crowding, parents’ educational background, and income
support. MoE assigns a decile rating from 1 to 10 to each school, based on the percentage of the school’s
students living in low-SES communities. Each decile contains about 10% of schools. Decile 1 schools
represent the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low-SES communities, whereas
Decile 10 schools represent the 10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students. The decile
cannot reflect a school’s overall SES mix or educational performance (Haque, 2014; MoE, 2015c).
The MoE uses decile to support schools in addressing low-SES students’ learning barriers. Broadly
speaking, schools assigned a lower decile rating receive more decile-based funding. The current
government proposes to replace deciles with a different system, but this is still in progress and not yet
confirmed (Heron, 2017; Sarten, 2018). In my study, the decile ratings of the participants’ schools can offer
contextual information when examining whether SES affects the BYOD implementation and teachers’
instructional design practice.
Regarding BYOD deployment, SES could be related to students’ access to digital devices and Internet.
First, without external support, families from low-SES communities are more likely to experience difficulties
in accessing devices and Internet if they cannot afford it. Crothers, Smith, Urale, and Bell (2016) identified
a pattern of higher use of technology among households with a higher income. This unbalanced access,
termed as the digital divide, is simply based on households’ financial background. The issue of the digital
divide is an obstacle to the BYOD initiatives across NZ, which is also a major concern of educators and
parents (Erturk & Fail, 2013; Starkey, Sylvester, & Johnstone, 2017).
Additionally, the digital divide appears to be more of an issue in schools with lower decile ratings since
they have a larger proportion of students from low-SES communities. In other words, the digital divide
exists not only between students from different SES backgrounds but also between schools with different
decile ratings (N4L, 2019). But it is worth noting that there are some exceptional cases of schools with
lower decile ratings and high access to technology. For example, low-decile schools involved in the
Manaiakalani Programme12 support parents to buy a personal digital device for each student and provide
11
A state-integrated school is a former private school which has integrated into the NZ state education system,
becoming a state school while retaining its special character, such as a religious or philosophical belief.
12
The Manaiakalani programme includes one Auckland-based founding cluster and nine outreach clusters of schools
around NZ, which are particularly but not exclusively Decile 1 and 2 schools. Ninety-two schools are involved in the
programme, including 10 secondary schools and four composite schools that offer primary, intermediate, and
secondary education in one school (Manaiakalani Education Trust, n.d.).
10
wireless Internet access at school and home (Manaiakalani Education Trust, n.d.).
Second, low access could be influenced by educational philosophies, and cultural and community beliefs
as well as a lack of shared intention and willingness to use technology. Some schools choose not to adopt
BYOD initiatives as they believe using personal digital devices would negatively affect teaching quality
and learning outcomes (Bita, 2016).
Innovative learning environment

ILE is a holistic concept describing the learning ecosystem of people (social), practice (pedagogical), and
physical/property (quality learning environment, or QLE). The MoE adopted the terms ILE and QLE from
the OECD and aims to have all schools provide QLEs across NZ by 2030. The target is about the physical
elements of the learning environment—such as furniture, acoustics, lighting, thermal comfort, and indoor
air quality—and how well the property is aligned to the teaching and learning needs at each school (MoE,
2019a, 2019b). Figure 2 shows an ILE layout example. ILE involves flexible space arrangements that can
be much larger, more open and accommodate more students.13 Students can have greater freedom of
movement in class. Another constructed element is the ICT infrastructure, allowing easy access to
wireless Internet at schools, which is also a prerequisite of a BYOD environment (Benade, 2017;
Cleveland, Soccio, & Love, 2016).
Figure 2. ILE spatial design example. Numbers represent the dimensions in metres. From Reference
Designs for Standard Classroom Upgrade: Avalon Block (p. 8), by the Ministry of Education, 2016,
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. CC BY 3.0 NZ.
The ILE initiative is related to the idea of open learning spaces which originated in the early 20th century
and gained attention after the 1960s (Alterator & Deed, 2013). According to Wells, Jackson, and Benade
13
In general, a traditional closed classroom has one teacher and about 30 students. A large shared ILE space can
bring together multiple teachers and potentially 100 students (Benade, 2017).
11
(2018), the ILE promotion is shifting NZ school architecture towards what Tschumi (1996) called
unprogrammed spaces—“designed spaces that do not dictate behaviour or movement, or place limitations
on possible events that could occur in those spaces” (Wells et al., 2018, p. 4). Regarding the arrangement
of open learning spaces, Dovey and Fisher (2014) reviewed 59 award-winning middle school designs
around the world14 and identified five major spatial typologies (see Figure 3), ranging from the traditional
enclosed classroom through different degrees of convertibility to a permanently open-plan space. As
shown in Figure 3, apart from Type A, other spatial typologies normally incorporate street-space and/or
commons.15 In a recent survey involving 337 NZ schools16 conducted by Bradbeer et al. (2017), Types A
and B accounted for 56% and 12% respectively since these schools had few spaces that reflected other
spatial-types arrangements. The occurrences of Types C, D and E were 7%, 8% and 16% respectively.
Bradbeer et al. (2017) also noted that “there was a small number of secondary schools that indicated a
significant predominance of Types D and E spaces” (p. 29).
Figure 3. Dovey and Fisher’s learning space typologies (2014), adapted by Cleveland et al. (2016). Types
A, B, C, D and E can be termed respectively as “traditional classroom clustered,” “traditional classrooms +
streets-space,” “convertible classrooms,” “convertible street-space,” and “dedicated commons” (Dovey &
Fisher, 2014, pp. 52–54). From Learning Environment Evaluation and the Development of School Facility
Design Guidelines (p. 5), by B. Cleveland, P. Soccio, and P. Love, 2016, paper presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference 2016, Melbourne, Australia. Copyright 2016 by
the Australian Association for Research in Education.
14
These 59 middle schools incorporate the ages of about 12–15 years (Dovey & Fisher, 2014).
15
Street-space, or learning street, represents an open learning space for activity and circulation, which is the main
thoroughfare to other spaces; commons represents a learning space that is protected from major through traffic and
cannot be fully closed into a classroom (Dovey & Fisher, 2014).
16
The sample of 337 schools represented 13% of all schools across NZ. Among the 337 schools, 56 secondary
schools (17%) participated in the survey (Bradbeer et al., 2017).
12
Ideally, the physical ILE space would be designed as an architectural device to support various forms of
teaching practice as it evolves and changes in order to meet different instructional needs. The forms of
teaching practice adopted in an ILE space can range from whole-class, groupwork, to individual-student
teaching approaches (Bradbeer et al., 2017; MoE, 2016). Furthermore, when combining classes into one
for coteaching, teachers can apply a variety of coteaching strategies, such as one teach, one observe,
and targeted teaching based on students’ needs. They can work together, allocate responsibilities,
complement each other, and take control of difficult situations such as students’ misuse of technology
(Arnold, 2016; D. Martin, 2014). However, not all types of space layouts support a range of teaching
practices well. For example, teachers may not always have a choice in coteaching if they are in a Type E
open-plan space. Additionally, as reported by Cleveland et al. (2016), who evaluated eight primary schools
and three secondary schools, teachers consider Types A and B less supportive of teacher supervision and
students’ small-group work, and Type E less supportive of whole-class work compared to other learning
environments.
The ILE initiative also faces challenges. First, according to Benade (2017), Hattie (2015) and Redmond
(2017), simply placing teachers together may not necessarily lead to effective instructional practices:
some teachers may suffer from extra pressure as they try to hide struggles and anxieties in front of their
colleagues; some teachers find a combined class with more students and BYOD in place unmanageable.
Second, as reported by Eder (2018), some parents worry that studying in a large classroom and heavily
relying on self-directed learning with technology might not help students improve social skills or learning
outcomes. But Boyd (2014) argued that the changes to learning often confound parents who relish
environments they are more familiar with, and parents tend to believe that they know what is good for their
children. Third, some teachers and parents call for more evidence about the ILE initiative and doubt it will
be primarily led by educators or driven by pedagogical needs, but rather influenced by interest groups
such as architects and constructors (Couch, 2018; PPTA, 2017). Drawing from the survey with 337 NZ
schools, Bradbeer et al. (2017) concluded that there is a lack of evidence to support the assumption that
the ILE spaces could better address students’ learning needs. “Without such evidence, it is difficult to
justify the change in space designs, and to equip teachers in such spaces to realise their potential” (p. 35).
It should be noted that ILE is primarily concerned with buildings and furnishings, and BYOD is a model of
technology provision (explained in the next chapter—see subsection 2.2.1). Furthermore, a traditional
classroom setting can still use flexible arrangements and employ technology. Therefore, a BYOD
environment does not necessarily require an ILE setting. But, in the NZ context, the discussions of ILE
used to be largely concern primary level, and have gradually extended to secondary level since the MoE is
promoting ILE initiatives nationwide, and more schools are adopting the BYOD initiative (Benade, 2017;
MoE, 2019a); hence, the present study views ILE as a part of the contextualised accounts of teachers’
instructional design practices for a BYOD environment. As advocated by Charteris, Smardon, and Page
(2018) and Wilson (2016), under ILE and BYOD initiatives, discussions on learning space are no longer
limited to the influence of setting configuration on pedagogical practice, but further include the pedagogical
possibilities enabled by the use of technology.
13
Science education in secondary schools

To understand science education in secondary schools, it is important to clarify its purpose. Gluckman17
(2011) categorised two distinct purposes: a citizen-focus purpose for compulsory school years including
primary and secondary education, and a pre-professional purpose for tertiary education. Hence, science
education in secondary schools needs to at least meet the citizen-focus need and ensure the students
“mature to have a clear understanding of the complex world of science that they will confront as citizens
over the next 60 years of their lives” (p. 5). The NOS strand in the NZC appears to respond to the call for
the citizen-focus purpose. Hence, it is important for schools to ensure that science in the curriculum is
easy to understand. Students should know science and apply such knowledge in their lives (Bolstad &
Buntting, 2013; Joyce, 2014). Students in Y11 through Y13 can advance their science knowledge by
enrolling in and gaining level qualifications through NCEA (Vannier, 2012). Through higher level science
education, students can identify the subject focus for their tertiary studies and even make plans for their
future career, so this higher level science education is about pre-professional purpose. Achieving both
citizen-focus and pre-professional objectives in science education is beneficial in motivating students to
become scientifically literate and engaged, thereby making society more knowledge- and innovation-
oriented (Royal Society of New Zealand, 2012).
To reach the two purposes, science teachers with relevant knowledge are required. First, teachers with
adequate content and pedagogical knowledge can motivate students’ engagement and impart science
knowledge. Second, teachers should be able to create opportunities for students to access science
technology (such as laboratory equipment) and develop skills in scientific inquiry (Gluckman, 2011). The
access to science technology can be enriched in a BYOD environment because the use of digital devices
can facilitate science-learning experiences by means such as simulation and animation. For example,
through virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology, students can simulate a forest setting
digitally and conduct biological inquiry using virtual scientific equipment (Adams Becker et al., 2016;
Cochrane, Antonczak, Keegan, & Narayan, 2014; M. Lee & Levins, 2012).
The importance of the schools’ ICT strategies in science education has been highlighted by the Office of
the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee (2011). The use of technology can provide an interactive
platform for linkages between schools and science communities, and for connectivity and collaboration
between schools, thereby allowing access to the expertise, resources, and support of the wider science
education community (Bolstad & Buntting, 2013).
In terms of NZ science-learning achievement, the MoE (2017), drawing from the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and PISA,18 reported that students in NZ—when compared with
other participating countries—had a relatively better performance in science and showed strengths in
evaluating and designing scientific inquiry, and reasoning skills; and no significant difference in science
17
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman served as the first Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand
between 2009 and 2018.
18
Data are drawn from the two international studies that NZ participated in: the 2014 TIMSS, and the 2015 PISA.
TIMSS focuses on Y5 and Y9 students’ achievement in maths and science. PISA focuses on 15-year-old students’
performance in reading, maths, and science (MoE, 2017).
14
performance between male and female students. Additionally, the range of science achievement—the gap
between high and low achievers—has increased, which raised concerns around inequality in science
education (MoE, 2017; Vannier, 2012).
Additionally, Kirkham and May (2016) noted that many NZ students show less confidence in science
competency and less willingness to engage in science-related activities than the average OECD students.
Likewise, according to Bolstad and Buntting (2013) and the Royal Society of New Zealand (2012), many
NZ students lack interest in science learning, and do not have adequate science knowledge that allows
them to usefully engage in science-related conversations.
It is worth noting that a cautious interpretation of student achievement data is needed due to the
increasing complexity of science education and the contexts beyond, such as new instructional and
assessment practices, the rapid development in science areas, and changing societal contexts
(Gluckman, 2011).
1.3.3 Micro context

This subsection presents the micro context related to the BYOD classroom, focusing on teachers’
instructional design practice for a BYOD environment and the characteristics of today’s students.
Teachers
In general, teachers in NZ have considerable autonomy to design their instruction within the NZC and their
school’s curriculum (Benade, 2017; Hipkins et al., 2016; Wylie & Bonne, 2016). Drawing from the PISA
2015 data, Kirkham and May (2016) reported that, compared to the average across the OECD, NZ has
higher rates of students in schools where they receive frequent feedback from science teachers, and their
teachers’ science instruction is teacher-directed, adaptive, and inquiry-based. NZ also has a higher
proportion of fully certified science teachers who have a degree-level qualification with a major in science
(93%) than the OECD average (74%). NZ science teachers’ PLD attendance (79%) is also higher than the
OECD average (51%).
Additionally, secondary teachers are aware of the increasing impact of NCEA on curriculum thinking and
workload (Spiller & Hipkins, 2013; Wylie & Bonne, 2016). Based on a triennial nationwide survey, Wylie
and Bonne (2016) reported that 63% (n=1,777) of science teachers believed that the NCEA assessment
narrowed the school’s curriculum for Y9 and Y10. Regarding NCEA-related workload, 32% of teachers
considered it manageable while 45% felt their workload became heavier, shaping a barrier to curricular
changes. According to Spiller and Hipkins (2013), some teachers viewed it is their responsibility to get
students through assessment successfully, thus their instructions tend to focus on student engagement
with an objective of NCEA preparation.
Teachers’ instructional design practice normally follows a process of “designing down” from the NZC
document (Bolstad & Buntting, 2013, p. 26)—the NZC provides a framework and informs the
establishment of the school curriculum; teachers, based on the curriculum and supporting resources,
develop a classroom curriculum and carry out instructional design practices, which result in students’
learning experiences. Moreover, since the instructional design process is a reflective practice (P. L. Smith
& Ragan, 2005), teachers frequently reflect on their contexts and respond correspondingly. In this regard,
15
the design process and outcomes are shaped within teachers’ local contexts (Ertmer, Parisio, & Wardak,
2013; P. L. Smith & Ragan, 2005). According to Bolstad and Buntting (2013), teachers can also follow an
upward or lateral approach—teachers try to understand students’ insights and experiences, engage with
the science and teacher community, and bring feedback into the ongoing evolution of the school
curriculum and their instructional design practice.
The BYOD adoption requires teachers to have a range of knowledge and skills with technology. Bolstad
and Buntting (2013) provided examples of using technology in science teaching: 3D animation and
simulation, manipulation of variables and formulae, digital probes and motion sensors, virtual labs and
field trips, social networking, and scientific data online. According to Shea and Stockford (2015) and
Zagami (2015), teachers used to direct students to seek help and advice from school ICT departments
when needed. But now most ICT departments focus on providing support for the schools’ ICT
infrastructure, and some have become the subject team for digital technologies or computer science. This
change, along with BYOD adoption, increasingly requires teachers to be able to effectively use technology
in science teaching, facilitate students’ use of technology, and address technical issues in the classrooms
(Benade, 2017; Hunter, 2015; Zagami, 2015). It should be also noted that many teachers are comfortable
and confident in using technology for teaching and in everyday life, including some experienced teachers
who are frequent digital users, and teachers who have graduated in recent years and have grown up
surrounded by different kinds of technology.
Students
Many of today’s students have grown up surrounded by technology. Immersed in technology, young
people, compared to earlier generations, tend to become far more digitally minded and adept. Using
technology in everyday life feels natural to them (N. F. Johnson, 2015; Savin-Baden, 2015). The adoption
of BYOD initiatives reflects the acknowledgement by schools and educators that the pervasiveness of
devices and Internet access is significant in students’ lives and learning (Parsons & Adhikari, 2015;
Stavert, 2013).
In academic research and the media, many terms have been used to generalise the characteristics of
students today, which often display bias and stereotypes, especially digital native and digital addiction.
Prensky (2001) used digital native to describe the younger generation of students who are considered to
be naturally proficient with technology. He also used digital immigrant to describe earlier generations, such
as teachers, who grew up before the widespread use of technology. The discourse on categorising digital
natives and immigrants is criticised as problematic, because it appears to label and place students and
teachers on opposite sides (N. F. Johnson, 2015). Furthermore, immigrants can be bicultural and offer
different perspectives on the natives’ communities. The proposed categorisation can thus be challenged
as it implies immigrants are unable to become natives or be as competent as natives (Bayne & Ross,
2007). This position also fails to acknowledge the ongoing efforts by teachers who adapt to changes and
devote themselves to education. Benade (2017) agreed that the term digital native has been overused in
literature and does not necessarily reflect the reality. Students are not always more capable or passionate
than teachers or other technology users. For instance, Kobus et al. (2013) discovered that students who
own personal digital devices do not always prefer or support BYOD implementation in class.
16
The term digital addiction, which depicts the obsessive use of technology, is often used by teenagers in
describing themselves, and amplified by media coverage and adults as an out-of-control issue (Boyd,
2014; N. F. Johnson, 2015). Savin-Baden (2015) used an alternative term digital tethering to describe
extensive technology use: tethered to technology as heavily relying on online information and services,
tethered to people as in SNS, or tethered to both. Digital tethering is seen as changing the nature of social
interaction. But, according to Boyd (2014), teenagers’ desire to socialise online is similar to adults’ desire
to attend social events; teenagers are seeking out new spaces through the Internet for agency and
freedom, as a feature of adolescence.
1.3.4 Summary
This section has identified macro, meso, and micro contextual factors around the BYOD initiative and
secondary science education. On the macro level, the BYOD initiative is shaped and affected by industry
involvement, political involvement, increasing use of technology, and the NZ education system. On the
meso level, the BYOD implementation in NZ secondary schools is related to schools’ considerations of
ICT strategies, digital assessment, cost, and educational beliefs as well as students’ SES background.
The meso context also includes the ILE initiative and the science education practices in schools.
Additionally, the micro level focuses on teachers’ instructional design practice for a BYOD environment
and the characteristics of today’s students.
Specifically, industry and political involvement has attempted to convince the public that the use of
technology can yield educational potential. But there is still a lack of evidence to prove a direct and
significant correlation between learning performance and the use of technology. Therefore, it is necessary
to develop comprehensive understanding of technology and education. It is worth noting that SES, access
to technology, and academic performance may not necessarily be correlated with each other. Moreover, to
carry out instructional design practice, teachers normally follow the NZC framework and school curriculum,
and they may also need to cater to the changes brought about by the ILE and BYOD initiatives. Teaching
in a BYOD environment requires teachers to effectively use technology and support students’ science
learning with technology.
This overview of the research context helps understand the lived experiences of students and educators,
the effects of a formal educational settings, and the use of technology (Selwyn & Facer, 2014). The
present research seeks to elaborate on teachers’ perspectives on their instructional design practices for a
BYOD environment—their situated micro context—and to understand how their perspectives can be
informed by the macro and meso contexts.
1.4 Research Aims and Questions

This study aims to explore and understand science teachers’ instructional design practices for BYOD
environments in NZ secondary schools. Therefore, this study seeks to answer one overarching key
research question (KQ) and five subsidiary research questions (SQ):
KQ How do science teachers design instruction for a BYOD environment in NZ secondary

schools?
SQ1 What are the pedagogical and technological affordances and constraints perceived by science
17
teachers teaching in a BYOD environment?
SQ2 How can the perceived affordances and constraints of a BYOD environment be addressed
through science teachers' instructional design practice?
SQ3 What are the procedures involved in science teachers’ instructional design practices for a
BYOD environment?
SQ4 What relevant knowledge do science teachers need to have to be able to teach in a BYOD
environment?
SQ5 How can science teachers be supported in their professional development related to the
instructional design practices for a BYOD environment?
1.5 Significance of the Study

This study provides an opportunity to explore teachers’ instructional design practices and provide insights
into the BYOD initiatives in NZ. Teachers’ opinions of teaching science in a BYOD environment will be
presented, including the affordances and constraints that they perceived in their practices. This study also
provides an opportunity to increase understanding of teacher knowledge and BYOD implementation in NZ
secondary schools.
The research extends the existing knowledge about technology in education. The research findings are of
benefit to teachers, schools, education sector policymakers, and the ICT industry. For secondary science
teachers, the research presents examples of how teacher participants approach technology and design
instruction for a BYOD environment. Participants’ experience is valuable to help teachers review and
improve their own practice. For schools, the document analysis on NZ secondary schools’ documents
related to BYOD initiatives is useful to help evaluate their own BYOD policy. Participants’ perception of
affordances, constraints, teacher knowledge, and PLD can help schools to understand how to better
support teachers. For policymakers, especially those in the MoE and NZQA, the findings can help them to
evaluate the implementation of digital initiatives like BYOD and digital assessment. For the ICT industry,
findings can help better understand teachers’ needs and reflections on technology, which can inform future
development of ICT for education.
1.6 Thesis Structure

This thesis has seven chapters. Chapter 1 has introduced the study by positioning the researcher and
presenting the research context, aims, and questions, followed by the significance of the study. Chapter 2
reviews the relevant literature on BYOD, teacher knowledge, and instructional design practices. The
theoretical perspectives and conceptual framework of the study are also presented. Chapter 3 explains
the research methods, including methodology of the study, data collection methods of three phases,
ethical considerations, and the analytic strategies.
Subsequently, findings are presented in three chapters: Chapter 4 reports findings from the Phase 1
document analysis of 222 NZ schools’ documents related to BYOD initiatives; Chapter 5 reports findings
from the Phase 2 open-ended online survey with 72 science teachers; Chapter 6 reports findings from the
Phase 3 one-on-one semi-structured interviews with 12 science teachers and three experts in the field of
18
NZ secondary science education.
Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the thesis by discussing the findings, and presenting the theoretical and
practical implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research.
19
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2 Literature Review

This literature review starts by conceptualising BYOD and discussing the concepts of perceived
affordances and constraints. It then provides an overview of teacher knowledge with respect to teaching
science in a BYOD environment and reviews the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) framework. Subsequently, it gives a conceptual overview of instructional design practice and
discusses the relevant analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation (ADDIE) framework and
the substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition (SAMR) model. Lastly, the chapter outlines the
key theoretical perspectives and visualises the conceptual framework of the study.
2.2 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)

This section defines the concept of BYOD, then provides an overview of the concepts and theoretical
perspectives of perceived affordances and constraints.
2.2.1 Conceptualising BYOD

Over the past 30 years, the use of technology in education has become a prominent feature in many
countries (Selwyn, 2013). Over this time, technology has been adopted by schools and governments in a
largely top-down and centralised manner. Devices, such as computers, document cameras, and
projectors, are normally purchased, owned, and managed by schools, with funding generally provided by
governments or local communities. In this circumstance, the learning space is equipped with a set of fixed
devices with a unified ICT management approach (Benade, 2017).
The concept of BYOD was first introduced in 2009 by the Intel Corporation, who observed an emerging
tendency among the employees to bring personal digital devices to the workplace and connect to the
corporate network. Many organisations acknowledged the potential for costs savings and soon embraced
such practice (Burns-Sardone, 2014; Rackley & Viruru, 2014). The BYOD trend continues to grow and
extend into the educational landscape. By incorporating personal digital devices and school wireless
Internet, the BYOD initiative shifts the device ownership and the supply mode as well as bringing new
opportunities and challenges to the learning environment.
BYOD in education has been approached in different ways: a practice of educational policy, a technology
model (Alberta Education, 2012; McLean, 2016), a digital strategy (Adams Becker et al., 2016), and a
solution (Stavert, 2013). M. Lee and Levins (2012) provided a detailed description:
Bring your own technology (BYOT) is an educational development and a supplementary school
technology resourcing model, where the home and the school collaborate in arranging for
students’ 24/7/365 use of their own digital technology/ies to be extended into the classroom, and
in so doing to assist their teaching and learning and the organisation of their schooling and, where
relevant, the complementary education outside the classroom. (p. 11)
Drawing from the description, BYOD/BYOT implies educational development, as it incorporates

technological innovation into pedagogical practice. Personal digital devices, activities for educational
purposes, and a ubiquitous learning environment are the three prerequisites for successful
20
implementation. Furthermore, technology does not fully replace the current pedagogical instruments but is
supplementary to the instructional practices (M. Lee & Levins, 2012).
However, M. Lee and Levins’s (2012) definition can be challenged because it involves technological
determinism—assuming that BYOD/BYOT would lead to home–school collaboration and improvement in
teaching and learning. Thus, this definition neglects and excludes potential issues of BYOD/BYOT. Oliver
(2011) and Selwyn (2012) argued that technological determinism should be avoided, as the linear
perspectives overstress the effects of technology. Under technological determinism, simplistic conclusions
are usually drawn without acknowledging the contextual complexities. It is necessary to understand how
the adopted technologies are socially constructed by stakeholders such as students, teachers, schools,
and policymakers.
In my study, the term BYOD is employed instead of BYOT. Firstly, the term BYOD is more commonly used
by the MoE, schools, and media in NZ. Secondly, although both terms conceptually refer to the same
matter (Hockly, 2012), the term BYOD is semantically more rigorous. M. Lee and Levins (2012) argued
that BYOD solely refers to the tools, and BYOT is inclusive of “both the hardware and the software and the
fact that the students could, and are increasingly likely to, use multiple digital technologies” (p. 12).
However, teachers and students do not literally own the technology; instead, they purchase and bring
personal digital devices to schools, relying on an ICT infrastructure, such as wireless networks, intranet,
and programs and platforms (LaMaster & Frerries-Rowe, 2013; C. Williams, 2012).
Defining the concept of BYOD

Based on the previous research (Alberta Education, 2012; M. Lee & Levins, 2012; McLean, 2016; Song,
2014; Stavert, 2013), BYOD, in my study, is straightforwardly defined as a model of technology provision
where the personal digital devices are brought to a networked environment for educational purposes. This
definition focuses on the three core components: (1) BYOD is a model of technology provision; (2)
personal digital devices are brought for educational purposes; and (3) a networked environment is the
micro-level context where teaching and learning takes place.
A model of technology provision describes what kinds of technology are adopted in education, who owns
the technology, and who is responsible for providing technology and keeping it secured. To meet different
instructional needs, schools may adopt multiple models of technology provision, including computer labs,
learning pods, and classroom computers (Alberta Education, 2012; McLean, 2016; Stavert, 2013). BYOD
is a typical one-on-one model, where the technology provider has shifted from schools to students and
parents primarily. Schools with BYOD in place could save the cost of personal digital devices and increase
their return on ICT investments (Gkamas, Paraskevas, & Varvarigos, 2019). ICT facilities, infrastructure,
and cutting-edge technologies such as 3D printer labs, are still expensive and need to be provided and
maintained by schools (PPTA, 2014; Selwyn, Nemorin, Bulfin, & Johnson, 2018; Sweeney, 2012).
There are different approaches to categorising and describing BYOD technology-provision models. Table
2 presents three types of categorisation respectively developed by Alberta Education (2012), Stavert
(2013), and Janssen and Phillipson (2015).
21
Table 2
BYOD Models of Technology Provision and Descriptions
Researcher BYOD model Description Example
Alberta High standardisation Limit personally owned devices to a specific brand/model. Only the 9.7-inch iPad 2018 version is allowed.
Education
(2012, pp. Moderate standardisation Limit personally owned devices to specific technical The laptop should be able to run Windows 7 or higher,
11–16) specifications. with at least 50 GB free space and 4 GB RAM.
Moderate flexibility Limit personally owned devices to specific capabilities in The device should be able to access Google G Suite
programs and platforms, etc. for Education.
High flexibility No limitation on personally owned devices, provided they Any personal digital device with Internet connectivity
are Internet ready. can be brought to school.
Hybrid Combinations of the above four models. “Any device with wireless capability is permitted to
connect to the school authority network provided the
user has a login account (all staff and students) and
agrees to behave according to a Responsible Use of
Technology Agreement” (p. 15).
Stavert Tightly controlled models Only the specified devices with the same capabilities, Only the 9.7-inch iPad 2018 version is allowed.
(2013, pp. programs, and platforms are allowed to be brought to
22
15–17) school.
Limiting the devices to Limit personally owned devices to specific technical The laptop should be able to run Windows 7 or higher,
those that meet specific specifications, programs, and platforms. with at least 50 GB free space and 4 GB RAM.
requirements
Accepting any personally No limitation on personally owned devices, provided they Any personal digital device with Internet connectivity
owned device provided it are Internet ready. can be brought to school.
is Internet ready
Janssen Bring your device (BYD) Devices are supplied by the school to students at no cost Only one type of device is adopted by the school and
and school device for use at home and at school. offered to students. A range of programs and platforms
Phillipson is installed.
(2015, p. 2)
BYOD specified device Limited range of devices that can offer the same learning Only the devices on the school’s recommendation list
experience to students. can be brought to school. All required programs and
platforms should be installed.
BYOD any device Limit personally owned devices to specific technical The personal digital devices should have Internet
specifications, such as screen size or age. connectivity and a minimum screen size of 9.5 inches.
My study follows the categorisation by Stavert (2013) to approach BYOD models because the three
categories of models are distinct and easy to follow, and they generally cover different technology-
provision scenarios in schools. However, my study approaches the tightly controlled model in a more
inclusive way by including circumstances where school-specified devices are owned by students as well
as the circumstances where specific devices are provided by schools to ensure equal access (Janssen &
Phillipson, 2015; M. Lee & Levins, 2012).
In my research, a networked environment is primarily considered as the micro-level context—a BYOD

setting—where teachers and students interact with and access technology including Internet for teaching
and learning (Angeli, Valanides, & Christodoulou, 2016; Selwyn, 2010). My study focuses on teachers’
instructional design practices for their micro context, with the consideration of the related meso- and
macro-level contexts.
2.2.2 Perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment

The concepts of perceived affordances and perceived constraints have been used to identify and
elaborate on the potential and challenges of technology in different educational contexts, such as distance
education (Dickey, 2003), ICT in science education (Webb, 2005), ICT in the workplace (C. S. Lee, 2010),
mobile learning (Orr, 2010), and BYOD in higher education (Song & Kong, 2015). Drawing from the
literature, there are multiple benefits of the BYOD environment, including easy access to learning
resources, immediate feedback, personalised learning, peer collaboration, better student agency and
engagement, and increased productivity and satisfaction. In terms of challenges, researchers mentioned
infrastructure, data security, the level of complexity of information and technology, teachers’ and students’
lack of familiarity with technology, and distraction in class (Carr-Chellman, 2016; Dinsmore, 2019;
Gkamas, Paraskevas, & Varvarigos, 2016; Nuhoğlu Kibar, Gündüz, & Akkoyunlu, 2019; Song & Kong,
2015).
However, there is a paucity of literature on teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints of
BYOD in the secondary school context. In my research, studying secondary science teachers’ perceived
affordances and perceived constraints helps to identify the kinds of potential for action that can be enabled
or hindered in a BYOD environment (John & Sutherland, 2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2008). It also supports
an inquiry into science teachers’ practical concerns and their knowledge of technology and pedagogy
within their micro-level context (Boschman, McKenney, & Voogt, 2014; Porras-Hernández & Salinas-
Amescua, 2013).
Defining affordances and constraints

To approach the concepts of affordances and constraints, this study follows the definition developed by
Kennewell (2001) who drew attention to the relation between the two terms:
The affordances are the attributes of the setting which provide potential for action; the constraints
are the conditions and relationships amongst attributes which provide structure and guidance for
the course of actions. For example, a doorway affords entrance to a room; a closed door
constrains entry. Constraints are not the opposite of affordances; they are complementary, and
equally necessary for activity to take place. (p. 106)
23
Drawing from the definition, affordances and constraints are complementary and not opposite to each
other. Their relation is not comparable to pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, benefits and
risks, or strengths and weaknesses. For example, even though technology could afford various
opportunities for science teaching, teachers may need extra time to ensure that students are capable of
learning science with technology. Restricted schedules and students’ lack of digital skills may turn into
constraints, which are not opposite to affordances.
The two concepts are associated with the idea of attributes, including technology attributes, and human
and organisational attributes (Kennewell, 2001; Majchrzak & Markus, 2013). First, technology attributes
are “descriptive aspects of the physical and functional nature of a technological outcome” (MoE, 2010, p.
13). For example, a fast Internet connection with uncapped data (attribute) can afford teachers and
students quick access to Google Docs to collaborate synchronously (affordance). Second, human
attributes include teachers’ personal knowledge, skills, understanding, and disposition (Kennewell, 2001);
organisational attributes are related to micro-level contextual features, including learning objectives and
needs, instructional activities, and a specific learning environment (Majchrzak & Markus, 2013). It is worth
noting that human and organisational attributes are an entirety and cannot be isolated from each other,
because teachers’ potential for action and their setting are interdependent. Overall, both technology
attributes and human and organisational attributes are the inherent qualities of teaching in a BYOD
environment, representing the object (technology), the actor (teacher), and the context (BYOD
environment; Gaver, 1991).
Theoretical perspectives of affordances and constraints

Kennewell’s (2001) definition of affordances is based on Gibson’s (1979) ecological theory of perception,
while the definition of constraints draws from the situative theoretical underpinnings of Greeno (1998).
Gibson (1979) firstly used a noun form—affordance—to match the verb to afford, denoting what the
environment offers an individual, either for good or ill. The concept captures a relation between an
environment and an individual with direct perceptions and possible actions. According to Gibson, on one
hand, affordances of the environment are objective, real, and physical, and exist independently, because
affordance cannot be constructed or changed simply by an individual’s will; on the other hand, affordances
are subjective, phenomenal, and mental, because without an individual’s discovery, sense making, or
further action, the environment cannot afford anything (Boyle & Cook, 2004; Gibson, 1979).
Gibson’s (1979) definition of affordances appears to have already included the idea of constraints.
However, Kennewell’s (2001) definition of affordances and constraints primarily focuses on the potential of
action, which is approached in a relatively narrow sense, viewing that affordances and constraints
together elucidate what an environment can enable an actor to do and restrict them from doing.
Furthermore, according to Norman (1988), affordances and constraints rely on the observer’s mental
interpretation and perceptual capabilities which are informed by the observer’s prior knowledge and
experience. Norman (1998, 1999) also suggested using the terms perceived affordances and perceived
constraints to emphasise the role of human perceptions.
Based on the situation theory in the educational context, Greeno (1998) used “the term constraints to
include if–then regularities of social practices and of interactions with material and informational systems
24
that enable a person to anticipate outcomes and to participate in trajectories of interactions” (p. 9). The
notion describes the existing conditions, resources, and circumstances that can be perceived to cause
certain impacts, challenges, or even obstacles. Similar to Norman’s (1988) perspective, Greeno (1998)
asserted that the if–then regularities could be informed by personal life experiences and prior knowledge.
Drawing from the above theoretical underpinnings of affordances and constraints, three views are
developed to guide my study when applying the two concepts. First, affordances and constraints can be
perceived differently depending on the environments and the actions taken. For instance, the limited
screen size of a smart phone may be perceived to afford concentration and focus but also constrain
multitasking. The affordances and constraints are perceived subjectively and should be discussed in
relation to a specific context (Kennewell, 2001).
Second, the same environment can enable different perceived affordances and constraints for different
actors (Dinsmore, 2019; Gibson, 1979; Webb, 2005). In a BYOD environment, different teachers—with
differing personal prior knowledge and experience—may perceive different affordances and constraints,
which inform their instructional design practices and teaching. (Kennewell, 2001; C. S. Lee, 2010). In this
regard, my study uses neutral descriptors to articulate the perceived affordances and perceived
constraints.
Third, teachers’ perceived affordances and constraints could be identified through both technological and
pedagogical lenses (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; Song & Kong, 2015; Webb & Cox, 2004).
Teaching in BYOD environments relates closely to the interplay between technology and pedagogy. The
technological lens concerns technology properties and functions and the setting per se, such as Internet
access, device size, and battery capacity. The pedagogical lens focuses on “the properties or functions of
technology that extend our learning and perceptual capabilities” (Gagné et al., 2005, p. 208), such as
student agency.
In summary, my study approaches the concepts of affordances and constraints following Kennewell’s
(2001) definition with a sound theoretical foundation (Gibson, 1979; Greeno, 1998). Constraints of a
BYOD environment are complementary to affordances and both are equally necessary for teachers’
potential for action. My study also follows Norman’s (1998, 1999) stance and employs the terms perceived
affordances and perceived constraints in order to stress teachers’ perceptions of their BYOD
environments, especially what actions are enabled, limited, or disabled. Lastly, identifying teachers’
perceived affordances and perceived constraints allows for insights into the complex relations of
technology, teacher knowledge, and BYOD settings, which also help to explain their instructional design
practices and decision making regarding BYOD environments.
2.3 Teacher Knowledge

This section presents a review of teacher knowledge with respect to teaching science in a BYOD
environment, including a discussion of the adopted TPACK framework.
2.3.1 Teacher knowledge and technology integration

The understanding of the importance of teacher knowledge has evolved over time. Historically, teacher
knowledge was defined in a straightforward manner as being the subject content they needed to know and
25
teach. This description was then challenged by growing scholarly interest in the combination of
pedagogical skills and subject-matter understanding (Niess, 2012). Shulman (1986, 1987) drew attention
to the multidimensional nature of teacher knowledge, and proposed to use the term pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), combining pedagogy with subject-matter knowledge. PCK relates to knowing how to
teach specific content and which teaching strategies are best employed with particular content. PCK also
involves understanding the learners and what might make the learning of specific content easy or difficult
for them (Jimoyiannis, 2010; Shulman, 1986).
In recent years, the expectations and requirements regarding teacher knowledge have shifted to
accommodate the increasing use of technology in education. In a study on technology-integration practice,
Pierson (2001) advocated including technological knowledge (TK) in Shulman’s (1987) PCK. She used a
Venn diagram to demonstrate the interrelationships that exist between TK, pedagogical knowledge (PK),
and content knowledge (CK). The impact of contextual factors on teachers’ use of technology was briefly
discussed but not elaborated on. Overall, Pierson’s work (2001) established a significant foundation for
future study in the area of teacher knowledge and technology integration, especially in relation to TPACK’s
framework development.
2.3.2 The TPACK framework of teacher knowledge

My study adopts the TPACK framework to explore secondary science teachers’ knowledge in relation to
the BYOD environments. The TPACK framework, originally named TPCK, was introduced by Koehler and
Mishra (2005), and describes “how teachers’ understanding of technologies and pedagogical content
knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching with technology” (Koehler & Mishra,
2008, p. 12). It comprises seven knowledge constructs within application contexts. Figure 4 displays the
TPACK framework and Table 3 presents the seven constructs’ definitions together with practical examples.
Figure 4. The TPACK framework and its knowledge constructs. Copyright 2012 by tpack.org. Reprinted
with permission.
26
Table 3
Knowledge Constructs of the TPACK Framework
Construct Definition Example
CK CK is “teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learnt or taught” (p. 14). Knowing the subject matter of chemistry
PK PK is “teachers’ deep knowledge about the process and practices or methods of teaching and Knowing how students learn and how to
learning… [It] requires an understanding of cognitive, social, and developmental theories of learning manage the learning environment
and how they apply to students in the classroom” (p. 15).
PCK PCK here “is consistent with and similar to Shulman’s (1986, 1987) idea of knowledge of pedagogy Having a variety of ways to support
that is applicable to teaching specific content. Central to Shulman’s conceptualisation of PCK is the students to understand the concept of
notion of the transformation of the subject matter for teaching” (p. 15). valence electron
TK TK is teachers’ deep understanding about how to “accomplish a variety of different tasks using Connecting a projector to an iPad
information technology, and to develop different ways of accomplishing a given task” (p. 15).
TCK TCK is “an understanding of the manner in which technology and content influence and constrain Using Chemio, an iOS app, to visually
one another” (p. 16). demonstrate different atom models
TPK TPK is “an understanding of how teaching and learning can change when particular technologies are Using the wireless student response system
used in particular ways. This includes knowing the pedagogical affordances and constraints of a to display student responses, to explain the
27
range of technological tools as they relate to disciplinarily and developmentally appropriate low rate of correct responses and to adjust
pedagogical designs and strategies” (p. 16). the instruction if needed
TPACK “TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the Using Chemist, an iOS app, to visually
representation of concepts using technologies, pedagogical techniques that use technologies in simulate redox reaction and help students
constructive ways to teach content, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and understand the roles of oxidants and
how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face, knowledge of students’ reductants
prior knowledge and theories of epistemology, and knowledge of how technologies can be used to
build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones” (p. 16).
Adapted from Koehler, Mishra, and Cain (2013)
Thompson and Mishra (2007) proposed using the acronym TPACK instead of the original TPCK, because
TPACK better presents a “Total PACKage” (p. 38) in describing technology integration in teaching, rather
than simply isolating the three parameters—content, pedagogy, and technology. The integrated domains—
PCK, TCK and TPK—are presumed to be distinct factors and a synthesis of the fundamental constructs of
PK, CK and TK.
My study views the TPACK framework as transformative, considering TPACK as a unique and distinct
body of knowledge (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, & van Braak). According to Angeli and Valanides (2005,
2009), TPACK is constructed from the interaction of its individual contributing knowledge bases, being
depicted in the centre of the Venn diagram in Figure 4. Through reviewing empirical studies, Angeli et al.
(2016) noted that “growth in the related constructs of TP[A]CK without particular instruction, targeting
exclusively the development of TP[A]CK, did not automatically result in TP[A]CK growth” (p. 21).
Therefore, it is important to emphasise the holistic effect of TPACK as it is developed as a whole, instead
of depending on the separate development of TK, PK and/or CK. Harris (2016) reviewed years of studies
and identified 12 strategies for TPACK development in a comprehensive manner. She also classified those
strategies into eight general approaches: “collaborative instructional design, PCK-focused learning, TPK-
focused learning, reflective/reflexive learning, problem-based learning, computer-adaptive learning,
instructional planning, and workplace learning” (p. 194). She believed that teachers’ TPACK development
should be focused, situated, authentic, and personalised. Harris’s (2016) categorisation of approaches
and strategies informs the analysis of science teachers’ TPACK development in this study.
Moreover, my study adopts the macro, meso, and micro contextual structure developed by Porras-
Hernández and Salinas-Amescua (2013) to explore teacher knowledge with respect to teaching science in
a BYOD environment as well as to understand the context in teaching and learning with technology.
Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua proposed a conceptual framework for context containing three
scopes (macro–meso–micro contexts) and two actors (teachers and students). The three-level contexts
are similar to the school ecosystem (nation, state, district, school and classroom) proposed by Zhao and
Frank (2003). Rosenberg and Koehler (2015) further represented the framework by including the three-
level contexts and two actors, as shown in Figure 5. They stated that “the complexity of the social
interactions, resources, scaffolds, and supports that affect teaching with technology is included
systematically and comprehensively, and in a manner that facilitates better understanding of the context
around teachers’ TPACK” (pp. 188–189). Rosenberg and Koehler (2015) also indicated that the macro
context was underexamined and rarely discussed in previous studies.
28
Figure 5. Representation of the conceptual framework for the TPACK context. From “Context and
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review,” by J. M. Rosenberg and
M. J. Koehler, 2015, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47, p. 189. Copyright 2015 by the
International Society for Technology in Education.
The adopted context framework allows my study to understand how teachers make sense of the external
and internal priorities as well as their educational contexts at the macro–meso–micro levels (Boschman et
al., 2014). It also allows my study to explore what teachers know about designing instruction and teaching
science for a BYOD environment. The first chapter of my thesis (see section 1.3) has presented an
overview of the macro–meso–micro contexts in relation to researching science teachers’ practice for
BYOD environments in NZ secondary schools. The adopted context framework was intended to consider
both actors—teachers and students. Since my study primarily focuses on teachers’ views on technology
and perspectives of their instructional design practices in a BYOD environment, the role of students is not
studied separately but is discussed as part of the teachers’ perceptions.
However, it should be acknowledged that the TPACK framework is not universally accepted (Tunjera &
Chigona, 2020). First, the boundaries between the knowledge constructs are blurred, hence the definitions
of constructs need to be more precise and accurate (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Cox & Graham, 2009;
Jimoyiannis, 2010). Shulman’s PCK, as the starting point of TPACK, has been extensively studied, but
there is still controversy concerning the boundaries between some teacher knowledge categories (Yu, Bu,
& Zhang, 2014). Second, there is a lack of research depth underpinning the TPACK framework. Third,
TPACK appears to be too general, having the scope of knowledge but little on the depth of knowledge. For
example, having good TK is no longer sufficient, as it cannot guarantee successful instructional practice. It
is important for teachers to take full advantage of the perceived affordances of the BYOD environment,
and develop knowledge in facilitating students how to use technology efficiently and responsibly (Angeli &
Valanides, 2009; Pierson, 2001; Shea & Stockford, 2015; Thompson & Mishra, 2007). Despite challenges,
TPACK is still a useful framework in my study since the study does not aim to validate the TPACK model
or measure science teachers’ knowledge; instead, I attempt to approach and explain science teachers’
reflection on their teacher knowledge from the TAPCK theoretical perspective.
In my study, using the TPACK framework helps to acknowledge and capture the complexity of teacher
29
knowledge with respect to teaching science in a BYOD environment, because it represents the interplay
between three knowledge domains—technology, pedagogy and science content—and synthesises the
interactions within a certain context (Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2008; Koehler et al., 2013). The macro–
meso–micro contextual structure allows for understanding the local and broader environment and the
contextual impact on teacher knowledge and instructional design practices. Using the TPACK framework
also helps to review teachers’ planning and evaluation of technology use in teaching and learning (Tunjera
& Chigona, 2020). Furthermore, studying teacher knowledge using TPACK helps to present teachers’
existing orientations (Boschman et al., 2014) and to reveal what science teachers actually know about
teaching in a BYOD environment, and what kinds of teacher knowledge would be important in this setting.
2.4 Instructional Design Practice

This section presents a conceptual overview of instructional design practice, a discussion of the ADDIE
framework and SAMR model, and justification of why and how my study employs both.
2.4.1 Understanding instructional design practice

An exploration of teachers’ instructional design practice allows for understanding how the design and
development of instruction accommodates the use of technology and students’ learning needs within a
BYOD environment. My study adopts the definition of instructional design practice developed by P. L.
Smith and Ragan (2005): “The term instructional design refers to the systematic and reflective process of
translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials, activities, information
resources, and evaluation” (p. 4).
Drawing from the definition, instructional design is conducted as systematic work. According to Morrison,
Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (2013), the term systematic implies “an orderly, logical method of identifying,
developing, and evaluating a set of strategies aimed at attaining a particular instructional goal” (p. 10).
Many researchers also used the term systematic in describing instructional design practice, for example
Gagné et al. (2005), K. M. Smith and Boling (2009) and Seel, Lehmann, Blumschein, and Podolskiy
(2017). P. L. Smith and Ragan (2005) asserted that failure to use a systematic approach may lead to
misuse of time and resources and other consequences.
Additionally, instructional design practice requires reflection, meaning that teachers need to think, review
and reflect during their design process. Schön (1983) introduced the notions of reflection-in-action and
reflection-on-action to explain how to engage with practices and incidents during the design process. He
considered reflection to be a reflective conversation both during and with the situation. Specifically,
reflection-in-action describes reflecting on the incident while it can still be adapted and modified so as to
benefit that situation; reflection-on-action allows a teacher to review the instructional practice that has
been implemented, which aids in summarising past experience and informing future practice (Schön,
1983; Tracey & Baaki, 2014). In my research, science teachers primarily drew from their reflection-on-
action to discuss their perspectives on the use of technology, instructional design practice, and the BYOD
learning environments.
My study approaches instructional design practice from a process-oriented perspective because the
research question concerns how science teachers design instruction for a BYOD environment. The
process-oriented position is derived from the general system theory, viewing reality as being ordered and
30
rational (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). Hence, the process-oriented position is closely associated with the
classical process of instructional systems design (ISD) which is the process for creating instructional
systems that includes phases of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.
Additionally, ISD is characterised by the overarching concept of design, thereby ISD is often used as a
substitute term for instructional design (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015; Gagné et al., 2005). From the
process-oriented position, my study attempts to explain the procedures of teachers’ instructional design
practices through applying the ADDIE framework. My study also adopts the SAMR model to explore how
technology mediates and affects the instructional design practices. The following two subsections present
a discussion of the ADDIE framework and the SAMR model.
2.4.2 The ADDIE framework

The ADDIE framework, illustrated in Figure 6, represents a set of five fundamental phases—analysis,
design, development, implementation, and evaluation—in a straightforward manner.
Design Develop
revise revise
Analyse Implement
revise revise
Evaluate
Figure 6. The ADDIE framework. Adapted from Principles of Instructional Design (5th ed., p. 21), by R. M.
Gagné, W. W. Wager, K. C. Golas, and J. M. Keller, 2005, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Copyright 2005 by
Wadsworth.
The ADDIE framework denotes the ISD paradigm and is rooted in general system theory (Gagné et al.,
2005; Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2011). Following an ISD paradigm, Gagné et al. (2005) theorised and
articulated a series of nine instructional events to facilitate learning: gaining attention, informing the learner
of the objective, stimulating recall of prerequisite learned capabilities, presenting the stimulus material,
providing learning guidance, eliciting performance, providing feedback about performance correctness,
assessing the performance, and enhancing retention and transfer. These nine instructional events
describe a teacher’s behaviours of instruction and give structure to their instructional activities for the
class, and are highly valued in the field of education (Dick et al., 2015; Seel et al., 2017; Spector, 2016).
Therefore, within the ADDIE flamework, the nine instructional events can be reflected in the instructional
design practice.
Table 4 presents the concepts of five phases and the 21 common procedures defined and organised by
Branch (2009) within the ADDIE flamework. These common procedures cover and address the
instructional events proposed by Gagné et al. (2005), and are helpful for my study to approach science
teacher participants’ instructional design process. It is worth noting that the 21 common procedures were
originally proposed to approach the generic instructional design practices in different contexts, including
school education and human resource development within corporations.
31
Table 4
Concepts and Common Procedures of the ADDIE Framework
Phase Concept Common procedures Results
Analysis Identifying the 1. Validating the performance gap Analysis
probable causes for 2. Determining instructional objectives summary
a performance gap 3. Confirming the intended audience
4. Identifying required resources
5. Determining potential delivery systems
(including cost estimate)
6. Composing a project management plan
Design Verifying the desired 7. Conducting a task inventory Design brief
performances and 8. Composing performance objectives
appropriate testing 9. Generating testing strategies
methods 10. Calculating return on investment
Development Generating and 11. Generating content Learning
validating the 12. Selecting or developing supporting resources
learning resources media
13. Developing guidance for the student
14. Developing guidance for the teacher
15. Conducting formative revisions
16. Conducting a pilot test
Implementation Preparing the 17. Preparing the teacher Implementation
learning environment 18. Preparing the student strategy
and students
Evaluation Assessing the quality 19. Determining evaluation criteria Evaluation plan
of the instructional 20. Selecting evaluation tools
procedures, both 21. Conducting evaluations
before and after
implementation
Source: Branch (2009, p. 3)
ADDIE is an overarching framework for models of a procedural nature (Molenda, 2003). A variety of
instructional design models have been proposed to reflect different propositions about how people learn
and how to create the greatest positive influence on their learning. Many models are closely aligned with
the ADDIE procedures. According to Brown and Green (2016), ADDIE is a means of describing the basic
elements of any instructional design model. Although no singular model can be the absolute best for all
circumstances, many researchers and practitioners consider ADDIE to be a useful tool for prescribing
generic instructional design procedures (Branch & Dousay, 2015; Carr-Chellman, 2016; Gagné et al.,
2005; Soto, 2013).
There is controversy concerning the ADDIE framework. For example, according to Soto (2013), ADDIE is
likely too static, rigid, and linear to adequately embrace the emerging changes in education, and may thus
become inapplicable to the digital environment. Lai and Liou (2007) asserted that the ADDIE framework
cannot allow for flexible instructional design approaches by taking advantage of technology, and the
framework easily overlooks user/learner experience and involvement.
However, claims around the ADDIE framework being static, rigid, and linear have been criticised as being
overly simplistic and based on inaccurate assumptions about the ISD’s intended uses and purposes (K. M.
Smith & Boling, 2009). B. L. Martin (2004) argued that using ISD in a linear, step-by-step manner should
never be required, as it would certainly limit possibilities. The iterative and self-correcting nature of the
32
ADDIE process assures opportunities for moving back and forth among different phases (Branch & Merrill,
2012). Teachers interact with interdependent components related to their instructional design practices,
and they use logic and common sense to handle these components in an orderly and flexible manner so
as to design instruction and facilitate learning. Hence, the ISD paradigm and the ADDIE framework should
be primarily understood as a system and mechanism for problem solving (Gagné et al., 2005; B. L. Martin,
2004; Molenda, 2003).
2.4.3 The SAMR model
Understanding the SAMR model

While the ADDIE framework demonstrates the procedural nature of instructional design, it cannot capture
the extent to which technology influences science teachers’ instructional practice or students’ learning
experience. In this study, the SAMR model is employed to address this gap.
The SAMR model, as shown in Figure 7, was proposed by Puentedura (2006) as a means of
conceptualising and characterising four modes of the use of technology in education, coupled with their
influence on learning. The SAMR model’s four modes of the use of technology in education are
substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. The model, which was part of Puentedura’s work
with the Maine Learning Technologies Initiatives, was originally intended to encourage educators in the
state of Maine to improve education quality with the use of technology (Puentedura, 2006; Romrell,
Kidder, & Wood, 2014). The SAMR model is also an attempt to give teachers direction on how to make
better use of technology in the classroom (Robinson, 2017).
Figure 7. The SAMR model. From “SAMR and TPACK: Intro to Advanced Practice,” by R. R. Puentedura,
2010 (http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf). CC BY-
NC-SA 3.0.
Substitution regards technology as a replacement for certain tools, for example, using Google Earth to
locate a place instead of an atlas or terrestrial globe. In this case, technology may not make a significant
difference in terms of learning outcomes; thus, it is hard to find any functional improvement. However,
appropriate use of technology via substitution may still make the teaching and learning experience
become more efficient and enjoyable; students may show more confidence and engagement when
learning with technology via substitution (Harmandaoğlu Baz, Balçıkanlı, & Cephe, 2018; Romrell et al.,
33
2014).
Augmentation also uses technology as a substitute, but one that results in functional improvement
compared to instructional activities using traditional tools. For example, the ruler tool of Google Earth can
be used for distance measurement, so Google Earth augments the measurement task. Another example
of augmentation is seen in a study by Chuang and Tsao (2013); they compared nursing students who
attended regular lectures and reviewed notes to those who additionally received daily text messages
about specific medications. They found that a statistically significant difference emerged: the latter group
of students showed much higher learning gains every week within the 1-month study. Hence, effective use
of technology as augmentation can lead to functional improvement.
Modification describes the redesigning of tasks. For instance, using Google Earth’s panorama function
allows students to investigate specific locations around the world and even offers a VR experience using
VR hardware. In this regard, the instructional practice or learning experience can no longer be easily
replicated using traditional resources and activities (Chuang & Tsao, 2013).
Redefinition represents the use of technology that allows for designing and creating new tasks; in other
words, without technology, these new tasks would be impossible. For example, students can create and
share a guided-tour video presentation using Google Earth. Romrell et al. (2014) noted that the
instructional practice and learning experience is purposefully designed under the redefinition mode to
become essentially personalised, situated and connected.
Both substitution and augmentation are grouped under enhancement in the SAMR model; however,
neither the instructional practice nor learning experience can be transformed (Cherner & Curry, 2017;
Parsons, 2013). Both modification and redefinition are grouped under transformation, assuming that the
richest potential of technology can be achieved and new changes can be brought to the classroom
(Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016; Puentedura, 2006).
There has been growing interest in the SAMR model in recent years. Puentedura’s (2006) original
intention was to present the SAMR model as a progression ladder with four levels. In this regard, teachers
can use the model to identify their extent of technology use in instruction with an aim of moving up to the
ultimate level—redefinition. Some researchers have taken this position to investigate teaching and
learning with technology, for example, Cherner and Curry (2017), Rae, Dabner, and Mackey (2017), and
Melanson, Javier, Canane, and Shaheen (2018). An increasing number of educators and schools
worldwide are recommending teachers use the SAMR model to enhance and transform their instructional
practice using technology. Moreover, endorsement from corporations such as Apple attempts to add
credence to the model (Benade, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2016; Hilton, 2016; D. Martin, 2014).
Criticism of the SAMR model

Despite its growing popularity, the SAMR model has been challenged for both its validation and
substance. The critiques began with an online open letter posted by Linderoth (2013) who questioned
Puentedura’s credentials as he could not find a close connection between the field of educational
technology and Puentedura’s doctorate research and publication. Linderoth (2013) was also concerned
that the promotion of the SAMR model might be driven by commercial interests due to Puentedura’s
relationship with consulting firms.
34
Other critiques concerned the quality and substance of the SAMR model. The first is about the lack of
theoretical underpinnings or explanations of the SAMR model. Puentedura has no peer-reviewed literature
published, even though plenty of SAMR-related resources are available on Puentedura’s website.19 There
are limited explanations or references related to theories or previous studies, which may easily lead to
inconsistent interpretation and confusion among researchers and practitioners (Hamilton et al., 2016;
Linderoth, 2013). Additionally, there is little research focusing on the differentiation of the four modes in the
SAMR model (Zipke, Ingle, & Moorehead, 2019).
Second, the SAMR model appears to be rather simplistic and neglects significant factors like context and
pedagogy. The complexity of teaching and learning using technology seems to be overlooked by the
practice of simply indicating teachers’ uses of technology in predefined ways (Hamilton et al., 2016;
Linderoth, 2013; Robinson, 2017). Green (2014) argued that “applying simplistic models to the
development of large-scale technology integration programs, professional developments, and the like
without investigating the research and pedagogical beliefs that shape those models is irresponsible and
dangerous” (p. 40). Moreover, redefinition is not always necessarily the best mode to use technology to
achieve optimal outcomes.
Third, the role of technology in education is not thoroughly considered or approached (Linderoth, 2013).
The original description of modification and redefinition seems to be problematic, as it states that the
technology itself allows for task redesign and new-task creation. This is a typical deterministic assumption
that unquestioningly accepts that it is the technology that brings about positive outcomes (Selwyn, 2017).
It is important to note that the influence of technology in education significantly relies on how the
technology is used by teachers and students. It also depends on the particular instructional activity and
context for which it is being used (Oliver, 2013; Porras-Hernández & Salinas-Amescua, 2013).
Application of the SAMR model in this study

Despite criticising the SAMR model, Linderoth (2013) acknowledged that, at a practical level, simplified
models like SAMR are more accessible and acceptable to busy teachers. According to Robinson (2017),
the model can help teachers consider their rationale for incorporating the chosen technology during their
instructional design practices. In my study, three perspectives are developed to offer guidance on
employing the SAMR model in order to study science teachers’ instructional design practice for BYOD
environments.
First, media theory can be applied as the theoretical support for the SAMR model. According to Reiser
(2012), instruction is presented to students via physical means—media. In my study, media refers to the
technology used for teaching and learning in BYOD environments. The relevant philosophical orientations
include realism and object manipulation: realism contends that “objects directly presented to our senses
represent the objects that actually exist in nature” (Richey et al., 2011, p. 89); object manipulation
suggests that reality could be grounded upon the direct interactive and manipulating experience with a
concrete object. Object manipulation values individual visual representations and individual perspectives
on reality. Drawing from media theory, learning occurs as a result of interacting with the media/technology
19
See http://hippasus.com/blog/
35
(Brown & Green, 2016; Richey et al., 2011).
Second, the SAMR model represents four modes of the use of technology in education. It seems possible
that the SAMR model is hierarchical, like a ladder, in some senses (Hamilton et al., 2016; Jacob-Israel &
Moorefield-Lang, 2013; Romrell et al., 2014). However, in practice, teachers tend to employ a variety of
technologies in one instructional activity, perhaps involving different digital devices, programs and
platforms; students exhibit a similar tendency. Each type of technology has its own impact on teaching and
learning. Taken altogether, a teacher’s instructional design practice may typically represent a certain mode
of SAMR; however, it is necessary to differentiate the impact of overall practice from the impact of a
certain kind of technology on teaching and learning. To illustrate further, even if a teacher’s instructional
design practice relates most closely to redefinition, there will likely be some activities that use technology
in other modes like substitution.
Third, the SAMR model is in fact a task- and technology-focused model (Hamilton et al., 2016; Kirkland,
2013). Hilton (2016) discovered that the distribution of SAMR varies across the school year due to
changes in instructional strategies and activities instead of shifting consistently towards redefinition
throughout the year. Robinson (2017) found that, in one learning task, students moved between the four
modes due to their use of technology. Tay, Nair, and Lim (2018) demonstrated the extent of technology
integration into learning activities by using the four modes to describe each activity. These studies show
that the four modes of SAMR can be adopted flexibly based on the tasks and the types of technology.
It is important for my study to follow the above three perspectives to approaching the SAMR model. The
SAMR model represents a tool that helps teachers reflect on their instructional design practice rather than
a means of prescribing a progression or action plan (Robinson, 2017). It allows teachers to understand
how well they meet their instructional objectives when teaching with technology (Romrell et al., 2014). In
my study, science teachers were asked to indicate their extent of technology use in teaching with
reference to the SAMR model. This is because many teachers have become familiar with the SAMR
model through opportunities such as PLD programmes, and they were able to use the SAMR model for
their reflection-on-action (Benade, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2016; Hunter, 2015; Tracey & Baaki, 2014).
To conclude, this section has presented the concept and perspectives of instructional design practice,
which is regarded as a systematic and reflective process. The use of the ADDIE framework allows the
instructional design process to be approached in a systematic manner. Furthermore, the adoption of the
SAMR model was justified by careful consideration. Use of the SAMR model helps to present teachers’
reflections on the extent of their use of technology in education.
2.5 Conceptual Framework Overview

This section presents the conceptual framework of the study. It starts with outlining the theoretical
perspectives reflected throughout my study and explains three forms of embedded critique—analytic,
explanatory, and ideology critiques. Subsequently, the section presents and explains the visualised
conceptual framework developed for the study.
2.5.1 Theoretical perspectives of the study

The theoretical perspectives of this study draw upon Selwyn’s (2010) and Livingstone’s (2012) critical
36
approach to the study of educational technology. Their approach is built on the sociology of education and
technology. According to Facer and Selwyn (2013), the sociology of education and technology concerns
how social structure, public institutions and individual experiences affect education and the use of
technology in education. In other words, the macro and meso environments are linked to the micro
settings. Facer and Selwyn (2013) showed this idea by presenting their position on technology:
This deliberate sociology of education and technology would proceed from the insights borne out
of sociology of technology. It would work from the position that technologies are not neutral but
political; that they are carriers for assumptions and ideas about the future of society; that their
design, promotion and use are all sites in which struggles over power are conducted. (p. 220)
Adopting these theoretical perspectives in my study facilitated a better understanding of the current BYOD
implementation and teachers’ instructional design practices in reality. My research takes account of the
complex contextual influences and unpacks teachers’ perceptions of technology and their experiences of
teaching in a BYOD classroom. These theoretical perspectives can also help develop analysis insights by
explaining how and why teachers perceive and teach with technology in their own ways.
Facer and Selwyn (2013) further explained their position concerning issues of equity and social justice that
surround educational technology:
It would also draw on the traditions of critical sociology to focus explicitly on the fact that
technologies are deeply implicated within unequal relations of power elsewhere in education and
society, within the lived realities of dominance and subordination that are currently ongoing, and
within the conflicts that are generated by these relations. (p. 220)
However, issues of equity and social justice are not my research focus and are beyond the research
scope because this study primarily aims to explore and understand science teachers’ instructional design
practices for BYOD environments in NZ secondary schools. During the study, however, participants
occasionally discussed these issues, which makes them part of the research contexts.
It is worth noting that the critical approach to the study of educational technology is not entirely the same
as the critical theory of education. According to Kellner (2003), a critical theory of education—being rooted
in a critical theory of society—is the core of social critique and transformation, concerning issues such as
democracy, equality, and social justice. Therefore, as in all critical theories, a critical theory of education
contains a normative and even utopian dimension with an attempt to “theorise how education and life
could construct alternatives to what is” (p. 54). It involves proposing what education could become and
how radicalising education could help transform society. However, informed by the critical approach to the
study of educational technology, the theoretical perspectives in my study take a realistic account of
technology, concerning how technology is actually being used in practice (state-of-the-actual), instead of
discussing how it could or should be used (state-of-the-art; Selwyn, 2010, 2014).
Drawing on the critical approach, the theoretical perspectives of my study are presented in three forms—
analytic, explanatory, and ideology critiques—which provide clear guidance on the exploration of how and
why technologies have been used for a BYOD environment (Livingstone, 2010, 2012). It is useful for my
research to engage in an objective inquiry into the research problem, by producing a contextually rich
37
analysis and investigating teachers’ instructional design practices in terms of the BYOD environment’s
positives, negatives, and the in-between (Selwyn, 2015).
Analytic critique
An analytic critique requires a cautious and sceptical analysis of claims about educational technology and
its interaction with society by asking what is really going on (Livingstone, 2010, 2012). Likewise, Apple
(2010) suggested educational researchers study and present the realities of life as well as reflect on the
voices and struggles of those involved in the context. Therefore, to carry out an analytic critique, my study
embraces technological pessimism in education (Selwyn, 2010, 2014).
As the opposite side of technological pessimism, technological positivism is driven by an underpinning

belief that technology could improve teaching and learning (Selwyn, 2011). Such positivism would
influence the researcher’s stance. The use of technology in education has been subject to high
expectations, but delivers far less and may not necessarily lead to the improvement of teaching and
learning quality (Cuban, 2001; OECD, 2015; Selwyn, 2014). According to Bayne (2015), there is a lack of
literature criticising the assumptions embedded with technological positivism. Selwyn (2010, 2014) noted
that the majority of studies attempted to present best practices of educational technology, and he
suggested researchers remain conscious of the current optimistic exploration led by funding. Researching
educational technology should avoid a recurring cycle of “hype, hope and disappointment” (Gouseti, 2010,
p. 352).
Embracing technological pessimism allows my study to rethink the role of technology in everyday
instructional practice. According to Gouseti (2010) and Selwyn (2011), technological pessimism
acknowledges progress and benefits that are brought about by the effective use of educational technology,
and recognises the historic and present limitations and constraints. Therefore, technological pessimism
allows for realistic suggestions and practical plans, rather than hyping-up or celebrating imagined
potential.
To present an analytic critique, my study holds a realist position through a technological pessimism lens.
This three-phase research (see Chapter 3) is designed to present science teachers’ perspectives on the
status quo around the current BYOD initiatives in NZ secondary schools and their own instructional design
practices.
Explanatory critique
An explanatory critique seeks a comprehensive inquiry and asks how the findings can be explained
(Livingstone, 2010, 2012), moving beyond technological determinism and recognising the social and
contextual nature of technology. Adapting the notions of perceived affordances and perceived constraints
to understand the teachers’ perceptions adds depth to the critique.
First, to move beyond technological determinism, educational technology is approached by focusing on

state-of-the-actual issues, instead of mixing reality with hope, beliefs, and values (Selwyn, 2010, 2014).
The influence of technology is often overemphasised, and such deterministic assumption regards social
progress as the result of technological development and innovation (Feenberg, 2002; M. L. Smith, 1994).
Researchers, including Bayne (2015) and Selwyn (2016), reported that some terms appear to be
38
enthusiastic and exaggerated, such as technology-enhanced learning and computer-supported

collaborative learning. These terms appear to contain certain sets of value preferences, expectations, and
deterministic assumptions. Studies accepting these terms are likely to focus on state-of-the-art issues
(Selwyn, 2010), implying that technology could be, should be and will be enhancing and supporting
learning. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) noted that such causality and promise can be easily taken
for granted. Selwyn (2014, 2016) was also critical that, because of the perspective of technological
determinism, many elements of teaching and learning have been missing in the studies of educational
technology.
Second, the explanatory critique values the social and contextual nature of technology (Feenberg, 2002;
Livingstone, 2010, 2012; Selwyn, 2012). There is a stance that sees technology—hardware, programs,
and platforms—as simply tools or instruments, and also considers teachers are dealing with digital toolkits
in BYOD environments. Such a stance treats technology as morally neutral until the application purpose
and outcomes are identified (N. F. Johnson, 2015). Li (2008) reminded researchers that it would be
dangerous to apply such instrumental rationality to approach technology in education, as it may lead to
false beliefs and misunderstanding. He also pointed out that instrumental rationality only focuses on “how
to achieve the goal with the tool,” rather than “whether to use the tool” (p. 57). Under the influence of
instrumental rationality, technology is supposed to ultimately lead to positive outcomes, excluding
technological pessimism and criticism.
Technology should thereby be associated with the existing social structures, since “we are shaped by
technology and then in turn we shape how technology is used” (N. F. Johnson, 2015, p. 15).
Contextualisation is important in understanding technology in education. Porras-Hernández and Salinas-
Amescua (2013) and Selwyn (2010) promoted a macro–meso–micro contextual structure, covering global,
national, community, school, and classroom environments. My study focuses on education and technology
at the micro level of individual science teachers, which is embedded with their meso and macro contexts.
A contextual account of technology and instructional design practice can place teachers at the centre of
analysis and recognise individual agency, which cannot be accomplished with deterministic perspectives
(Oliver, 2013). A context-rich analysis allows for understanding how current life and education has been
influenced by technology and how technology is used in the BYOD settings (Dinsmore, 2019; Facer &
Selwyn, 2013).
Third, my study adopts the notions of perceived affordances and perceived constraints to understand
teachers’ perceptions (Hutchby, 2001; Livingstone, 2010, 2012; Oliver, 2013). According to Gibson (1979),
affordance denotes that the meaning of things is “directly perceived” (p. 127) or “picked up” (p. 142) as a
result of the interaction between the environment and individual. Adopting these two notions helps my
study to avoid technological determinism assumptions (Hutchby, 2001).
To present an explanatory critique, my study relates science teachers’ instructional design practices, as
well as their perceived affordances and perceived constraints of BYOD environments, to complex
contexts. Chapter 1 of this thesis has outlined the macro–meso–micro contexts of the research. Findings
from teachers’ perspectives allow my study to develop further interpretation of the three-layer contexts.
39
Ideology critique
An ideology critique should further develop understanding and action by asking how things could be
otherwise (Livingstone, 2010, 2012). Selwyn (2010) argued that the proposal of the critical approach
towards the study of educational technology is embedded in a goal of “making educational technology
fairer as well as merely better or more ‘effective’” (p. 71). Drawing upon the critical approach, the
theoretical perspectives of my study take a step further in rethinking and reflecting on the relationship
between technology, education, and society.
The position of Livingstone (2010, 2012) and Selwyn (2010) was originally focused on the unequal power
relationship rooted in the social structure. Essential topics of ideology critique include social justice,
empowerment, and democracy in education. Ideology critique appears to share similar ideas with the
critical theory of education and technology (Kellner, 2003) because it encourages an open discussion on
the underlying issues behind BYOD initiatives, such as the digital divide (Feenberg, 2002, 2003;
Livingstone, 2010; UNESCO, 2018).
As mentioned earlier, these issues are beyond the scope of my study; yet, they are reflected in the
research context and could be involved in discussions. Therefore, my study includes a background
introduction to the industry of and political involvement in BYOD initiatives, with a focus on how the macro
contexts bring opportunities and challenges to BYOD classrooms. It also includes a reflection on fairness
in education (Spring, 2012)
Overall, these theoretical perspectives allow my study to describe the current state of BYOD
implementation and explore how science teachers perceive and use technology in teaching. This study
regards the micro context as the key research context, as it focuses on science teachers’ instructional
design practices for their own BYOD environments. Using the macro–meso–micro contextual structure
helps develop a context-rich interpretation of the research problem and understand how teachers
accommodate the complex context when carrying out their instructional design practices.
2.5.2 Visualising the conceptual framework

To better illustrate the interrelationship between the key conceptual components and contexts of the
present study, the conceptual framework is visualised and shown in Figure 8.
40
Perceived affordances and perceived constraints

Micro context: BYOD environments
Meso context
Macro context
ADDIE framework
TPACK framework
SAMR model
Teacher knowledge
Science teachers’
instructional design practice
Figure 8. Conceptual framework of the study.
The visualised conceptual framework captures the research problem of the present study—to explore and
understand science teachers’ instructional design practices for BYOD environments in NZ secondary
schools. It shows that the research primarily focuses on the micro context—the BYOD environments for
science teaching and learning—which can be approached through teachers’ perceived affordances and
perceived constraints. Additionally, the TPACK framework is employed to approach teacher knowledge
with respect to teaching science in a BYOD environment. Furthermore, teachers’ instructional designed
practices for BYOD environments are explored using both the ADDIE framework and the SAMR model,
with the consideration of teacher knowledge.
Using the macro–meso–micro contextual structure can help identify the contextual influence on teachers’
perceived affordances and constraints, teacher knowledge, and their instructional design practices. Since
the understanding of the micro context is influenced and informed by the meso and macro contexts, this
contextual structure allows for understanding how teachers make sense of their local and wider contexts.
The theoretical perspectives which are reflected throughout the study are presented as forms of analytic,
explanatory, and ideology critiques. An analytic critique investigates science teachers’ instructional design
practices for BYOD environments and how these have been occurring in NZ secondary schools through
teachers’ perspectives. An explanatory critique helps provide a context-rich analysis to explain the
research problem. Lastly, an ideology critique can be developed based on analytic and explanatory
critiques to reflect on the relationship between technology and education.
41
2.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented a literature review for the study. It first reviewed the concept of BYOD, which
was defined here as a model of technology provision where personal digital devices are brought to a
networked environment for educational purposes. It then discussed the definitions and perspectives of
perceived affordances and perceived constraints which helped my study to identify the kinds of potential
for action that can be enabled or hindered in a BYOD environment.
Second, the chapter reviewed teacher knowledge with respect to teaching science in a BYOD
environment, followed by a discussion of the TPACK framework. My study views the TPACK framework as
transformative, seeing TPACK as a unique body of knowledge. The theoretical perspective of the TPACK
framework is useful for my study to approach science teachers’ reflections on their teacher knowledge with
consideration of their situated contexts, as well as to understand what science teachers actually know
about teaching in a BYOD environment, and what kinds of teacher knowledge are important in this setting.
Third, the chapter presented a conceptual overview of instructional design practice, the ADDIE framework
and SAMR model. Using ADDIE’s five phases and Branch’s (2009) 21 common procedures helped me to
explore science teachers’ instructional design processes in a systematic manner. Adopting the SAMR
model allowed me to understand teachers’ reflections on their extent of technology use in education. In my
study, the model is considered to be supported by media theory, and it represents four modes of
technology use in education with a focus on task and technology.
Lastly, the chapter outlined the key theoretical perspectives throughout the study—analytic, explanatory
and ideology critiques. In this regard, my study has embraced technological pessimism, moved beyond
technological determinism, and recognised the social and contextual nature of technology, and reflected
on the macro and meso contextual influences as well as fairness in education. Moreover, the visualised
conceptual framework was presented by incorporating the key conceptual components, research contexts,
and three forms of critiques of the present study.
42
Chapter 3: Methods
3 Methods

This chapter explains and justifies the methods adopted in the present study. It begins with an introduction
to the methodology used, first by discussing its philosophical underpinnings and the three-phase
multimethod research design and then by addressing the trustworthiness issues. Subsequently, the
sampling approaches and procedures of data collection are described, followed by a discussion of the
ethical considerations. Lastly, the chapter closes with an explanation of the analytic strategies.
The study consisted of three phases: BYOD-related document analysis of schools nationwide (Phase 1),
an open-ended survey with a group of science teachers (Phase 2), and semi-structured interviews with
individual science teachers and experts in the field of NZ secondary science education (Phase 3).
Specifically, Phase 1 set out to explore the meso-level context of NZ secondary schools as well as the
current state of BYOD implementation in NZ. Document analysis (Bowen, 2009) was used to process and
understand the collected documents related to schools’ BYOD initiatives, which was an iterative process
combining elements of both summative content analysis and thematic analysis. Phases 2 and 3 were
used to investigate the micro-level context, where science teachers presented their views of daily teaching
and instructional design practices for their BYOD environments. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
was used to interpret both Phase 2 survey data and Phase 3 interview data. Coding and theme
development for data from the three phases employed a hybrid approach as proposed by Fereday and
Muir-Cochrane (2006).
3.2 Methodology
This study chose an experiential qualitative paradigm in order to validate and prioritise the perspectives
and experiences of teachers expressed in the data, and to provide a deep understanding of teachers’
perceptions of their instructional practices for their BYOD environments (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Through
three phases, the study was able to present an overview of the schools’ documents related to their BYOD
initiatives, and to depict science teachers’ perceptions of their practices and the BYOD initiatives. The
collected rich and in-depth data provide multiple perspectives for interpretation (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007).
3.2.1 Philosophical underpinnings of research

This qualitative research is informed by a realist ontology and an interpretive epistemology. Ontology is
the study of being, and questions of ontology are concerned with the nature of reality. The central
ontological assumption is about the existence of reality, that is, whether reality is viewed as an objective
nature that exists independent of and external to people, or whether reality is viewed as the outcome of
social constructions built upon the perceptions and actions of people (Bryman, 2012; Greener, 2011). The
realist position contends that objects exist independently from our knowledge of it. Realism also assumes
that a knowable world is comprehensible through research, which means that applying appropriate
research techniques can help develop understanding and access the truth (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Cohen
et al., 2007).
43
Chapter 3: Methods
Taking the realist position in this study means viewing the technology as well as the BYOD environments
and wider contexts as an external reality that exists regardless of our knowledge of it. Firstly, regarding
technology, this study embraces technological pessimism and moves beyond technological positivism and
determinism. Through this position, I consider that technology per se does not necessarily bring benefits
to education. I also avoid mixing reality with hope, beliefs, and values, and reject the deterministic
assumption that progress in education and society is the result of technology innovation (Feenberg, 2002;
Selwyn, 2014; M. L. Smith, 1994). Secondly, regarding BYOD environments and wider contexts, this study
provides an overview of the research context and a contextual account of technology and teachers’
instructional design practice. Realism takes the study into examining how the external forces, such as
macro and meso contextual factors, affect the phenomenon being investigated (McPhail & Lourie, 2017).
Through this position, I present a context-rich analysis to understand how teachers’ perspectives and
practices have been influenced and informed by their perceptions of external reality.
Additionally, epistemology, the study of knowledge, is generally concerned with questions such as: What is
acceptable or legitimate knowledge? How can we understand reality? How do we know what to trust or
which interpretation to trust? The interpretivist approach contends that knowledge is constructed by
people as they interpret their experiences of and in the world, so knowledge is grounded in experience
and it is subjective (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Greener, 2011). An interpretive study aims to gain
understanding by interpreting people’s perceptions as it views reality as made meaningful through their
knowledge and views of contexts, events and their practices. Therefore, the researcher’s task is to
understand the multiple constructions of knowledge and meaning by different participants (Lincoln,
Lynham, & Guba, 2018; Robson, 2011).
Taking the interpretive position, this study holds that teachers’ instructional design practices can be
understood and the subjective world of teachers’ personal experience can be captured, interpreted, and
explained (Bryman, 2012; Cohen et al., 2007). For example, the study contends that, using the same
technology, different teachers with personal prior knowledge and experience may perceive different
affordances and constraints, which inform their practices with technology. Methods, such as open-ended
survey and interview, allow me to acquire multiple perspectives. I attempted to understand teachers’ local
contexts and ask them to explain how they constructed their knowledge of technology and teaching, in
order to make sense of their perceptions of technology, BYOD environments, and their instructional design
practices.
Informed by a realist ontology and an interpretive epistemology, this qualitative study can develop a family
of answers to approach the research problem by covering several contingent local contexts and different
reflective participants. In bringing together this study, I acknowledged the existence and complex nature of
reality, and entered the field with a prior understanding of the research context. I also remained open to
new knowledge and perspectives throughout the study and continued to develop my understandings of
BYOD initiatives and teachers’ instructional design practices in a BYOD setting (Lincoln et al., 2018; Sobh
& Perry, 2006).
3.2.2 Three-phase multimethod research design

This qualitative research presents a three-phase multimethod research design. Table 5 displays an
44
Chapter 3: Methods
overview of the research design and the methods employed. This three-phase study design allowed for an
inquiry into the meso and micro contexts of the teacher participants so as to provide a context-rich
exploration.
Table 5
Research Design and Methods
Study Sample size
phase Source of data Analytic strategy Unit of analysis Planned Actual
1 Archival Document analysis Documents from a 347 schools 222 schools
documentation (Bowen, 2009) sample of schools
2 Open-ended Thematic analysis Science teachers Over 50 72
questionnaire (Braun & Clarke,
2006)
3 Semi- Thematic analysis Science teachers who Up to 10 12
structured (Braun & Clarke, participated in Phase 2
interview 2006)
Field experts Up to 5 3
Phase 1 aimed to provide insights into the schools’ BYOD-related documents as well as the current state
of the BYOD initiative in NZ. This phase involved a document analysis of 222 NZ secondary schools’
BYOD-related documents. As advocated by Coffey (2014), these documents are the outcomes of social
interactions and represented facts and reality. Thus, studying schools’ BYOD-related documents helped to
make sense of the policies of NZ secondary schools regarding their BYOD initiatives. After retrieving the
documents online, an iterative process with a combination of content analysis and thematic analysis was
carried out to interpret the data (Bowen, 2009).
Phase 2 aimed to present an overview of teachers’ BYOD environments, their engagement in PLD, and
their instructional design practices. An anonymous online open-ended survey was used to collect primary
data from 72 participants. A thematic analysis of Phase 2 data helped to investigate the meso and micro
contexts of the teacher participants. At the end of the survey, participants could choose to take part in the
Phase 3 interview or not.
The purpose of Phase 3 was to provide insights into each teacher’s instructional design practice,
perceptions of BYOD, teacher knowledge, and PLD. A total of 12 science teachers who had previously
participated in the Phase 2 survey agreed to attend a one-on-one semi-structured interview. Three experts
in the field of NZ secondary science education also attended interviews to offer expertise to the present
study. A thematic analysis was carried out to present the commonalities and differences among the
participants.
The analytic strategies for data from the three phases aimed primarily to present an analytic critique by
addressing “what’s really going on” and an explanatory critique by addressing “how can this be explained.”
In other words, the data analysis focused on presenting and explaining the current state related to
teachers’ instructional design practices for their BYOD environments. Furthermore, the data analysis
informed an ideology critique in the research discussion by addressing “how could things be otherwise”
(Livingstone, 2012, p. 19).
Overall, the three-phase multimethod research design has well represented a realist ontology and an
interpretive epistemology. Through Phase 1 document analysis, the study captured and presented a
45
Chapter 3: Methods
snapshot of the external reality, especially the meso context, including the status of BYOD adoption by NZ
secondary schools, schools’ device preferences, and the content of schools’ BYOD-related documents.
Through Phases 2 and 3, the study acquired multiple perspectives from different participants to develop
meaningful understandings of the BYOD initiatives and teachers’ instructional design practices. The
research design has enabled the study to focus on education and technology at the micro level of
individual teachers, which is embedded with and influenced by their meso and macro contexts.
3.2.3 Trustworthiness
To ensure the research quality, this qualitative study adopted the four constructs developed by Guba and
Lincoln (1989) as a set of trustworthiness guidelines. The four constructs are credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability. These constructs were able to deal in depth with four common quality
matters of research: truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality. According to Shenton (2004),
these constructs have won considerable favour in the field of qualitative research as they directly respond
to the positivists’ tradition on research validity and reliability through a constructivist position.
Credibility was used to address the quality issue of truth value, equivalent to internal validity in quantitative
inquiry. A phenomenon should be accurately described and interpreted to allow the participants to
acknowledge the truth in their own setting being reflected in the research (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). To attain
credibility, four tactics were employed. The first involved prolonged engagement and immersion (Shenton,
2004). Through Phase 1, I accessed and became familiar with the BYOD-related documents from NZ
secondary schools. This process allowed me to develop an early familiarity with the research context and
establish a general understanding of the schools’ BYOD initiatives. Second, addressing research ethics
helped provide opportunities for participants to respond freely. The self-administered questionnaire in
Phase 2 allowed participants to respond without any influences. Solutions to privacy and confidentiality
issues, such as using pseudonyms in Phase 3, allowed participants to freely express themselves. The
third tactic was member validation (Bryman, 2012; Tracy, 2013). Participants in Phase 3 interviews could
choose whether to receive the transcripts for verification and editing. Fourth, multiple methods allowed
triangulation. During the Phase 3 interviews, participants were able to clarify their Phase 2 survey
responses. Furthermore, multiple data collection methods brought different insights and helped develop
an appropriate and profound understanding of the research topic (Greener, 2011; Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña, 2014).
Transferability, as the second construct, is concerned with the applicability of the study, that is, whether
the findings apply to other comparable contexts, similar to external validity in the positivist tradition. As
advised by Guba and Lincoln (1989), a thick description could be a helpful strategy. Thus, this study
provided dense background information about the participants and the research setting. Comparisons and
judgements could thereby be made regarding the potential transferability of research findings to other
milieus (Bryman, 2012; Shenton, 2004). Rich descriptions will provide other researchers and readers
enough detail to determine how closely their own situations match and whether the findings of this study
could be applied to their own context.
Regarding the third construct, dependability, as a parallel to reliability, requires a transparency of research
(Greener, 2011), and addresses the quality issue of consistency. Dependability is contended to include
46
Chapter 3: Methods
thorough explanation of the employed research methods and their implementation. The decision-making
process of reaching conclusions is expected to be followed by readers and other researchers who could
thereby evaluate the accuracy of analysis (Shenton, 2004). Therefore, this study provides an in-depth
methodological description, including the details of research design, data collection methods, research
procedures, and analytic strategies. In addition, as a second strategy, a peer researcher was invited to
check the consistency and reliability of codes so as to ensure the coherence and quality of the data
analysis, which is explained in subsection 3.5.4. Lastly, following suggestions from Shenton (2004), the
overlapping methods were also employed to gather data from participants across the Phase 2 survey and
Phase 3 interview.
Confirmability, as the fourth construct, implies neutrality of the study, and it is equivalent to the concept of
objectivity in the positivist paradigm. This could be framed by reasonably minimising researcher bias, such
as personal values and preconceptions (Miles et al., 2014). Thus, at the beginning of the thesis, I
introduced my own background and admitted my personal perspectives on using technology in education.
This helped me to position myself and avoid personal bias (Shenton, 2004). Additionally, the code-
checking process by a peer researcher discussed previously was an important tactic to establish
confirmability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The data collection instruments, such as the online questionnaire
and interview protocols, are attached to this thesis (see Appendices A, B and C).
To summarise, this qualitative study employed a variety of tactics to strive for credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability in order to ensure trustworthiness. The study also acknowledges its
limitations, which are outlined in Chapter 7 (see section 7.5).
3.3 Data Collection
3.3.1 Phase 1
Phase 1 entailed a qualitative document analysis method (Bowen, 2009) to study NZ secondary schools’
documents related to their BYOD initiatives. The aim was to present the status of BYOD adoption by
schools and identify what kinds of documents were commonly included in schools’ BYOD policy. Phase 1
allowed me to develop a broad understand of the current BYOD initiatives. All collected documents were
sourced from the public domain and archived for the study. Therefore, no sampling technique was used as
there was no attempt to select a representative group or individuals in Phase 1.
Phase 1 procedure
Data in Phase 1 originated from the online documents related to BYOD initiatives of NZ secondary
schools. All documents were retrieved from each school website. To be more precise, firstly, in May 2015, I
accessed a list of secondary schools by downloading the School Directory from the Education Counts
website, an education statistics and information portal of the MoE (2015d). The School Directory listed 347
secondary schools across NZ at the time.
The data collection process took place from May to August 2015. Two criteria were applied to establish a
database with the acceptable documents. First, the online documents should relate to the schools’ BYOD
initiatives, for example, guidelines and regulations on technology use. Second, the online documents
should be accessible by the public. To search documents online, I firstly identified keywords related to
47
Chapter 3: Methods
BYOD, such as BYOD, BYOT, bring your own, digital, cyber, e-learning, device, modern, and blended. I
then used the keywords to search the websites of the 347 secondary schools. I also used the search
engine Google as a supplementary tool to collect school documents.
The gathered data revealed that, among the 347 schools, 222 schools have implemented BYOD initiatives
and 10 schools were in the early planning stage of implementation. Only four schools did not allow their
students to bring their devices to schools. The remaining 111 schools did not have any relevant online
information regarding BYOD initiatives. Thus, the list of those 222 schools with BYOD in place became
useful in the later Phase 2 sampling procedure.
3.3.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 sampling
In the Phase 2 online survey and Phase 3 interview, the target population was secondary science
teachers who had been teaching in a BYOD environment in NZ for at least two terms. The sample size in
Phase 2 was planned to be over 50 at the stage of research design, as shown in Table 5. A larger sample
was preferred as it would help increase research dependability and provide more analysable data (Cohen
et al., 2007). Seventy-two science teachers completed the Phase 2 online survey, in which they indicated
how they heard about the survey and expressed their willingness to participate in a follow-up Phase 3
interview.
A purposive sampling strategy was employed and carried out in two ways. Firstly, I used the approach of
school access to reach the target population. Findings from Phase 1 revealed 222 secondary schools with
BYOD in place. In October 2015, I emailed those 222 schools and sent them invitation letters, participant
information sheets (PISs) and consent forms for the school principals and boards of trustees (BOTs; see
Appendix D). Seven schools across NZ gave permission for school access. These schools could choose
to provide a list of email addresses of their science teachers so I could contact the teachers individually.
Alternatively, the schools could choose to circulate the survey website among their science teachers.
Through the approach of school access, 14 out of 72 (19%) science teachers responded to the survey
invitation.
Secondly, the invitation was announced in online newsgroups (see Appendix E). According to Hewson,
Yule, Laurent, and Vogel (2003), newsgroups should be constituted based on common interests and
subject. In this study, newsgroups refer to the online teachers’ communities as well as the discussion
groups within SNS such as VLN, Twitter and Google+. Since participants were approached directly and
they completed the survey anonymously and voluntarily, consent from the schools was thereby not
required. Through the online newsgroups approach, 58 out of 72 (81%) science teachers responded to the
survey invitation.
Phase 2 procedure
The survey in Phase 2 was an open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix A) delivered through
SurveyMonkey. Findings from Phase 2 presented an overview of the participants’ perspectives on their
BYOD environments, instructional design practices, and PLD. The questionnaire was designed and
developed based on research done by Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004) and M. K. Williams,
48
Chapter 3: Methods
Westzel, and Foulger (2010). A pilot study was carried out prior to the formal sampling procedure in order
to provide a chance to modify the proposed survey questions as well as the Phase 3 interview questions.
The 20-item questionnaire covered five areas: participants’ demographic information (Q1–Q6), the use of
digital devices by participants and their students (Q7 and Q8), participants’ perceived affordances and
constraints of their BYOD classrooms (Q9 and Q10), participants’ instructional design practices and their
self-reflection on their use of technology in education (Q11–Q13), and their PLD participation (Q14 and
Q15). The participants also had a chance to indicate whether they would like to access the research
findings and participate in a follow-up Phase 3 interview (Q16–Q20). The survey took up to 25 minutes to
complete.
3.3.3 Phase 3
Phase 3 sampling
Phase 3 included one-on-one semi-structured interviews with science teachers and experts in the field of
NZ secondary science education. As mentioned previously, after completing the Phase 2 survey,
participants could choose to participate in the Phase 3 interview and provide contact details. I emailed and
provided the volunteer participants with invitation letters, PISs, and consent forms (see Appendix F). The
sample size was expected to be up to 10, and 12 science teachers participated in the interviews.
I also identified a small number of experts in the field of NZ secondary science education through their
online profile pages that are published by NZ research institutes and LinkedIn. To be eligible to participate
in the expert interviews, they had to have at least 10 years of suitable experiences teaching, researching,
and/or consulting in the field. I then sent invitation letters, PISs, and consent forms to their published email
addresses (see Appendix G). The sample size was expected to be up to five, and I identified three experts
who subsequently attended the interviews. Through interviewing experts, I could draw on their expertise to
increase my knowledge of the study context as well as inform my understandings and data analysis of
interviews with teachers.
Phase 3 procedure
The interview method in Phase 3 was designed to provide insight into the intricacies of the instructional
design process from teachers’ perspectives. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes and was
conducted either face to face or online via Skype. The interviews were audio recorded with the consent of
participants. Afterwards, the recordings were transcribed and sent to participants who agreed for
verification and editing.
Prior to interviewing science teachers, I carried out two tasks: a review of the participants’ responses in
the Phase 2 survey and an introduction to visual elicitation. Firstly, I reviewed their survey responses and
highlighted some parts where I needed to ask the participants for further explanations during the interview.
Secondly, I employed visual elicitation as an interview technique by including visual material to stimulate a
response (Prosser, 2011). Specifically, the interview began by asking teachers to review and explain a
recent instructional design experience for a BYOD environment. In this case, they could use paper and
coloured pens to visually present how they designed a recent instruction through texts, drawings, and
diagrams, such as charts and maps. Regarding the online interview, teachers emailed a digital copy
49
Chapter 3: Methods
before the interview. Once the participants agreed to participate in Phase 3 interviews, they were informed
about the visual elicitation process so that they would have enough time to prepare themselves.
Participants could choose to undertake the visual elicitation prior to the interview or at the beginning of the
interview.
The purpose of the visual elicitation technique was to stimulate teachers’ participation and engagement,
and to help them attend more closely to their own experience (Prosser, 2011). Specifically, this technique
allowed participants to follow a certain structure and concentrate on certain topics in which they could
reconstruct their instructional design process and provide in-depth elucidation by relating to their visual
work and to their own experience. Furthermore, this technique helped me to avoid biases, as participants
presented their micro-level context which informed my interpretation and data analysis (Kearney & Hyle,
2004; Seidman, 2013).
The interview with teachers included 25 structured questions, categorised as five topics (see Appendix B).
The questions were designed and developed based on the research done by M. K. Williams et al. (2010)
and Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004). First, after visual elicitation, I asked the participants to talk
about their instructional design practices based on their visual work. This was to reconstruct their previous
teaching sessions. Second, I showed them their survey responses in Phase 2 and then asked them to
explain their perceived affordances and perceived constraints in relation to using technology in education.
The third topic was about teacher knowledge. Relating to their earlier visual work, participants discussed
how they dealt with technology, pedagogy, and science subject content in their instructional design
practices and teaching. Fourth, I invited them to talk about the PLD programmes organised by schools
and their personal PLD participation outside schools. Fifth, based on their survey responses in Phase 2, I
asked the participants to review their instructional design practices and reflect on their use of technology
in education using the SAMR model. I also asked clarifying and probing questions to address certain
issues in more depth.
Phase 3 also included interviews with experts. After receiving consent from experts, I emailed them a list
of 20 questions (see Appendix C) so they could be prepared prior to their interviews. The questions were
categorised into six topics: self-introduction, NZ secondary science education, the BYOD initiatives,
instructional design practices, teacher knowledge, and PLD. The experts were asked to choose and talk
more on any of these topics based on their specific field of expertise. Therefore, the interviews with
experts did not necessarily cover all listed questions. Additionally, I asked clarifying and probing questions
during the interviews.
Overall, this section has explained the sampling and data collection procedures in three study phases.
Through these chosen approaches, schools’ online BYOD-related documents and teacher participants
were accessible to the researcher. However, the data collection may have some limitations. In Phase 1,
not all schools with BYOD implementation can be included; some schools may not upload or update their
BYOD-related documents online. In Phases 2 and 3, participants volunteering to take part in the study
may already have a strong interest or opinion of the research topic. Additionally, the study approached
science teachers through school access and online newsgroups. Therefore, teachers who were not in the
schools with permission for school access and those who did not see the invitation on online newsgroups
would be unaware of the research recruitment.
50
Chapter 3: Methods
3.4 Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted after ethical approval was obtained (reference number 013436) by following the
Guiding Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants (University of Auckland Human
Participants Ethics Committee, 2013). This section outlines six of the ethical considerations of the present
study.
3.4.1 Free and informed consent

Consent required participants to comprehend the research and voluntarily agree to take part. The PIS
clearly indicated research information, including the researcher’s details, research purpose, methods,
expected benefits such as access to research findings, and the right to withdraw. The PIS also explained
ethical considerations, such as data storage, confidentiality, and anonymity.
In Phase 2, the first sampling approach requested school access. Principals and BOTs needed to agree
with the PIS and consent form before they allowed their teachers to be approached for the study. Teachers
had the freedom to decide whether or not to participate. Principals and BOTs were also asked to give
assurance that teachers’ participation, or non-participation, would not affect their standing in the school.
Participants in Phases 2 and 3 needed to give their own consent, on the consent forms provided, prior to
their participation. In Phase 2, the PIS was provided to all participants at the beginning of the online
survey. In Phase 3, the PIS and consent form were emailed to participants before scheduling the
interviews.
3.4.2 Privacy and confidentiality

For the participants, privacy helped to generate a safe environment (Robson, 2011). Therefore, the identify
of participants was kept confidential to the researcher.
In Phase 2, participants completed the questionnaire anonymously. SurveyMonkey’s track function was
disabled, so there was no IP address recorded which allowed confidentiality and anonymity (Hewson et
al., 2003). However, at the end of the survey, participants could indicate whether they wanted to access
the findings and/or participate in the Phase 3 interviews. If they provided contact details to the researcher,
then their identities and their responses were no longer anonymous.
In this case, all steps were taken to ensure confidentiality of the participants. Participants’ identities were
kept confidential to the researcher. Participants in Phase 3 could use pseudonyms for identification for
privacy and confidentiality. Schools were not named in any publication of results.
3.4.3 Participants’ right to withdraw

Participants had the right to withdraw their participation at any time without explanation. In Phase 2, they
could withdraw from the online survey at any time. In Phase 3 interviews, they could stop the recording
and/or withdraw from the interview at any time. Participants could also withdraw their data from the
research up to 1 month from the start of their participation, but this was not applicable to the questionnaire
due to its anonymous nature. In the case of the school access, schools could decline to involve their staff
in the research.
51
Chapter 3: Methods
3.4.4 Data storage, security, destruction, and retention

All data are stored for a period of 6 years from the start date in a research space at the university. All the
hard copies of data (such as interview notes and printed transcripts) are stored in a secure cabinet. All
consent forms are separately locked in another storage cabinet. Digital data (such as recordings and
digital transcripts) are stored in a password-protected computer.
All data were used for my doctoral research, and will also be used for future academic publications,
presentations, and other forms of research dissemination. The collected data may also be used to support
further research in this area. After 6 years, all digital and hard copy data will be permanently deleted and
shredded.
3.4.5 Social and cultural sensitivity

All eligible participants were treated equally, with dignity and respect, regardless of age, gender, or other
individual differences. Participants could choose not to disclose these kinds of information.
3.4.6 Access to results

The findings will be compiled as an anonymised summary report and sent to the participants who provided
contact details and also to the schools that gave permission for school access. Participants and schools
will be able to request access to the digital copy of this doctoral dissertation. In addition, those schools
could ask me, as the researcher, to deliver an oral presentation about the findings of this study.
3.5 Analytic Strategies
3.5.1 Phase 1 document analysis

Document analysis (Bowen, 2009) was employed as the analytic strategy to study the online documents
collected in Phase 1. Documents produced by schools could indicate their directions and implementation
plans for BYOD initiatives by outlining the pertinent strategies, visions, guidance, and action programmes.
A document analysis of schools’ BYOD-related documents, therefore, provided an opportunity to
understand the meso-level context, that is, the local community of schools nationwide (Coffey, 2014).
Document analysis was an iterative process combining elements of both content analysis and thematic
analysis (Bowen, 2009; Coffey, 2014). Content analysis entailed a first-pass review of the body of
documents so as to identify and extract the relevant and meaningful data. Data analysis in Phase 1
followed the summative approach to content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), which included coding
data and counting occurrences of pertinent content. The purpose of summative content analysis was to
quantify certain content in order to identify what kinds of documents were commonly included in the
schools’ BYOD policy, and to identify what issues were commonly addressed in the documents.
Summative content analysis was helpful to identify patterns in the data and to generate emerging themes
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
In the document analysis, another element of the iterative process was thematic analysis, in which coding
was reperformed and categories were constructed and organised (Bowen, 2009; Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Thematic analysis allowed a careful revisit and review of the identified pertinent qualitative data. It aimed
to recognise data patterns and present the common themes of the documents. Additionally, thematic
analysis here followed a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development
52
Chapter 3: Methods
proposed by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006), which is introduced in subsection 3.5.4.
Furthermore, document analysis of Phase 1 data used the four-dimension policy model developed by
Cooper, Fusarelli, and Randall (2004) as a conceptual framework to help review, synthesise, and interpret
the collected documents. While most policy analysis models are rooted in particular theories and focus on
exploring a certain policy’s aspects in depth, such as cost or equity, this model comprises four dimensions,
drawing from a variety of theoretical perspectives, models, and concepts permeating the field of
policymaking. The four dimensions are normative, structural, constituentive, and technical dimensions,
and are explained in section 4.4. Using the four-dimension policy model helps to address fragmented
information, conceptualise the document analysis, methodically capture and organise the common
themes, and better understand the BYOD-related documents through different lenses.
3.5.2 Phase 2 thematic analysis

In Phase 2, 72 science teachers completed the online open-ended survey which provided rich qualitative
data. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed as an analytic strategy to deal with the
survey data.
I followed three steps to approach the survey data. First, open-ended responses to each question were
treated as response segments. They were then broken into single-concept phrases as the single units.
Second, by focusing on the single units, I designated the full responses to the question as the coding units
or context units so as to retain the responses’ contextual features. In other words, some response
segments were assigned with multiple codes. Third, I reviewed and reorganised the coded data into
themes and categories. The application of categories yielded a qualitative description of data. The second
and third steps involved coding and theme development in the thematic analysis process, which is
explained in subsection 3.5.4.
In addition, I counted the frequencies and proportion of particular occurrences in relation to total
occurrences, which yielded a quantitative measure of the variables of interest. Even though a quantitative
description offers supplementary information, the Phase 2 study prioritises presentation of the qualitative
findings.
3.5.3 Phase 3 thematic analysis

In Phase 3, I carried out one-on-one semi-structured interviews with 12 science teachers and three
experts in the field of NZ secondary science education. With the consent of participants, all interviews
were audio recorded and then transcribed into text material. The transcripts were the primary data to be
read, coded, categorised, analysed, and interpreted thematically. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006) was used to interpret the qualitative data.
I followed three steps to approach the interview data. First, I extracted the participants’ standpoints from
the transcripts side-by-side. Each standpoint was a single-concept phrase and was seen as a single unit.
Second, by focusing on the extracted information from each transcript, I added marginal remarks in order
to relate the data to my research questions. Third, I performed cross-phase synthesis across all the
interview data. After attending to all the evidence, I reorganised the coded data into recurrent and
emerging themes which were then grouped into categories. The application of themes and categories then
53
Chapter 3: Methods
yielded a qualitative description of data. Subsection 3.5.4 explains the coding and theme development
process involved in the second and third steps. The cross-phase synthesis allowed me to make a
comparison of data from interviews with individual teacher and expert participants so as to explore their
commonalities and differences. Findings from expert interviews informed the understanding of the
research contexts and data analysis of teacher interviews. Phase 3 study prioritises presentation of the
findings from teacher interviews.
3.5.4 Coding and theme development

The analysis process was conducted using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software
(CAQDAS) tools, including Excel, OneNote, and NVivo. Table 6 presents how the CAQDAS tools were
used in the analysis of data from three phases.
Table 6
The Use of CAQDAS Tools in Data Analysis
Study CAQDAS tools
phase Excel OneNote NVivo
1 To count occurrences of To code and develop themes
pertinent content
2 To code and develop themes
3 To code and develop themes To reorganise themes and perform
cross-phase synthesis
Data analysis in this study employed a hybrid approach of coding and theme development (Fereday &
Muir-Cochrane, 2006), because the analytic strategies for data from three phases incorporated both the
data-driven inductive manner and the theory-guided deductive manner. Specifically, an inductive approach
was used to acknowledge, recognise, and encode content as the initial procedure before data synthesis
and interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Regarding the deductive approach, it generally involves a
temporary codebook or a template of provisional codes derived from theories or prior research (Bryman,
2012; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). However, the deductive approach in this study did not contain
such a provisional list of codes. Instead, data requiring deductive analysis were approached using certain
theoretical frameworks, for example, the four-dimensional policy model in Phase 1, perceived affordances
and perceived constraints through technological and pedagogical lenses in Phase 2, and the ADDIE
framework in Phase 3. These frameworks only included relatively macro dimensions and perspectives
rather than specific variables. Therefore, the deductive approach here used theoretical frameworks to
inform the names and designations of codes, themes, and categories.
Figure 9 presents an iterative and reflexive process of the hybrid approach, which included six stages of
data coding and theme development.
54
Chapter 3: Methods
Stage 1: Developing the code manual
Stage 2: Testing the reliability of codes
Stage 3: Summarising data and identifying initial themes
Stage 4: Applying template of codes and additional coding
Stage 5: Connecting the codes and identifying themes
Stage 6: Corroborating and legitimating coded themes

Figure 9. Stages of coding and theme development. From “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis:
A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development,” by J. Fereday and E.
Muir-Cochrane, 2006, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, p. 84. CC BY 2.0.
The first stage was to develop a code manual or template, as the tool to manage data and organise
segments of pertinent information. It began with data immersion by repeated reading of texts and listening
to the interview recording (Tracy, 2013). After the first-cycle coding, an initial list of codes with descriptions
emerged and was developed either inductively, based on research purposes and questions, or
deductively, being informed by the theoretical frameworks (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Miles et al.,
2014).
The second stage was to test the applicability of interim codes to the raw information. I invited a doctoral
researcher who was doing a qualitative study in educational technology to help check the consistency and
reliability of the codes in my study. She was asked to use the predefined codes from the first stage to code
several randomly selected documents that had been archived from each study phase. We compared the
results and discussed significant differences. The codes were refined and assessed again. This stage
concluded when no modifications were needed (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).
The third stage was to summarise data and identify initial themes. I reviewed raw data again and listed the
related research questions and all topics emerging from the dataset. I made a summary of findings by
outlining key points from the data. This process helped to provide evidence to address research questions
as well as to reveal unexpected issues that were not previously informed by the literature.
The fourth stage was to apply the provisional list of codes, which involved additional coding. After an initial
list of codes was created at the first stage, it was applied in encoding the remaining data. Extra codes
emerged and were added to the code list. The code names and definitions were refined when needed.
The fifth stage aimed to discover themes and patterns in the data by connecting codes. It was also
regarded as the second-cycle coding, meaning that the identified codes were assessed, organised,
synthesised, and categorised (Miles et al., 2014). This required a process of hierarchical coding where
several codes were clustered together systematically under a hierarchical category which made
55
Chapter 3: Methods
conceptual sense (Tracy, 2013).
Lastly, the previous stages were closely scrutinised so as to ensure the clustered themes and categories
satisfactorily represented the raw data and the codes. The data, codes, and themes were again carefully
reviewed and compared. When needed, themes were further clustered or restructured. The peer
researcher from the second stage was invited to help verify the proposed themes for finalisation. The
overarching themes were then finalised and succinct phrases were assigned to describe their
underpinning meaning and the common nature of the codes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).
3.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided a clear description of the methods adopted in the present qualitative study. The
methodology section first discussed the philosophical positions of a realist ontology and an interpretive
epistemology which underpinned the study. It then unfolded the three-phase multimethod research design
by presenting the three study phases: Phase 1 document analysis of 222 NZ schools’ BYOD-related
documents, Phase 2 open-ended survey with 72 science teachers, and Phase 3 semi-structured
interviews with 12 science teachers and three experts in the field of NZ secondary science education.
Trustworthiness issues were then addressed by discussing credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. The data collection section detailed the sampling approaches and research procedures of
the three phases. The subsequent section outlined and addressed six of the ethical concerns of the study.
The last section explained the document analysis for Phase 1 data and thematic analysis for Phases 2
and 3 data, and presented the hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme
development. Overall, the adopted methods allowed a rich and reliable interpretation of qualitative data.
The next three chapters respectively report findings from each study phase. In the findings presented, the
number and percentage of schools/participants are reported. The percentages are rounded to the nearest
integers, so the total may not always be exactly 100%.
56
Chapter 4: Findings from Study Phase 1
4 Findings from Study Phase 1

This chapter presents the findings from Phase 1 of the study—a document analysis on BYOD policies
across NZ secondary schools. It outlines the status of BYOD adoption by schools, and reports the schools’
device preferences. It then summarises the collated BYOD-related documents through normative,
structural, constituentive, and technical dimensions.
The data source for Phase 1 was the online documents related to each school’s BYOD initiatives. A list of
total 347 schools was retrieved from the School Directory (MoE, 2015d). Drawing from the data, findings
in Phase 1 have two aims: the first is to present the status of BYOD adoption by NZ secondary schools;
the second is to identify what kinds of documents were included in schools’ BYOD policy and what issues
were commonly addressed in the documents. The analysis of BYOD-related documents helps gain an
overall impression of how common BYOD policies are in NZ schools. Reviewing the schools’ BYOD-
related documents can help outline the overall status of the BYOD initiatives across NZ, which allows a
better understanding of the meso context of this research.
4.2 BYOD Adoption by NZ Secondary Schools

This section presents the status of BYOD adoption by NZ secondary schools, and reports schools’
positions regarding BYOD. It helps to provide an overview of the BYOD implementation in schools.
Based on the collected data, Table 7 presents the current status of BYOD adoption across NZ secondary
schools. After searching the websites of the listed 347 secondary schools, it was found that 222 schools
(64%) were implementing BYOD initiatives and 10 schools (3%) were planning to adopt BYOD initiatives
in the near future. Four schools (1%) clearly stated that no devices were permitted in school. Over a
quarter of schools (n=111, 32%) did not have any relevant information regarding BYOD initiatives online,
from which it cannot be concluded that the schools do or do not have BYOD initiatives in place.
Table 7
BYOD Adoption by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1
BYOD Decile Total
Adoption 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99a n %
Yes 3 13 16 23 20 39 26 26 32 21 3 222 64
No 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1
In progressb 2 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 10 3
Unknown 14 16 18 13 9 8 8 7 3 6 9 111 32
Total 21 30 35 36 30 50 37 34 35 27 12 347 100
Note. N = 347.
a
Decile 99 denotes that there is no published decile for the school. bIn progress refers to a stage of planning or
developing BYOD policies.
Furthermore, among the 222 BYOD schools, 44 schools (20%) have a compulsory policy, making BYOD a
requirement. Another five BYOD schools (2%) stated that they were considering introducing a similar
compulsory BYOD policy.
Table 8 compares the BYOD adoption rates between secondary schools with different decile ratings.
Among the 222 schools with BYOD implementation (BYOD schools), Decile 1 schools had the lowest
57
BYOD adoption rate at 14%, compared with other schools. Decile 6–10 schools had rather high BYOD
adoption rates, averaging 79%. Decile 9 schools had the highest BYOD adoption rates at 91%. According
to the findings, it seems that schools with higher decile ratings tend to have a higher BYOD adoption rate.
In other words, high decile schools’ students are more likely to access personal digital devices, leading to
a smaller gap in the digital divide between students attending those schools.
Table 8
BYOD Adoption Rate by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1
Decile
BYOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99a
Adoption (%) (n=21) (n=30) (n=35) (n=36) (n=30) (n=50) (n=37) (n=34) (n=35) (n=27) (n=12)
Yes 14 43 46 64 67 78 70 76 91 78 25
No 10 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
In progressb 10 0 3 0 3 6 5 3 0 0 0
Unknown 67 53 51 36 30 16 22 21 9 22 75
Note. N = 347.
a
Decile 99 denotes that there is no published decile for the school. bIn progress refers to a stage of planning or
developing BYOD policies.
The findings on the BYOD adoption rate from schools’ websites are echoed in the Digital Technologies in
NZ Schools 2014 Report (M. Johnson et al., 2014). Table 9 compares findings from both studies.
According to the report by M. Johnson et al. (2014), 96 secondary schools from a range of deciles and
geographic locations participated in a nationwide survey, and 76 had an ICT strategy plan for the
deployment of digital technologies. Both studies demonstrate that more than half of NZ secondary schools
had deployed BYOD initiatives as of 2015 and only a small number of schools took the opposite stance.
Table 9
Comparison of Findings Between the Two Studies
This study M. Johnson et al. (2014)a
BYOD Adoption n % (N=347) n % (n=76)
Yes 222 64 42 55
No 4 1 4 5
In progressb 10 3 28 37
Not interested — — 1 1
Undecided — — 1 1
Unknown 111 32 — —
Total 347 100 76 100
Note. The use of the dash ‘—’ in the table denotes that data were not obtained from the online documents or are not
reported in the database of M. Johnson et al. (2014).
a
Data were retrieved from the database of M. Johnson et al. (2014). Source: http://2020.org.nz/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Principals_28_01_15_final_with-value-labels.xlsx bIn progress refers to a stage of planning
or developing BYOD policies.
The major difference between the two studies is the percentage of schools that did not show their position
regarding BYOD. This is mainly because of the difference in research methods in the two studies. M.
Johnson et al. (2014) were able to directly approach the schools for data collection, but only online
documents were collected in this study. However, the online data collection could reach all schools’
websites and gather eligible documents as data, which helps to show a broader picture of the NZ context.
In conclusion, this section has reported the status of BYOD adoption by NZ secondary schools. It is noted
that not all schools declared their position regarding BYOD on their websites. According to the findings,
58
more than half of the schools in NZ adopted BYOD initiatives and only a small number of schools chose
not to, and this finding appears to be consistent with previous research. The findings also suggested that
schools with higher decile ratings have a higher BYOD adoption rate.
4.3 Device Preference by NZ Secondary Schools

This section introduces schools’ preferences regarding the types of digital devices that are used in their
classrooms. Among the 222 schools with BYOD in place, 149 schools (67%) did not designate particular
types of device but have recommended the minimum hardware specifications and/or system
requirements. Seventy-three schools (33%) have identified one or more types of device that are allowed to
be used at school, and two of them have chosen to provide iPads to students at no charge.
Drawing from the collected data, Table 10 compares device preferences obtained from those 73 BYOD
schools. It is apparent from the table that the Chromebook (45%), Windows laptop (42%), iPad (37%), and
MacBook (30%) are the most popular devices for a BYOD environment.
Table 10
Device Preference by NZ Secondary Schools from Document Data in Study Phase 1
Schoola
Preferred Device n % (n=73)
Chromebook 33 45
Windows laptop 31 42
iPad 27 37
MacBook 22 30
Android tablet 8 11
Mobile phone 3 4
a
According to the collected data, 73 schools have identified one or more types of device that are allowed to be brought
into and used in their schools.
4.4 BYOD-Related Documents of NZ Secondary School

This section reports findings from collected BYOD-related documents of NZ schools. It begins by
establishing how the documents were retrieved, reviewed, and categorised, followed by a discussion of
the BYOD-related documents using a four-dimensional policy model.
BYOD-related documents were retrieved from the websites of 222 schools with BYOD implementation and
the 10 schools with BYOD in the early planning stage of implementation. There were 837 documents
collected, comprising 262 website resources and 575 downloadable documents. The types of document
varied, including schools’ online public records and external files that were not prepared by schools but
shown on their websites as references.
After reviewing 837 documents, 39 types of documents were identified with each type being generally
distinct from others. It is worth noting that some types of documents share similar content; for example, in
some documents, Frequently Asked Questions may cover the content of Device Specifications. The 39
types of documents were reexamined with a focus on the broader patterns within the data. As a result,
seven overarching categories emerged: vision, enrolment, news, reports, general information about
BYOD, information on responsible use of technology in a BYOD environment, and technical instruction.
This section uses the four-dimensional policy model developed by Cooper et al. (2004) as the conceptual
59
framework to approach the BYOD-related documents, as mentioned in subsection 3.5.1. Specifically, first,
the normative dimension helps to present the evidence of beliefs, values, and ideologies on policymaking
and implementation. Second, the structural dimension provides an opportunity to gain insight into the role
and effects of national, regional, and local policymaking structures on shaping and mediating BYOD
policies. Third, the constituentive dimension helps to understand how the various interests and concerns
of different groups could be addressed through BYOD policies. Fourth, the technical dimension
incorporates the planning, practice, implementation, and evaluation of BYOD policies. This dimension is
useful in comprehending what may happen realistically with BYOD policy implementation. Table 11
presents a list of the documents along with the summaries of their content related to BYOD deployment. It
also indicates what lenses could be used to approach the documents through the four dimensions.
60
Table 11
Collated BYOD-Related Documents and Lenses of Analysis from Document Data in Study Phase 1
Documentation Dimension
Categories Document Summary of content Normative Structural Constituentive Technical
Vision NZ Curriculum Quotes and/or explains the vision of the NZ Curriculum • •
School plan/charter Outlines the school's strategic plan for the near future • • •
School digital plan Outlines the school's digital plan for the near future • • •
Enrolment Prospectus Details the school’s general information and introduces the • •
school's vision, mission, objectives, and e-learning/BYOD
programme
Enrolment pack Contains enrolment application forms and information, •
including e-learning/BYOD at the school
Student code of conduct Presents the Student Code of Conduct of the school, • •
contract including the responsible use of technologies and Internet
Stationery list Lists the required and suggested stationery, including •
personal digital devices for learning
61
Curriculum handbook Introduces the school's subjects and courses and indicates •
which courses require the use of personal digital devices
School life guideline Introduces the study and life at school, including the school's •
ICT/e-learning facility and support
Parents/caregivers Introduces the general information and education of the •
handbook school, such as e-Learning
News School newsletter Publishes school news, including updated information on • •
BYOD implementation and ongoing application in classroom
practices
Community newsletter Publishes news around the neighbourhood, including • • •
updated information on BYOD implementation of the
schools located in the community
Alumni newsletter Publishes school news, including updated information on • •
BYOD implementation and ongoing application in classroom
practices
Reports Managing national Reports the school's assessment practice, including the use • •
assessment report of digital technologies in learning and facilitating assessment
BOT minutes Records BOT meetings, including updates on BYOD • •
deployment and ongoing application in classroom practices
Research paper Research on the use of digital technologies at the school • •
Sabbatical report Research on the use of digital technologies at the school • •
Corporate report Reviews BYOD implementation and the partnership • •
between schools and technology provider
Article from Seeks supporting arguments for BYOD deployment and • •
periodical/website provides extra information around the use of digital
technologies in education
Workshop booklet Introduces a series of PLD workshops on BYOD • • •
BYOD: BYOD brochure Presents general information on BYOD • • •
General
62
information BYOD placement Offers student and parents/caregivers options on whether to • •

agreement be placed in a BYOD class or not
BYOD consultation survey Investigates perspectives on BYOD deployment from •
students and parents/caregivers
Frequently asked Answers the frequently asked questions about BYOD • •
questions deployment from students, parents, and teachers
ICT/e-learning guide Provides information on school's ICT/e-learning facility and • •
support, such as school-owned devices and network
infrastructure
Device specifications Lists the minimum specifications of personal digital devices • •
for a BYOD class
Presentation slide Provides the key content of BYOD Parent Information • •
Evening
Letter to Introduces the school's BYOD deployment and ongoing • •
parents/caregivers application in classroom practices
Sales flyer Promotes sales information on digital devices •
BYOD: Digital citizenship policy Guides students to understand and practice good digital • •
Information citizenship
on
responsible
Cyber safety agreement Guides students to use technologies and Internet in a safe • •
and responsible manner
use of
technology Responsible use Guides students to use technologies and Internet in a safe • •
agreement for students and responsible manner
Responsible use Guides parents/caregivers to facilitate students’ learning • •
agreement for students: with the responsible use of technologies and Internet
Parents/caregivers
declaration
Responsible use Guides staff to use technologies and Internet in a safe and • •
agreement for staff responsible manner
Netsafe20 documentation Provides educational kit and information on the safe and • •
responsible use of technologies and Internet
63
Technical Instruction for Explains how to use the specific program and platform • •
instruction programs/platforms
Wi-Fi Access instruction Explains how to set up a device for Wi-Fi access • •
Printing instruction Explains how to print from a personal digital device • •
Parent portal instruction Explains how to use the school intranet to access • •
information
20
Netsafe is a non-profit online safety organisation in New Zealand. See https://www.netsafe.org.nz
It is apparent from Table 11 that there are more BYOD-related documents with a constituentive dimension
than those with other dimensions. The reason may be that the schools have identified their target
audience for online information: usually current and prospective students, their parents/caregivers, and
staff. Documents posted online are used to address their demands and interests.
In contrast, only a few documents reflected the structural dimension. This is probably because the effects
of national, regional, and local policymaking structures have already been considered in the school
administration and BYOD deployment; additionally, students and parents are the online documents’ target
audience and their primary concerns will be more related to learning with technology, and device cost and
management, rather than the structural effects of BYOD policy.
The following four subsections present further findings from the collated BYOD-related documents using
the four dimensions.
4.4.1 Normative dimension

The normative dimension embodies how values and beliefs influence a school’s policy development.
According to the documents, such as school’s vision and strategic objectives informed by the NZC, 69 out
of 222 BYOD schools (31%) acknowledged that students are growing up in an ever-changing world, within
which technology has a major impact. For example, one school in Cambridge agreed that ICT today
brings many exciting opportunities for learning and communicating, and it exerts an influence on how to
acquire and use information.
Twenty schools (9%) also acknowledged the pivotal role of technology in students’ future life. For
example, a New Plymouth school’s vision statement stated that the BYOD initiative should grow into a
strategy that equips young learners with the necessary knowledge, capabilities, and experience to lead in
the forthcoming workplace where modern tools are commonly incorporated.
To achieve visions as above, 66 schools (30%) established a series of strategic objectives and made the
full implementation of BYOD their ultimate objective. These schools expected that, with full BYOD
implementation, all students could access technology for learning.
4.4.2 Structural dimension

The discussion of the structural dimension focuses on the role and effects of the national structure, which
appeared to drive and motivate schools to take advantage of the BYOD initiatives in order to address the
future needs of learning, including assessment.
The structural dimension was not frequently reflected by the collated online documents. It seems that only
one topic—the NCEA digital assessment—was closely related to the structural dimension. Twenty-one out
of 222 BYOD schools (9%) stated that the NCEA digital assessment would be a significant change over
the next few years, and they expected their students to be well prepared for such change. Furthermore,
according to NZQA (2015), NCEA exams will be completed online by the end of 2020, and from 2021, they
will make assessments available anywhere and anytime.
4.4.3 Constituentive dimension

The constituentive dimension explores how the current BYOD-related documents address the interests of
64
different stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, researchers, and technology providers.
Students and their learning were put in the primary position in many documents. The collated documents
from 57 out of 222 BYOD schools (26%) highlighted a number of potential educational benefits of
introducing technology into the classroom, such as student voice, student engagement and collaboration,
and 21st-century learning skills.
Documents, such as Frequently Asked Questions and Letter to Parents/Caregivers, addressed parents’
concerns about the issues raised by BYOD adoption, especially affordability and the digital divide. Most of
the solutions proposed by 41 schools (18%) were quite similar. They recommended parents choose
affordable and capable devices, purchase them from the recommended sellers with discounts, and set up
an instalment payment plan. They also claimed that students could borrow school-owned devices in class
as they endeavoured to ensure equal access to technology in all these 41 schools.
Teachers were also placed in a significant position in BYOD policies. Among the 222 BYOD schools, 75
schools (34%) included teachers’ PLD in their strategic plan to embed better teaching knowledge and
practice into BYOD implementation. There may have been more schools providing PLD opportunities for
teachers, which were not mentioned in the collated documents.
Additionally, documents from 19 schools (9%) cited the e-Learning and Implications for NZ Schools: A
Literature Review carried out by Wright (2010), as part of the research base and academic support for
their schools’ BYOD programmes. They used research findings to support and justify their decision
making on their BYOD adoption.
The last group of stakeholders is categorised as the technology providers in the areas of infrastructure,
hardware, programs, and platforms. The documents show that there are probably two layers of technology
providers in BYOD: the government-affiliated entities (such as N4L and the all-of-government contracted
suppliers like Cyclone) and the partnerships formed with local retailers and ICT companies on a more ad
hoc basis by schools. In general, they provide technical support and become cooperative partners with
schools. For example, in device sales, a lower price is usually exclusively arranged between the school
and electronics retailer and advertised to families. Documents from 155 schools (70%) covered
information related to technology providers and introduced schools’ preferences on device, programs, and
platforms. The collated documents also showed that schools tend to recommend free programs and
platforms to students.
4.4.4 Technical dimension

Viewing policy as a series of stages, the technical dimension here discusses two prominent emerging
policy stages that are reflected among the collected data: decision making and preparing BYOD policy,
and managing the learning environment.
Firstly, BYOD adoption requires leadership to develop visionary thinking, set direction, and carry out
strategic and thorough planning at the preliminary stage of the preparation and development. Table 12
shows the number of schools that introduced BYOD in different years, drawing from the collated
documents. According to the table, 71 out of 222 BYOD schools (32%) mentioned their history of BYOD
planning. The collated documents revealed that BYOD initiatives had been introduced by four schools
65
(2%) as early as 2011. Thirty-four schools (15%) deployed BYOD around 2014. This again suggests that
the BYOD initiative has been expanding around the country. Furthermore, documents from 21 schools
(9%) stated that they had a pilot scheme at the early stage of BYOD planning.
Table 12
Years of Schools' BYOD Adoption from Document Data in Study Phase 1
Year of BYOD adoption n % (n=222)
2011 4 2
2012 15 7
2013 16 7
2014 34 15
2015 1 0
2016 1 0
Unstated 151 68
Total 222 100
Secondly, the transition from the traditional teaching and learning environment to a new BYOD
environment inevitably brings challenges to schools and teachers. For example, the collated documents
reported that addressing students’ behaviours—such as accessing inappropriate materials and
cyberbullying—appear to be significant in managing a BYOD learning environment. Therefore, 148
schools (67%) have published contracts and agreements, such as Responsible Use of Technology
Policies and Digital Citizenship Agreements. Sixty-five schools (29%) also addressed these documents to
parents, encouraging them to take an active part in guiding students about Internet safety and responsible
use of technology. Thirty-six schools (16%) adopted the templates provided by Netsafe (2018). The
method of contracts and agreements was used by schools to attempt to regulate students’ use of
technology. Regarding the consequences of students’ misuse of technology and misconduct, schools
could respond in one or more ways depending on the seriousness of a particular breach of the use
agreement, such as discussing with the student, informing parents, limiting the student’s access to digital
devices and/or Internet, taking disciplinary action, and informing the police if illegal activities are involved.
Apart from contracts and agreements, documents from 42 schools (19%) showed that student behaviour
issues related to their use of technology could be addressed in various ways. For example, 24 schools
stated that students’ use of digital devices may differ from class to class and teacher to teacher, and
teachers normally make the final decision for devices used in the classroom. A school in Dunedin was
concerned that students were using the device during breaks, which might not always be for an
educational purpose. So, the school introduced “the conditional device-free Wednesday,” meaning that, on
every Wednesday, students could still use the device in class but were not allowed to use any digital
devices before school, at interval, or lunchtime, without permission. Thirteen schools had a similar policy
which is implemented on a daily basis, and one of the schools required students to put their personal
digital devices in lockers during break times. One school in Wellington, in their document, stated teachers
would “work with students to co-construct the way digital devices will be used,” giving students an
opportunity to discuss and negotiate with their teacher regarding the use of technology in class.
In conclusion, this section has provided an overview of the BYOD-related documents of NZ secondary
schools. Findings have identified what kinds of documents were included in the schools’ BYOD policy
online. The four-dimensional model has been used to organise and present the content of the BYOD-
66
related documents. It appears that many schools with BYOD in place had attempted to use the policies as
practical guidance for teachers and students. They were able to reflect on the wider contexts through their
policies, for example, the changing environment of society and technology, and the NCEA digital
assessment.
4.5 Chapter Summary

Based on the analysis of the public online documents on BYOD, this chapter has presented an overview
of the BYOD policies in NZ secondary schools. It has also provided the background to understand the
overall status of BYOD initiatives in NZ. Schools’ device preference has been identified as well.
The findings show that 222 out of 347 secondary schools (64%) have adopted BYOD initiatives, and the
BYOD initiatives have been widely and increasingly implemented across the country. There appears to be
a digital divide between schools of different decile ratings, suggesting the community’s SES factor may be
related to a school’s decision on BYOD adoption.
Apart from presenting the status of BYOD adoption by NZ secondary schools, the findings also provide
insight into the schools’ BYOD-related documents. The collated documents were organised into seven
overarching categories and 39 types. The findings, with the use of the four-dimension model, suggest that
many schools’ BYOD policies have reflected multiple contextual factors on macro, meso, and micro levels.
This can facilitate an understanding of the context of this study.
It should be noted that this study has shown only a snapshot of the policies, presenting a generalisation of
documentary evidence while unable to include narrative depth. Three possible limitations are
acknowledged: first, it may not include all schools with BYOD initiatives as it only analyses online
documents; second, online documents may not fully present a school’s BYOD policy if the information is
not updated or uploaded completely; third, the BYOD policy itself does not necessarily reflect the actual
practices of teaching and learning since the practitioners may not fully or strictly follow the policy’s
direction and guidance.
67

This chapter presents the findings from Phase 2—the online open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix A).
It begins by introducing participants’ backgrounds before reporting the findings in three sections: their
perceived BYOD environments, PLD opportunities, and instructional design practices. Findings could
provide insight into both meso and micro contexts concerning the participants’ BYOD schools as well as
their instructional design practices and use of technology in their classrooms.
Seventy-two secondary science teachers completed the survey. For quotations specific to the survey
participants, participant identification numbers are provided, and participants are referred to as
“T(number).” These identification numbers were generated from the online survey, and later matched with
interview participants in Phase 3. Two transcription conventions are used in presenting quotes from
participants: “…” represents the researcher’s elision, whereas “[ ]” represents the researcher’s clarification
on, or a comment about, the transcription.
The findings report the number of participants who commented on a particular issue. Due to the nature of
open-ended surveys, the remaining participants cannot simply be assumed to hold different positions or
be unaware of a specific issue. Furthermore, since the sample size is acknowledged as limited,
frequencies do not necessarily represent any pattern or reflect the significance of an issue. The findings
are likely to be indicative only and may not be generalisable to all schools or teachers.
5.2 Participants’ Backgrounds

This section presents findings from the participants’ responses to Q1–Q6 in relation to their demographic
information, as summarised in Table 13. Drawing from the information on age and education, the majority
of participants had a postgraduate qualification, and were aged over 30. Regarding teaching experience,
nearly half of the participants (n=33, 46%) had been teachers for at least 16 years. More than half (n=40,
56%) had at least 3 years’ BYOD teaching experience.
The findings here show that participants came from different backgrounds. However, due to the sample
size, the overall survey response data cannot be broken down into demographic groups of participants for
comparison or generalisation.
68
Table 13
Demographic Summary of the Teacher Participants in Study Phase 2
Demographic characteristics n % (n=72)
Gender
Female 47 65
Male 24 33
Prefer not to answer 1 1
Age range
25 and under 4 6
26–30 3 4
31–35 11 15
36–40 10 14
41–45 12 17
46–50 9 13
51 and over 22 31
Prefer not to answer 1 1
Highest level of education completeda
Level 7 17 24
Level 8 29 40
Level 9 19 26
Level 10 7 10
Teaching subject(s)b
Agriculture 3 4
Biology 33 46
Biotechnology 1 1
Chemistry 23 32
Earth and space science 4 6
Environmental science 1 1
General science 60 83
Horticulture 2 3
ICT and coding 2 3
Mathematics 3 4
Physics 14 19
Teaching experience (years)
Overall
0–5 15 21
6–10 16 22
11–15 8 11
16 and over 33 46
BYOD
0–2 32 44
3–4 26 36
5–6 11 15
7 and over 3 4
a
In NZ, bachelor’s degrees, graduate diplomas, and certificates are at Level 7; postgraduate diplomas and certificates,
and bachelor honours degrees are at Level 8; master’s degrees are at Level 9; and doctoral degrees are at Level 10
(NZQA, 2016). bThe majority of participants (n=61, 85%) indicated that they teach multiple subjects.
5.3 The BYOD Environment

This section reports findings from the participants’ responses to Q7 and Q8 regarding the use of digital
devices by teachers and students as well as their responses to Q9 and Q10 in relation to their perceived
affordances and perceived constraints of BYOD classrooms.
5.3.1 Digital devices

Participants were asked to indicate what types of digital devices they and their students used for teaching
69
and learning, as summarised in Table 14. It is apparent that apparent that laptops were the most common
devices adopted. However, 55 participants (76%) used multiple devices for teaching; 16 participants
(22%) said that they only used laptops, and one participant (1%) only used an iPad in class. Additionally,
according to 20 participants (28%), apart from commonly used personal digital devices, they also used
other types of devices in the classrooms. These devices are normally used for specific purposes in
teaching, and are owned and managed by schools. For example, they would use cameras, data loggers,
digital microscopes, and digital sensors for data collection and scientific inquiry. They also used projectors,
interactive whiteboards, and clickers for interaction and presentation.
Table 14
Types of Digital Devices Used by Participants and Their Students from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Self Their students
Type of digital devices n % (n=72) n % (n=72)
Laptop 71 99 71 99
Tablet 33 46 61 85
Mobile phone 20 28 43 60
Others 20 28 3 4
Note. The frequency (n) and the percentage (%) refer to the number and percentage out of 72 participants who gave
responses related to the corresponding types of devices used by them and their students.
Three participants explained their choice and use of digital devices for teaching. T54 and T58 did not
specify a particular device as they felt any types of technology adopted in class are useful to some
degree. T58 emphasised the size of the device: “any device with the size of an iPad mini or larger, but not
phones.” T70 stated that even though they used a laptop, they preferred “less technology use if possible.”
Regarding students’ use of devices, 63 participants (88%) indicated that their students used multiple
devices, but nine participants (13%) reported laptop use only. Six participants (8%) stated that students
can use any devices. Moreover, three participants (4%) mentioned that their students use other types of
devices for science learning, such as cameras, projectors, interactive whiteboards, digital microscopes,
digital sensors, and digital loggers.
Over half of the participants (n=43, 60%) reported that students used mobile phones for learning in class.
T64 mentioned that most of their students used mobile phones while some preferred tablets. According to
T22 and T63, students used mobile phones occasionally but were not generally encouraged to do so.
5.3.2 Perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment

Identifying the participants’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints helps in understanding their
decision making around instructional design practices for BYOD environments. As mentioned in the
literature review (see subsection 2.2.2), the identified perceived affordances and perceived constraints are
categorised through technological and pedagogical lenses in this study. Table 15 presents and describes
the five perceived affordances and five perceived constraints that were identified from the data.
70
Table 15
Perceived Affordances and Constraints through Technological and Pedagogical Lenses from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Lens
Perception Technological Pedagogical Description n % (n=72)
Affordance Access The BYOD environment allows teachers and students to access online information and 66 92
connect with others virtually. Technology can be easy to use and engage with. Students
with equal access to technology would have equal access to learning opportunities and
content.
Diversity of The BYOD environment allows teachers and students to use a wide range of devices, 40 56
devices, programs, programs, and platforms, which provides multiple options for teachers and students to
and platforms choose from.
Inquiry Learning in a BYOD environment facilitates students’ scientific inquiry as it affords 64 89
students more opportunities to use technology to study and carry out science
experiments, create resources and presentations, and collaborate with others.
Agency Learning in a BYOD environment promotes student agency as students tend to be more 14 19
willing to take responsibility for their learning, and they become more independent, self-
directed, and engaged learners.
71
Formative Teaching in a BYOD environment allows more opportunities for formative assessment 21 29
assessment as teachers can deliver tasks and activities online, monitor students’ learning progress,
and provide ongoing feedback.
Constraint Access The BYOD environment may hinder teaching and learning if students cannot access 11 15
technology.
Diversity of The BYOD environment may hinder teaching and learning since different types of 17 24
devices devices may have different technical limitations, which might bring compatibility issues
of programs.
Infrastructure and The BYOD environment may hinder teaching and learning if there is insufficient 12 17
technical support infrastructure and technical support, such as Internet connectivity, Wi-Fi coverage,
network stability and school computer provision.
Students’ use of Students’ use of technology may hinder teaching and learning if students misuse 43 60
technology technology, excessively rely on technology, and/or lack capability in using technology for
learning.
The changing The BYOD environment may pose challenges for teachers as they need to review and 4 6
role of teachers understand what roles they have as well as adapt themselves to the changes in class.
Note. The participants indicated multiple perceived affordances and constraints in the survey. The frequency (n) and the percentage (%) refer to the number and percentage out of
72 participants who gave responses related to the corresponding affordances and constraints.
Teachers’ perceived affordances

This part reports the two technological and three pedagogical affordances identified in this study. First,
technological affordances concern the attributes of technology which are perceived to provide the potential
to improve teaching and learning in a BYOD environment. These affordances are access, and the
diversity of devices, programs, and platforms. It is noted that both were also identified as perceived
technological constraints. Second, the three pedagogical affordances concern the pedagogical aspects of
delivery in the BYOD environment which are perceived to provide the potential to improve teaching and
learning, which includes inquiry, agency, and formative assessment.
Access
Drawing from the survey data, access (n=66, 92%) was found to have a threefold meaning: access to
information, ease of technology use, and equal access to learning opportunities and content. First, the
BYOD environment enables teachers and students to access information easily. Among the 66
participants, 47 stated that it is common for teachers and students to use the Internet to obtain and share
information, for example, the
asynchronous viewing of information, online and digital accumulation and analysis of data, off
brain memory, easier sharing, checking and recording of information. (T9)
ability for students to access notes and information instantly. (T10)
These participants considered that the use of technology provides immediate access to a large amount of
information. Teachers could explore and identify useful resources for their instructional design practices,
such as creating new tasks and activities. Students can seek, share, and download online information for
their inquiry. Moreover, according to T30, through social media and online communication, Internet access
makes it possible to connect and even collaborate with experts in the field of science around the world.
Second, access involves ease of technology use since it is easy for teachers and students to learn how to
use and interact with technology (n=15, 21%). Five participants (7%) considered that fast Internet speeds
and instant responses from user interfaces contribute to the ease of use. Ten participants (14%) agreed
that the ease of technology use appears to improve the efficiency of the teaching and learning process, for
example:
The devices are tools to support learning; they give the teacher and learning more options and
access to more information more easily. (T23)
Easy dissemination of instruction… easy monitoring of student work. (T40)
Easy to share documents/resources, comment on student work etc. Fast access to

information/researching. Students have access to the knowledge, and they just need skills in sift
and sort etc. (T71)
Furthermore, the ease of interacting with technology may facilitate students’ understanding of information
and concepts, for example, “interactive animations help students visualise difficult-to-see items” (T8).
Third, two participants (3%) asserted that students with equal access to technology would have equal
access to learning opportunities and content (T30 and T35). T30 believed that Internet access at school
72
might reduce the lack of equity that previously existed between students, arising from their unequal
opportunity to access information outside the classroom. T35 stated that “with technology, everyone can
access content.” However, it is noted that their views were based on a hypothesis that all students would
have equal access to technology in a classroom. Although not all students can afford to buy their own
devices, they may be able to access school computers. For example, T36 mentioned that their school is a
low-decile school, and many students are reliant on school computers.
Diversity of devices, programs, and platforms

Another perceived technological affordance is related to the wide range of devices, programs, and
platforms that can be used in a BYOD environment (n=40, 56%). Seven participants (10%) listed a variety
of devices used in class as their perceived affordances. Furthermore, different types of devices have their
own characteristics and applications in specific learning settings, and appear to allow diverse ways to
facilitate science teaching and learning. For example, 33 participants (46%) listed the programs and
platforms that support students in performing learning tasks or scientific inquiry, including:
Interactive quizzes and games, demonstration videos and PowerPoints, Google Docs for
presenting research, collecting evidence, presenting evidence, forums, reflection documents,
online assessment, Dropbox for submission of work. (T49)
Instant access to the Internet; research, quizzes, feedback, ease of reports (draft, redraft), ability
to graph (spreadsheets), make movies, integrate images, work collaboratively on a document or
PowerPoint etc.; hand in work digitally. (T63)
According to these 33 participants, they would use search engines, surveys, and photography for data
collection; use Excel, Word, and Google Docs for data processing; use cloud services for data storage
and collaborative work; and use animation, simulation, video and slides for presentation. They also
mentioned interactive activities, such as games and quizzes like Kahoot,21 as they believed these
activities could offer additional opportunities for teaching and learning.
Next are three perceived pedagogical affordances identified from the survey data: inquiry, agency, and
formative assessment.
Inquiry
Drawing from 64 participants’ responses (89%), students’ scientific inquiry could be promoted in a BYOD
environment since students have more opportunities to use technology to carry out science experiments,
create resources and presentations, and collaborate with others. Specifically, 21 out of 64 participants
agreed that, with the use of technology, students could carry out inquiry-based tasks by recording,
animating, and simulating science experiments, for example:
Filming experiments, self-directed learning, investigation, and group collaboration. (T41)
21
Kahoot is a game-based learning platform for multiple-choice quizzes. See https://kahoot.com/
73
They [digital devices] allow students to carry out their own research. They also allow students to
design more interesting ways to present their ideas than just completing a worksheet. It offers
choice so students can choose which task they want to do and when. (T58)
Furthermore, T34 and T69 believed that a BYOD environment may enable a stronger focus on learning
and skill development during scientific inquiry:
In my last school, it was good as they all had to have the same device so we could concentrate on
tasks and skills. (T34)
Access to interactive activities and content, animations, websites etc. can help students with
literacy issues and achieve science knowledge (takes away some of their issues with writing so
they can focus on the understanding). (T69)
Additionally, 19 out of 64 participants reported that technology affords more opportunities for creating
resources and presentations. For example, T2 stated that “students are able to produce presentations of
various kinds as a result of individual or group study.” T60 mentioned that students could deliver
“presentation by portfolio.” According to these 19 participants, teachers can demonstrate concepts and
models in different ways, such as through animation and simulation, so that students can visualise
concepts and understand better. Students can use technology to present their ideas and learning
outcomes in various formats, such as video and websites.
Sixteen out of 64 participants considered that learning in a BYOD environment affords more opportunities
for students to collaborate. For instance, T19 stated that “students can get engaged in more networking
and collaborative tasks.” T21 considered that technology could motivate the students to be creative with
communication and peer review during their inquiry process. As commented by T58, through collaboration
in scientific inquiry, students can learn from each other.
Student agency
Regarding the second perceived pedagogical affordance—student agency—14 participants (19%)
asserted that students are more willing to take control of their own learning, for example:
[Technology] gives a huge range of choices for students as to how they learn and share their
learning… they have more control and responsibility now. (T50)
They allow students to carry out their own research. They also allow students to design more
interesting ways to present their ideas than just completing a worksheet. It offers choice so
students can choose which task they want to do and when. (T58)
Five of 14 participants commented that students with greater agency tend to become more engaged and
confident in participating in classroom activities. As mentioned by T12, students seem to show “greater
interest and engagement.” Additionally, four of 14 participants reported that many students with greater
agency are able to look for resources for learning and choose learning strategies based on their identified
learning goals, and this is closely related to the idea of differentiation and personalised learning. For
students, using digital devices allows them “to learn in different ways” (T23) for their own needs and
interests. For teachers, using digital devices “allows for differentiation in a very effective way” (T69) and
74
“the differentiated tasks are easier to distribute for personalised learning” (T57).
Formative assessment
Formative assessment is the third perceived pedagogical affordance identified from the survey, which
means that teachers can deliver instructional activities online, monitor students’ learning progress, and
provide ongoing feedback (n=21, 29%), for example:
I can deliver more information to them about tasks and give more feedback. I can track which
students have completed work. (T44)
Quicker analysis of student understanding. (T66)
Specifically, 10 out of 21 participants reported that they delivered tasks and activities online so that
students could carry them out before or after class. These participants also suggested that teachers can
access online tasks completed by students. For example, T50 commented that, “through Google Docs,
students could easily share work with peers and teachers for feedback and feedforward.” Furthermore, T8,
T49 and T63 stated that some online activities, such as quizzes, allow students to carry out real-time self-
assessment anytime.
Eleven out of 21 participants agreed that teaching in a BYOD environment allows them to monitor the
learning progress better and provide timely feedback. For example, T12 reported that, during some
activities, teachers could approach better diagnostics via survey tools, such as Google Forms, to
understand the general learning progress of the whole class. T50 commented that, through online tasks
and feedback, parents could keep up to date with students’ progress.
Teachers’ perceived constraints

This part reports the four technological and two pedagogical constraints identified in this study. First,
technological constraints concern the attributes of technology which are perceived to negatively influence
teachers’ instructional design practices in BYOD environments. These constraints are access, the diversity
of devices, and infrastructure and technical support. As mentioned earlier, access and the diversity of
devices are also identified as perceived technological affordances. Second, pedagogical constraints
concern the pedagogical aspects of delivery in the BYOD environment and they are perceived to
negatively influence teachers’ instructional design practices, which include students’ use of technology,
and the changing role of teachers in this study.
It is noted that 23 participants (32%) did not report any perceived constraints in their BYOD environment.
Two participants explained:
Not really. They [the students] do get distracted at times and may play games. But this is not
really different than past students who just didn't complete the work as they were drawing or being
disruptive. (T58)
Not particularly, [there are] some off-task behaviours, but wasn't there always? (T63)
They reported that some issues, such as distractions and off-task behaviours, have always existed in the
classroom, so they would not consider those as emerging challenges in a BYOD environment.
75
Access
Access can be a constraint when students are unable to access technology (n=11, 15%), for example:
A few students are without devices / [with] flat devices / forgotten; finding it harder to deal with this
than a forgotten exercise book. (T12)
Yes, relying on the Internet or access to devices means that some students cannot do work if they
do not have device/Internet. (T20)
Yes. Not all students own or bring devices into school. The school has far too few devices and
computing facilities and the network often cannot cope with demand. (T56)
Drawing from the survey data, there are several possible reasons for access issues. First, students forget
to bring or charge their devices. Second, students cannot afford to buy devices or access the Internet at
home. Moreover, some schools may not be able to cope with the demand for device. As stated by T56
above, not all schools can provide enough devices to those with no access to technology. T34 shared
similar understanding and reported that “if they do not have devices at all, my program cannot be as
focused or provide continuity.”
Diversity of devices
According to 17 participants (24%), when their schools allow students to bring various types of devices to
the classroom, the diversity of devices may become a technological constraint in their classrooms.
Different devices may have different technical limitations and “varying levels of capability” (T17), and some
programs and platforms may not be fully compatible between devices. T51 provided an example: “when
doing escape velocity calculations, Excel is much easier than anything else, but less than 25% [of
students] have it on their devices.” Some devices may not be able to access particular programs and
platforms that are needed in class, for example, “Chromebooks can only run OneNote online, which has
limited capabilities, and sometimes MacBook doesn't do what is expected” (T37).
Moreover, displaying content can be an issue if the content cannot be presented properly due to screen
size, resolution, and content layout. As reported by T5, “many students just have smartphones which are a
difficult size to use for preparing presentations or spreadsheets or word processing.”
Infrastructure and technical support

Twelve participants (17%) perceived infrastructure and technical support as a constraint, for example:
Yes. Speed of the school system. Technical support. (T14)
The school has far too few devices and computing facilities and the network often cannot cope
with demand. (T56)
These 12 participants were not satisfied with the Internet speeds, Wi-Fi coverage and network stability.
Some schools may provide computers for students who do not bring their own devices to the classroom,
but the computers may not be sufficient in number or adequate in specifications, as mentioned by T56.
Further, technical support is not always responsive, and problems may not be addressed in a timely
manner.
76
The remainder of this part reports the two perceived pedagogical constraints identified from the survey
data: students’ use of technology, and the changing role of teachers.
Students’ use of technology

Forty-three of 72 participants (60%) reported that students’ use of technology may hinder teaching and
learning if students misuse technology, excessively rely on technology, and/or lack capability in using
technology for learning. Among these 43 participants, 31 stated that the misuse of devices and distraction
were common behaviour issues in a BYOD environment, for example:
Students are highly distracted by the ready access to information in particular social media. Many
have difficulty in managing their BYOD to focus on the learning goals for the lesson. (T16)
Lots of opportunity for distraction, social media, games, chat, etc. (T30)
Students may use their devices for off-task behaviours and non-educational purposes, such as “games
and messaging” (T20). Moreover, T70 reported “an upsurge in plagiarism” which is also within the scope
of misuse of technology, because information can be easily accessed and directly “copied and pasted” in
homework.
Additionally, 4 out of 43 participants were concerned that some students might “become too heavily reliant
on technology in learning” (T22). For example, T65 was concerned that students’ excessive use of
technology could undermine their handwriting skills.
Eight participants reported that some students lack capability in using technology for learning, for
example:
They are very good at their games, but not so good at using the device to support their learning—
they still need to be taught that. (T23)
Lack of familiarity of students with Internet searching, e.g., Google Docs, recording/storage tools.
(T26)
Yes, when a student's skills and understanding of digital literacy and appropriate usage are not
high. (T67)
The changing role of teachers

Four participants (6%) perceived the changing role of teachers as a pedagogical constraint. Drawing on
their responses, teaching in a BYOD environment requires them to address new changes to their role as a
teacher, but they found it challenging to adapt to the changes:
The devices do not replace good teaching and good pedagogy. Poor habits of teaching and/or
learning will not be cured by using a device. (T23)
As sometimes it does not allow the most effective learning of a certain topic or I am not sure on
what digital resources to best utilise for the learning goal. (T69)
According to T17 and T18, technology can be time-consuming to set up and get organised. The changing
role of teachers entails working with technology and developing resources effectively, as well as exploring
better approaches to teaching and managing students’ use of devices.
77
In summary, this section has reported that teacher participants and their students mostly used laptops in
class, followed by tablets, mobile phones, and other devices. It has also identified the perceived
affordances and perceived constraints of BYOD environments through technological and pedagogical
lenses, which helps in understanding how technology helps and hinders teachers in achieving teaching
and learning objectives. Through a technological lens, access (n=66, 92%), and the diversity of devices,
programs, and platforms (n=40, 56%) are the perceived affordances; access (n=11, 15%), the diversity of
devices (n=17, 24%), and infrastructure and technical support (n=12, 17%) are the perceived constraints.
Through a pedagogical lens, inquiry (n=64, 89%), agency (n=14, 19%), and formative assessment (n=21,
29%) are the perceived affordances; students’ use of technology (n=43, 60%), and the changing role of
teachers (n=4, 6%) are the perceived constraints. Additionally, participants are still learning through
experience. They generally agreed that the BYOD environment had brought new opportunities and
challenges for teaching and learning. Being aware of the technology used in class and the technology that
is available to be used in class would be essential for their instructional design practices.
5.4 Professional Learning and Development

This section presents findings from the participants’ responses to Q14 and Q15 in relation to the provided
PLD as well as their personal PLD. It helps to understand how teacher participants develop their
understanding and knowledge for teaching in a BYOD environment. Table 16 summarises the participants’
responses to the availability of provided and personal PLD. Drawing from the survey data, over half of the
participants (n=40, 56%) participated in both adequate provided and personal PLD.
Table 16
Summary of Provided and Personal PLD Availability from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Provided PLD Personal PLD
Availability of PLD n % (n=72) n % (n=72)
Adequate 55 76 52 72
Limited or inadequate 11 15 2 3
Not available 6 8 18 25
Among the 55 participants (76%) who had accessed to adequate provided PLD, one of them engaged in
limited personal PLD, and 14 of them did not take part in personal PLD. Among the 11 participants (15%)
who reported provided PLD being inadequate, eight participants reported that they engaged in many
personal PLD opportunities, one participant engaged in limited personal PLD, and two participants were
not involved in personal PLD. Additionally, among the six participants (8%) with no PLD provided, four of
them attended adequate personal PLD and two of them did not participate in any form of PLD.
5.4.1 Provided professional learning and development

Drawing from Table 16, six participants (8%) reported that there were no PLD opportunities provided to
support their teaching in a BYOD environment. But the majority of participants (n=66, 92%) had been
provided with PLD opportunities related to teaching in a BYOD environment, including school-based PLD
and sponsored external PLD. Table 17 summarises the provided PLD opportunities.
78
Table 17
Summary of Provided PLD Opportunities from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Provided PLD n % (n=72)
School-based PLD 46 64
Sponsored external PLD 15 21
Unspecifieda 5 7
a
Five participants (7%) did not specify the types of PLD opportunities that provided to them.
It should be noted that 11 out of 66 participants stated that the PLD opportunities provided were rather
limited or inadequate, for example:
Yes, but these have been limited and directed from above. (T35)
Limited PLD on programs and apps. Very limited time to actually sit with someone and use these
more. (T68)
School-based PLD
As shown in Table 17, 46 participants (64%) reported that their schools provided relevant PLD sessions
which were generally delivered in-house either by peer teachers or external providers. Twenty-six of them
stated that the PLD sessions were largely designed to address the teachers’ knowledge around
technology, that is, teaching teachers to know what types of technology should be used in class and how
to use it, for example:
Over the years we have had training in all sorts of things to do with BYOD: Google Sites, Kamar,
Moodle, etc. (T2)
Yes, direct teaching of some features of Office 365 including teacher dashboard, and instruction
on use of Moodle (now not used in our school). (T18)
Five participants criticised their schools’ sessions: they were insufficient or poorly organised, the topics
were usually too general, and the PLD sessions were not particularly relevant to their own needs. These
participants were concerned that a focus only on technological knowledge was not sufficient to prepare
them for teaching in a BYOD environment, for example:
Yes. They were too general, poorly run, and there were no useful tasks to practise with so that
you can improve your understanding in your own time. (T17)
Yes, but they have not been ideal—always for the lowest ability. (T20)
Yes, but I rarely take them up as I find they are not particularly relevant to my needs. (T54)
Three participants were pleased that their schools’ PLD sessions were relevant, covering topics such as
the SAMR model and the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy. They reported that
the relevance and quality of PLD allowed them to learn how to carry out instructional design practices for
the BYOD environment within their schools, for example:
Google Drive. Google Classroom. Lots of department time to develop plans around
implementation and curriculum design. Opportunities for time to learn how to use the Moodle
79
platform. Professional development around SAMR and SOLO in terms of how it relates to 21st-
century learning and curriculum design. Lots really. (T30)
Within those PLD sessions provided by schools, 12 participants reported that they were able to work with
and learn from other peer teachers. Three of them stated that their schools identify expert teachers and
have them trained to deliver PLD sessions. As reported by T6, this kind of “cascade model of training has
been helpful.” T13 had been working “as part of the Manaiakalani Programme” which allowed teachers to
connect with peers from other schools.
Sponsored external PLD

Fifteen participants (21%) reported that they attended PLD sessions outside schools. According to their
responses, schools, communities, or corporates may sponsor some kinds of external PLD opportunities
which include: school visits, PLD organised by universities, PLD organised by corporates, such as the
Google Apps for Education (GAFE) summit and Google Certified Innovator and Microsoft Certified
Educator training programmes, as well as professional conferences such as uLearn22 and the Digital
Horizon Conference.
Moreover, six participants mentioned that, with financial support from schools or community scholarships,
they had completed another academic qualification programme in education as in-service teachers, such
as a “postgraduate qualification in digital and collaborative learning” (T71).
5.4.2 Personal professional learning and development

As shown in Table 16, 54 participants (75%) reported that they had engaged in personal PLD related to
teaching in a BYOD environment. They tried different technologies, learnt online and from peers, studied
for a further academic programme, and attended conferences and online PLD, as summarised in Table
18. These personal PLD opportunities were not funded or run by schools.
Table 18
Summary of Personal PLD Opportunities from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Personal PLD n % (n=72)
Self-investigation 32 44
Collaboration with peer teachers 13 18
Academic programme 15 21
Conference and online PLD 10 14
However, 2 out of 54 participants stated that they had initially tried to engage in personal PLD, then
realised that they had little time for it. For example, T15 reported “I have spent a little time ‘playing’ but not
sufficient time to develop confidence.” Additionally, a quarter of participants (n=18, 25%) reported that they
did not engage in any personal PLD related to teaching in a BYOD environment.
Self-investigation
Thirty-two participants (44%) had carried out their online investigation into methods for applying
22
uLearn is an annual NZ education conference for teachers’ professional learning and development. See
https://www.core-ed.org/events/ulearn/
80
technology to their instructional design practices, for example:
I may noodle with things at home now and then, but mostly I use trial and error and stick with the
things I know already. (T6)
Experimented and used Moodle, Facebook, Quizlet, Kahoot, smart board as well as a few other
online resources. (T18)
They would use different programs and platforms so they could learn by trial and error. Five of them
indicated that they had learnt from other teachers’ experiences through social media like Twitter, YouTube
and blogs, for example:
Trial and error… [Learn] through YouTube and some teachers’ online posts. (T33)
Following Google Classroom bloggers. (T34)
Yes, bits and pieces. Use the Google site for info. YouTube is quite handy too for some things.
(T50)
Collaboration with peer teachers

Thirteen participants (18%) took the initiative to connect and collaborate with peer teachers. Eight of them
often communicated with peer teachers in their schools to exchange ideas about using technology in
teaching. For example, T4 reported that there is “experimentation amongst staff with different tools and
techniques.”
Additionally, six participants had been active in connecting virtually with peer teachers from NZ and
overseas. For example, T41 had been using “forums and Facebook to communicate with other teachers—
from NZ and overseas—about what they did in their classes.” Likewise, T59 had been “asking questions
to colleagues in other schools.” T24 stated that a platform called Tapped In23 had been particularly helpful
in the previous years.
Academic programme
Fifteen participants (21%) reported that they had funded themselves to complete postgraduate
programmes as in-service teachers. T30 commented that “completing postgraduate qualifications in
educational leadership helps me lead my department in change around BYOD.” Furthermore, nine of them
reported that they studied at the Mind Lab,24 and that the courses were related to e-learning, digital and
collaborative learning, and applied practice.
Conference and online PLD

Ten participants (14%) stated that they had independently sought other external PLD opportunities such
as professional conferences and online PLD programmes, for example:
23
Tapped In was an online workplace of an international community of education professionals from 1997 to 2013.
See https://tappedin.org/
24
The Mind Lab is a tertiary education organisation in NZ and provides postgraduate qualifications in education. See
https://themindlab.com/
81
GAFE was during the school holidays. (T6)
Yes, MOOCs [massive open online courses], Google courses, my PLN [personal learning
network] of other teachers. (T13)
Yes, doing an online course, teaching myself how to use Scratch so I can teach my junior ICT.
(T34)
I looked at some online tutorials and got some advice from some friends who were au fait with the
idea, and then I adapted what I had been shown and what I had looked at into something that
suited me. (T64)
According to these 10 participants, the online PLD programmes included online tutorials, MOOCs, and the
GAFE and Microsoft educator training programme.
In conclusion, this section has discussed how teachers developed their knowledge about teaching in a
BYOD environment through PLD opportunities provided by schools or sponsored externally, and through
personal PLD engagement. According to the survey, most participants (n=66, 92%) had accessed PLD
programmes organised by schools or sponsored by communities and corporates, but 11 participants found
them limited or inadequate. Three-quarters of participants (n=54, 75%) engaged in personal PLD to
develop knowledge based on their own needs. Over half of the participants (n=40, 56%) engaged in both
provided and personal PLD. PLD opportunities generally included in-house PLD sessions, online courses
and peer connections, academic qualifications, workshops, and conferences. Some PLD sessions only
focused on the use of technology and some were pedagogy based. Collaboration with and learning from
peer teachers was another approach for participants to develop their knowledge about teaching in a
BYOD environment.

This section presents findings from the participants’ responses to Q11–Q13 in relation to their instructional
design practices for the BYOD environment and self-reflection on the extent of their use of technology in
education.
5.5.1 Changes in instructional practices

Participants were asked whether they had changed the way they taught in a BYOD environment, and if so,
what were the changes. Table 19 summarises their responses.
Table 19
Changes in Instructional Practices for a BYOD Environment from Survey Data in Study Phase 2
Changes in instructional practices n % (n=72)
Yes 59 82
Setting up for a BYOD environment 28 39
Facilitating students’ use of technology 7 10
Promoting student agency 53 74
Promoting student inquiry 41 56
Strengthening formative assessment 21 29
No 11 15
Other comments 2 3
Eleven participants (15%) did not report any change in terms of their instructional design practices for the
82
BYOD environment. However, T8 and T35 explained that they only had experience working in a BYOD
environment, so they could not make a comparison. T35 considered technology as another tool and did
not change their practice.
Another two participants (3%) shared different views in the survey. T34 “had tried but now does less
teaching with technology” since their school was still establishing the necessary infrastructure. They had
to use paper copies, play fewer interactive games, and have fewer videos. T17 “found that it [technology]
was more of a hindrance than a help and changed back.”
Drawing from the remaining 59 participants’ responses (82%), the five most common changes were
identified: setting up for a BYOD environment, facilitating students’ use of technology, promoting student
agency, promoting student inquiry, and strengthening formative assessment. The remainder of this
subsection reports findings of these five common changes.
Setting up for a BYOD environment

As shown in Table 19, 28 participants (39%) reported that they prepared well for the BYOD setting. For
example, T6 changed the room layout in order to walk around and check on students, and to make it
easier for students to cluster together and work in groups. Additionally, 15 participants mentioned that they
tried to create an environment with less paper use. As remarked by T5, “there is a slow move away from
paper workbooks and things are happening.” T6 stated that “less stuff gets printed out and photocopied for
teachers.” T37, T44, T53, and T64 noted that since many learning resources including notes are delivered
online, their students no longer need to copy notes off board.
Moreover, two participants attempted to improve the clarity of instruction and timeline of instructional
activities when using technology (T36 and T49). T49 explained that:
Everything that is done using technology in a BYOD [environment] must be clearly structured and
all children need to know exactly what is expected of them and an appropriate timeline provided.
(T49)
Another two participants realised that teachers may need to use different technologies with junior and
senior students. According to T4, technology was used more frequently in junior classes. T47 mentioned
that “the delivery of materials particularly to senior classes is different,” probably because the seniors
would need to prepare for their NCEA assessments.
Facilitating students’ use of technology

Seven participants (10%) reported that, in a BYOD environment, they would need to help students use
technology effectively. As remarked by T12, this is because “our ‘digital natives’ are not all that skilled.”
Therefore, they encouraged students to work with an increasing use of technology, and they may have
needed to spend time teaching students how to use and what to do with technology in class. For example,
T6 stated that “I have found I need to teach things like how to use docs, how to use slides etc. So, I am
teaching less 'science' and more 'process' and ICT skills.” Likewise, T13 would guide the students to “find,
evaluate, and use the digital tools effectively to enhance their learning.”
83
Promoting student agency

Fifty-three participants (74%) reported they had attempted to promote student agency in a BYOD
environment, as they expected that students would take responsibility for their learning with technology.
Two of them adopted the flipped classroom as part of their instructional strategy, which means that there
are tasks assigned by the teacher to be completed before class (T9 and T32). They expected students to
engage with these tasks before coming to class.
Thirteen participants stated that they talk less in class, focus less on delivering content knowledge, and
encourage students to get more involved, for example:
Yes. I assign homework on a website; I do less talking, and students are allowed to go online and
check online for any confusions they have during the lesson. (T1)
Yes. Less “chalk and talk,” more student-paced work. More interactive. (T10)
Yes. It is more student-centred. There's more responsibility on the students to complete the work
and to learn themselves. There's less “chalk and talk” for the teacher and more relationship
building. (T42)
Additionally, 26 participants remarked that students’ learning in a BYOD environment seems to be more
independent and self-directed, for example:
Yes. More student-centred learning. With the use of devices, information is so much more
available. The use of technology has transformed group work and research. (T5)
More independent learning, more accountability for own learning. (T61)
Yes, my expectation is that students will now use their device to advance and create their own
unique learning pathway within the parameters of the lesson/topic. (T67)
T62 commented that students could spend more time on processing information rather than recording it,
but T20 noted that some students do not actually read or process information online; instead, they may
copy and paste it.
Four participants commented that students were now able to personalise their learning since they had
more freedom to choose relevant learning topics and activities. They encouraged students to exercise a
degree of control over their learning. For example, T58 would “give students more choice now over what
they need to complete and how it should be presented.” T48 allowed students to fail so that they could
review and reflect on their learning or use of technology.
Promoting student inquiry

Over half of the participants (n=41, 56%) reported that students’ inquiry-based learning could be promoted
in a BYOD environment. Students were able to access texts, images, videos, and interactive content like
games, and they would then need to evaluate the information relevant to their inquiry with a critical-
thinking mindset, for example:
84
Yes! I can make sure the work is available to the students for them to access anywhere, no book
required. Also, students can find the information from sources other than me, and once taught to
evaluate the sources, can find and evaluate tools to enhance their learning! (T13)
More time with students discovering that content, more inquiry-based learning, more learning
occurring outside of school time (for some classes) as the students continue to work on digital
projects started in class at home on their device. (T69)
Thirteen participants created more opportunities for students to collaborate with others for scientific
inquiry. For instance, T49 “preferred to have collaborative tasks using technology, such as forums and
shared Google Docs.”
Furthermore, five participants (7%) stated that they helped students to carry out inquiry with a critical-
thinking mindset by questioning and challenging them, for example:
Yes, my teaching has been changed significantly. I find I am in a facilitation type role a lot more
often… I find I am teaching with a bigger focus on critical thinking (distinguishing between fact and
opinion) and trying to get students to challenge the information they gather and query where it
comes from, rather than just accepting it as fact. (T23)
Likewise, T64 challenged students to look for more information about the scientific concepts under
discussion and then report them back to the class. T64 also encouraged students to understand the
content through investigation rather than just copying down the teacher’s words.
Strengthening formative assessment

Twenty-one participants (29%) reported that they had created more opportunities for formative
assessment. Many learning tasks are now delivered online, and students are usually required to submit
work online as well. The participants had explored different forms of assessments with the use of
technology, for example, T18 found it useful to “collect information via survey or online games for
formative assessment and feedback.”
Six participants also remarked that they could monitor individual learning easily and provide feedback
immediately, because some platforms, such as Kahoot quizzes, can give teachers the real-time
assessment data in class. For example, T51 stated “I provide more feedback to students than I used to
because it is so easy, and they can quickly respond to.” According to these participants, they could
identify, in a timely manner, those who were struggling. T40 reported that they can “spend more time
giving feedforward and explaining to individual students and groups.”
5.5.2 Reflecting on the use of technology in education

Participants were invited to use the SAMR model to reflect on their use of technology in teaching. They
were also asked to review whether it had been possible for them to use technology to its best advantage
for teaching and learning.
Reflection using the SAMR model

In the survey, participants were asked to choose a mode of SAMR model that most closely reflected their
use of technology in teaching. Table 20 summarises their responses.
85
Table 20
Reflecting on the Use of Technology in Education Using SAMR Model in Study Phase 2
The extent of the use of technology in education n % (n=72)
Substitution 3 4
Augmentation 10 14
Modification 25 35
Redefinition 30 42
None of the above 4 6
Substitution
As shown in Table 20, three participants (4%) chose substitution in the survey. Instead of reflecting on how
they used technology in education, these participants explained why their use of technology brought no
functional change in their classrooms:
Have not had the technology available to carry out other three aspects of SAMR. I have not
received any training & support in how to use technology in these ways. (T16)
After experimenting with new ways of doing things, I found the traditional ways were quicker and
more effective. (T17)
Lack of quality PD explaining, showing, and convincing me that there is anything that can be done
on BYOD that is not better done on paper and pen! (T70)
T16 and T70 felt there had been a lack of quality PLD provided and they had inadequate knowledge about
using technology in education. T17 and T70 were not yet convinced that there were more advantages in
learning with technology than learning with pen and paper.
Augmentation
Ten participants (14%) chose augmentation in the survey. They generally agreed that technology acts as a
tool that substitutes with functional improvement and facilitates teaching and learning to some extent, for
example:
I can send them a link with a video to my own explanations that adds to the work that students
already do. This is an example of some changes [in teaching and learning]. I think redefinition
requires a lot of forward planning and sometimes takes up too much time to achieve. (T20)
It [technology] acts as a tool which helps students to facilitate their learning in understanding, and
allows students to improve their research and thinking. (T72)
However, three participants did not comment much on how they used technology in education; instead,
they explained why they did not choose modification or redefinition in the survey. Specifically, they felt
their use of technology was limited by their current level of knowledge and skills, for example:
This would reflect my level of skills when using technology. Although we have had some
professional development regarding different ways to work online collaboratively, I have not had
the time to attempt it with my classes. I also have yet to see the benefits and best practice of
technology used in the classroom. (T15)
86
Still learning the capabilities of the technology—it is also proceeding at a rate that is making it
difficult to keep up with. (T68)
T15 appeared to be not yet convinced that technology could make a significance change in teaching and
learning. Likewise, T31 did “not feel that it has changed my curriculum delivery much.”
Additionally, two participants perceived that some constraints of the BYOD environments have not yet
been adequately addressed, for example:
For ease of planning. But some students do not have devices, or their devices are not compatible
with the tools used. Often more problems stemming from the use of technology complicate the
task and students are left confused and frustrated. E.g., blogging—students forgot passwords,
passwords couldn’t be reset, blog posts wouldn’t publish, glitches meant work was lost. (T46)
Modification
Twenty-five participants (35%) chose modification in the survey. Nine of them reported that they tried to
use technology to significantly redesign learning tasks, for example:
Each class runs a blog site. Kahoot quiz instead of paper quiz gives more engagement. (T39)
Students use devices during dissections to capture images and video that they can then use in
their report writing and submit on Google Drive. (T52)
Drawing from the excerpts, students were able to carry out scientific inquiry and showcase their learning in
ways that incorporate new opportunities brought by technology. The participants expected to use
technology to bring significant changes in students’ learning, for example:
I didn't want to just substitute—since that's not really using devices effectively. I want to change
the way how students learn, and hope that it would be more effective to modify tasks so that
students can use different resources available to them to learn in different ways. (T42)
Furthermore, two participants stated that their redesigned learning tasks using technology could make
science learning more relevant and prepare students for future workplace:
Often use of technology is required in workplaces and this prepares students for that environment.
Collating information from some programs can be automatic. Students enjoy using some aspects
of technology and may find it more engaging than traditional classroom materials. Some uses
increase accuracy of information collection in science experiments. (T18)
I feel I am at the stage of modification, but not yet at the redefinition level. I want my students to
find learning relevant, in the real world. I do not want them to feel that when they come to school,
they are disconnected from the rest of the world. (T23)
Three participants reported that the redesigned learning tasks using technology helped increase student
agency, because students in a BYOD classroom “have more ownership of their learning” (T59). T11 would
“direct the students where to find information rather than explicitly teaching them, and encourage students
to learn at their own pace and to their own level.”
87
Moreover, seven participants did not comment much on their use of technology in teaching; instead, they
explained why they did not choose redefinition in the survey, for example:
Currently not enough infrastructure or devices to make redefinition possible in my current school.
(T13)
Redefinition would be great, but it is hard to accomplish after only three years of teaching in this
environment. (T58)
T30, among the seven participants, remarked on what redefinition requires, and what they and peer
teachers had done to reach modification:
Redefinition requires that the activities/learning be historically inconceivable including accessing

knowledge/expertise that was previously unavailable to the average student.
Most of what we [colleagues and I] currently offer around course design and learning could have
been offered previously without BYOD, but would have been much more challenging to
implement. We have made significant task redesign in terms of how students access information,
activity type, and how they present their ideas and also in the ways in which students find context
with their learning.
As a department, we are currently looking at where the next big step forward lies in order to reach
redefinition and have plans in place for further development over the next five years. (T30)
Redefinition
Thirty participants (42%) chose redefinition in the survey. Sixteen of them explained that, in their
instructional design practices, they believed that they were using technology to create new tasks that were
previously inconceivable, for example:
I use Google Sites and Quizlet25 for new activities, and even students can create on their own.
Students also use their devices and various programs/packages to do presentations to the rest of
the class—filming etc. (T2)
I like to work with a split class now. Technology allows class to work independently and with a
wide variety of learning styles. They can search and even create resources like audio and video in
class. It [the use of technology] is good for building their learning portfolio. (T36)
Ten participants stated that the use of technology allowed them to create more collaborative tasks for
students, for example:
I get students to create [learning materials] collaboratively when possible so they can recognise
that we all have knowledge that we can use and share. (T7)
I use Google Drive for a lot of collaboration work with students in junior science. (T65)
However, T27 expressed concern about collaborative tasks in a BYOD classroom because “collaboration
seems to only work with a top stream class, and then only on a good day. Many students just get a free
25
Quizlet is learning platform that incorporates learning tools and games. See https://quizlet.com/
88
ride.”
It should be noted that two of the 30 participants, even though they chose redefinition in the survey, stated
that substitution, augmentation, and modification could also be used to reflect on their practices to some
extent:
I use all of the above modes [SAMR] depending on the tasks… I use the technology as a tool just
like pen and paper. At our school, we are beyond seeing BYOD as an end. It is a means to an
end. (T7)
I do all of the above [SAMR]. However, I see no point using technology as a substitute alone. I
also don't use technology 100% of the time. I use a range of different media in the classroom and
like to explore new ways of engaging students, delivering content, students collaborating, and
sharing back. (T37)
Other comments on the SAMR model

Four participants (6%) did not choose any mode from the SAMR model in the survey. Instead, they
pointed out the limitations of the model and reflected their perceptions, for example:
At times I am at one level and at others I am at a different level of the SAMR model. I couldn't
honestly say that I am most closely at this or that level. Also, something that I see as substitution,
others might see as redefinition.
For example, it is easier to work collaboratively using a cloud-based document, but it isn’t a
change in the task per se. Being able to video an experiment and upload it to YouTube with a
class member providing the voice over explaining—it would be a redesign as well. Is it
redefinition? I don't know exactly. It is a different outcome for the task than writing it up in the
notebooks, but it is essentially the same task. There is stuff that easier for me to do with a BYOD
class – and we are still exploring the different approaches.
I would contend that the SAMR model is a bit limited in its scope and that there should be a better
way of measuring/assessing digital content. (T6)
These four participants did not believe that any mode of the SAMR model could accurately summarise
their current practices.
Reflection on the use of technology to its best advantage

Participants were invited to reflect on whether it had been possible for them to use technology to its best
advantage for teaching and learning. Table 21 summarises their responses.
Table 21
Reflection on the Use of Technology to its Best Advantage in Study Phase 2
Using technology to its best advantage n % (n=72)
Yes 25 35
Mostly possible 12 17
No 35 49
As can be seen in Table 21, 25 participants (35%) indicated “yes” in their responses. Ten of them
89
considered a stable and reliable infrastructure, enough devices, and technical support in place as being
particularly essential to a BYOD environment. Since their schools were able to provide such an
environment, they felt that they were able to use technology to its best advantage, for example:
Yes. Our Wi-Fi is robust, and all students have devices. (T53)
Yes. Being in a teaching and learning environment that is fully digitalised, you become immersed
in it and realise the powerful nature of the digital world for learning. Learning can be deeper,
broader, and more meaningful and authentic for students in an online digital environment. (T50)
Nine participants believed that their improved teacher knowledge and schools’ PLD support helped them
to use technology to its best advantage. For example, T25 appreciated their school being “at the forefront
of trialling new technology and providing the supporting culture for teachers to challenge themselves.”
Additionally, 12 participants (17%) reported that it was mostly possible for them to use technology to its
best advantage. They also agreed that there were still areas for future improvement. Five of them
acknowledged that they did not fully understand how technology could be used to its best advantage, and
they needed guidance and time, for example:
Mostly. There is still so much capability I am not yet harnessing as I don't know what I don't know.
(T10)
I feel that we [teachers at the school] are very close to making the final step towards taking full
advantage of what devices offer our students. The final step (towards redefinition) is massive in
terms of pedagogical and teacher mindset change and I doubt that many schools have yet
managed this leap forward. (T30)
Largely yes. I would like more time myself to explore and up skill on my own technology use to be
able to share with students. I know there is some much out there and it would be great to have
time to explore. (T37)
Three of 12 participants commented that they were not yet using technology to its best advantage,
because some students used technology inappropriately or reluctantly:
Mostly. The problem is the distractions from mobile devices. Children are cultured into using
devices in a distracted fashion and so it is particularly difficult to recalibrate. (T4)
I think technology enhances how I teach in the classroom. However, students are reluctant to
make use of technology for learning so I think at present it is not used to its best advantage for
learning. (T15)
Almost—not every student uses or prefers a device, but getting there. (T71)
Finally, near half of the participants (n=35, 49%) did not agree that it had been possible for them to use
technology to its best advantage for teaching and learning, for example:
No. BYOD is not compulsory, so it is impossible to design and/or plan lessons that require all
users to have a device. Students are not especially good at using technology other than the
90
Internet and the school has too few devices, e.g., netbooks to confidently plan ICT-based
activities. The network is also unreliable. (T56)
No. If I had more time to collaborate with my colleagues, I can come up with way better strategies
to implement in my classroom. I am only starting to understand the pedagogy behind these
methods as they are a bit alien to me, so just in the same way my students collaborate and
communicate with each other to learn from each other, I would like to do so with my colleagues.
(T57)
Drawing from the 35 participants’ responses in this category, there are four reasons that they indicated
“no” in their responses: a lack of access to devices and technical support, compatibility issues due to the
diversify of device, students’ inappropriate use of devices, and a lack of PLD support. It is apparent that
these factors are related to participants’ perceived constraints (see subsection 5.3.2) and their teacher
knowledge on teaching with technology.
In conclusion, this section has identified the five most common changes that 59 participants (82%) have
made in a BYOD environment: setting up for a BYOD environment (n=28, 39%), facilitating students’ use
of technology (n=7, 10%), promoting student agency (n=53, 74%), promoting student inquiry (n=41, 56%),
and strengthening formative assessment (n=21, 29%). However, 11 participants (18%) did not make
specific changes, and two participants (3%) did not consider that the use of technology could facilitate
their current practices.
This section has also presented participants’ self-reflection on their use of technology in education. Using
the SAMR model, the majority of participants indicated that redefinition (n=30, 42%) and modification
(n=25, 35%) can closely reflect their current practices, followed by augmentation (n=10, 14%) and
substitution (n=3, 4%). Four participants (6%) challenged the SAMR model and did not choose any mode
from the SAMR model in the survey. Additionally, 25 participants (35%) reported that they had used
technology to its best advantage for teaching and learning, 12 participants (17%) considered that it was
mostly possible. The remaining 35 participants did not believe that they had used technology to its best
advantage.
5.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the findings from the open-ended online survey in Phase 2. Three sections
dealing with the findings of the survey have been presented. The first was about the digital devices that
are used in the BYOD environment, and the participants’ perceptions of affordances and constraints in
BYOD classrooms. The second outlined the PLD opportunities provided to participants and their personal
engagement with PLD. The last section of findings identified five changes in participants’ instructional
design practices for the BYOD environment and their self-reflection on their use of technology in
education.
In general, many participants showed a combination of willingness and caution when adopting technology
in science teaching and learning. Perceived affordances and perceived constraints appeared to inform
their focus on PLD engagement as well as their instructional design practices. They also acknowledged
how technology had been used in their BYOD environment and how well technology had been used to
91
address teaching and learning needs. Many of them valued the involvement of schools in supporting
BYOD implementation and developing teachers’ knowledge and instructional design practices.
Findings from the survey data in Phase 2 have provided an opportunity to understand how the participants
perceived their BYOD environments and received PLD support for teaching with technology as well as
how they reviewed their instructional design practices. It should be noted that, due to the nature of the
open-ended survey and the number of participants involved, findings from participants’ responses are
likely to be indicative only. Findings may not necessarily reflect practice in reality or be generalisable to all
schools or teachers. Additionally, the participants were science teachers who chose to participate in a
survey on BYOD, thus this voluntary response sample may overrepresent teachers who have strong
opinions of BYOD.
92

This chapter presents the findings from Phase 3—the one-on-one semi-structured interviews. It begins by
introducing the participants’ backgrounds before presenting the findings in three sections: contextualising
the BYOD environment, PLD and teacher knowledge, and teachers’ instructional design practices.
In Phase 3, qualitative data were collected from interviews with three experts in the field of NZ secondary
science education and 12 science teachers who participated in the Phase 2 survey (see Appendices B
and C). Findings from the expert interviews are included to draw on their expertise so as to enrich
understanding of the wider contexts as well as inform and develop the analysis of the teachers' interview
data. Findings are primarily based on the data from teachers’ interviews in order to provide insight into the
intricacies of the instructional design practices from teachers’ perspectives.
This chapter reports the number of participants who commented on a particular issue. Considering the
nature of semi-structured interviews, the remaining participants cannot simply be assumed to hold
different positions or be unaware of a specific issue, although all the main topics were covered in all the
interviews. It is more possible that those remaining participants did not raise a particular issue or have the
chance to discuss that issue in their interviews. Therefore, frequencies cannot be used to directly
anticipate any pattern or reflect the extent of the significance of the issue.
Two transcription conventions are used in presenting quotes from participants: “…” represents the
researcher’s elision, whereas “[ ]” represents the researcher’s clarification on, or a comment about, the
transcription. Additionally, for quotations specific to the expert participants, participant identification
numbers and pseudonyms/names26 are given, and they are referred to as “E(number-pseudonym/name).”
Regarding the teacher participants, their participant identification numbers generated from the Phase 2
survey are applied to the Phase 3 interviews. They are referred to as “T(number-pseudonym).”
6.2 Participants’ Backgrounds

This section reports the background information of the expert participants and teacher participants in
Phase 3.
6.2.1 Expert participants’ backgrounds

Three expert participants have expertise and interest in science education and NZ secondary education.
Table 22 summarises their background information, including current roles, expertise and interest, and
their previous relevant experience.
26
E2-Rose and R3-Rae did not use pseudonyms and chose to be identifiable.
93
Table 22
Expert Participants in Study Phase 3
Participant Role Expertise and interest Prior experience
E1-Paige Learning designer The theory and practice of the Secondary science
and senior lecturer educational use of technology in higher teacher in South Africa
at a NZ university education, and PLD in higher education
E2-Rose Chief researcher at The development of NZC and Secondary science
a NZ education assessment practices (NCEA), teacher in NZ, and
research institute science education, and the NOS strand science teacher educator
in NZC at a NZ university
E3-Rae Senior researcher The development of NZC and school- Researcher in the field of
at a NZ education based curriculum, science education, science education in NZ
research institute and the role and potential of digital primary and secondary
technologies in education schools
As shown in Table 22, both E1-Paige and E2-Rose once worked as secondary science teachers in South
Africa and NZ respectively. Even though E1-Paige’s experience in NZ primarily focuses on the use of
technology in higher education, her perspectives are valuable in understanding the wider contexts of the
present study. She also has her own views on the secondary BYOD environment since she, as a parent,
has visited and observed BYOD classrooms in NZ. Additionally, both E2-Rose and E3-Rae have extensive
research experience related to secondary science education in NZ. E3-Rae also has an interest in the
potential of digital technologies in education.
6.2.2 Teacher participants’ backgrounds

Table 23 provides the background information of the 12 teacher participants in Phase 3, and Table 24
summarises their demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 24, the teacher participants came from
different backgrounds. In general, more females (n=8) than males (n=4) were involved in Phase 3, and
more than half of the participants (n=8) were aged 46 or above. Most participants (n=10) had achieved at
least Level 8 education. Half of the participants had been teaching for at least 16 years. Additionally, all
participants’ BYOD teaching experience ranged from 1 to 6 years, with half of them having experience of
between 3 and 4 years.
In terms of the school year levels, three participants were teaching senior secondary (Y11–13) students at
the time (T8-Betty, T34-Julie, and T42-Ingrid) and eight participants were teaching junior secondary (Y9–
10) students. It should be noted that T56-Penny was teaching Y8 at a private school. Even though she
may not belong to the target population of the present study, her background is still relevant to the wider
research context, and an interview with her offered another perspective on the research problem.
Therefore, the case of T56-Penny was not excluded from the study.
These 12 teacher participants were drawn from 10 schools; T8-Betty and T37-Meda work for the same
Auckland Decile 7 school and T35-Mike and T47-Robin work for the same Auckland Decile 8 school. The
two schools that T34-Julie and T42-Ingrid work for are from rural areas, rated Decile 1 and Decile 4
respectively. Among the remaining eight urban schools, seven have a decile rating of 6 and over; T56-
Penny’s school is a private one, where decile ratings are not applicable. Additionally, five participants
disclosed their leadership roles, including one assistant principal (T25-Andrea), three heads of department
(HODs; T8-Betty, T47-Robin, and T51-David), and one assistant HOD (T35-Mike).
94
Table 23
Teacher Participants in Study Phase 3
Teaching experience
Teaching (years) School
Age Highest level of School
Participant Gender range education completed Subjects year Overall BYOD Location Decilea Notes
T8-Betty Female 46–50 Level 7: Graduate Earth and space Y13 Over 6 Auckland 7 HOD; T37-Meda
diploma science; applied 20 works at the same
science school
T11-Ray Male 51 and Level 8: Postgraduate General science and Y9 14 5 Wellington 9
over diploma biology
T23-Bob Male 36–40 Level 10: Doctoral Physics and Y10 3 3 Auckland 8
degree chemistry
T25-Andrea Female 46–50 Level 8: Postgraduate General science Y10 23 4 Taupo 6 Assistant principal
diploma
T34-Julie Female 41–45 Level 7: Bachelor’s Biology; physics; Y13 18 2 Gisborne 1
degree planet earth and district
space; general (rural area)
science
T35-Mike Male 31–35 Level 8 (unspecified) General science and Y10 8 1.5 Auckland 8 Assistant HOD;
95
biology T47-Robin works

at the same
school
T37-Meda Female 46–50 Level 10: Doctoral General science and Y9 25 4 Auckland 7 T8-Betty works at
degree physics the same school
T42-Ingrid Female 46–50 Level 8: Postgraduate General science; Y12 5 4 Tararua 4
diploma agriculture and district
biology (rural area)
T47-Robin Female 51 and Level 8: Postgraduate General science and Y10 18 1.5 Auckland 8 HOD;
over diploma biology T35-Mike works at
the same school
T51-David Male 51 and Level 8: Bachelor General science and Y9 27 1 Christchurch 9 HOD
over honours degree chemistry
T56-Penny Female 51 and Level 9: Master’s General science and Y8 10 3 Auckland N/A Deciles are not
over degree computer coding applied to private
schools
T66-Debbie Female 31–35 Level 8: Postgraduate General science and Y9 9 3 Auckland 9
diploma chemistry
a
School decile ratings data as last updated by the MoE (2015a).
Table 24
Demographic Summary of the Teacher Participants in Study Phase 3
Demographic characteristics n % (n=12)
Gender
Female 8 67
Male 4 33
Age range
31–35 2 17
36–40 1 8
41–45 1 8
46–50 4 3
51 and over 4 33
Highest level of education completed
Level 7 2 17
Level 8 7 58
Level 9 1 8
Level 10 2 17
Teaching school year
Y8 1 8
Y9 4 33
Y10 4 33
Y12 1 8
Y13 2 17
Teaching experience (years)
Overall
0–5 2 17
6–10 3 25
11–15 1 8
16 and over 6 50
BYOD
0–2 4 33
3–4 6 50
5–6 2 17
School
Location
Urban area 10 83
Rural area 2 17
Decile
N/A 1 8
1 1 8
4 1 8
6 1 8
7 2 17
8 3 25
9 3 25
Leadership
Assistant HOD 1 8
HOD 3 25
Assistant principal 1 8
96
The following sections prioritise the findings from the 12 teachers’ interviews. The findings from expert
interviews offer supplementary information to enrich understanding of the teachers’ perspectives.
6.3 Contextualising the BYOD Environment

This section reports findings from the participants’ perspectives on the macro, meso, and micro contexts in
relation to their instructional design practices for a BYOD environment.
6.3.1 Macro context

Five factors were identified from the interviews as shaping the macro context of the teacher participants’
instructional design practices: technology use in everyday life, NZ education and secondary science
education, NCEA digital assessment, MoE digital initiatives, and research-informed vision.
Technology use in everyday life

In general, the teacher and expert participants considered that technology, especially mobile devices and
the Internet, has become increasingly prevalent and essential in daily life. Some participants expected the
education sector should respond to the increasing use of technology. However, teaching and learning with
technology is not a new topic:
Remember when computers first came in, and everyone would go to the computer room to use
the computers rather than to do the science? “Oh, we’re going to the computer room,” you know?
It was so cool.
Whereas, now, it is like, “I want you to do this on your device, or I want you to do this in your book,
or I want you to do this on your phone;” rather than being the focus of the lesson, it [technology] is
just a tool in the lesson, and that’s kind of where I see it.
I think we’re really lucky here at this school. BYOD is really huge, and students come into class
expecting to use devices, but not all the time. It’s actually really interesting. They sometimes
actively say, “No, we want you to just give us some notes today.” (T8-Betty)
This excerpt presents a brief summary of the evolution of technology in education. In the past, students
and teachers accessed technology in the school computer rooms and would find such a learning
experience exceptionally different and special. When it comes to a BYOD environment, using portable
digital devices is common for students, and they can make the decision about when and how to use
devices in class.
NZ education and secondary science education

Participants commented on the characteristics of the NZ education system and secondary science
education. They believed that teachers are normally encouraged to experiment and be innovative in their
curriculum design and instructional practices; schools are accountable for its developed curriculum and
instruction:
My general comment about the NZ system is that they are never going to find one thing that is
consistently true across all schools because we have so many different situations, school cultures,
school sizes, and ways of approaching their professional learning and development. (E3-Rae)
97
In NZ, we [teachers] have a unique advantage that we can experiment and try whatever we like;
whatever I choose to do in my classroom, I am able to do it without much interference… We are a
small country, and we’re quick and agile. Each classroom, teacher, faculty, and school is an
experiment; each region, town, and city is an experiment… We are experimenting on the edge
every day, in every way, in our schools. (T11-Ray)
They considered that the flexibility of the NZ education system allows schools and teachers to have
considerable autonomy, thereby they feel comfortable to innovate new ideas and try different teaching
strategies. As stated by T11-Ray, through multiple attempts, schools and teachers may be able to identify
what kinds of instructional practices work best for their BYOD environments.
Nine participants highlighted the importance of the NZC in the NZ education system. E3-Rae recalled that,
since the mid-2000s, many schools and teachers have started to engage more fully with the NZC and use
it to review their practices. Some constructs of the NZC, such as the key competencies and NOS, are
different from the pre-2007 curriculum and have brought new thinking to teachers’ practices. For example,
T25-Andrea commented that:
The one thing that we [teachers at her own school] are using more and more is the NZC and the
key competencies and capabilities, because it was designed around a decade ago to something
that we have today, and it is more relevant now than it ever has been. So, the NZC has probably
been the biggest help for us. (T25-Andrea)
Likewise, the school that T35-Mike and T47-Robin work for is a typical example of the NZC being used as
a framework and guidance in informing science curriculum design and teachers’ instructional design
practices:
There is all of that background research that we [teachers at her school] are doing constantly.
We’ve looked at the curriculum and the different focus areas within the curriculum, which includes,
of course, the NOS, key competencies, and the essential knowledge that they need to know in the
areas. So, we’ve got a load of things we are looking at in the background before we actually
decide to put the courses together. From there, we thought: “Ok, we are going to be curriculum
rather than assessment driven. We are going to actually look at different broad contexts [of the
inquiry learning projects]. We are going to decide on some contexts that we can link to vocational
pathways as well as academic pathways.” (T47-Robin)
Participants also compared secondary science education in NZ to that in other countries. According to E2-
Rose and E3-Rae, NZ secondary science education has a strongly embedded set of practices like other
English-speaking countries, and the shared aspects include internationalisation of science and especially
the pathways into tertiary-level science that influence secondary science education the world over. But the
overseas education may differ from NZ in terms of teacher support, the design and structure of the
national curriculum, and assessments.
E3-Rae also stressed that, in general, there is quite a broad disparity in terms of science-learning
performance across NZ schools. Many students are succeeding and are performing on par with
successful students from other countries in the OECD. However, many students from lower SES
98
backgrounds, Māori students, or Pacifica students are less well represented. She concluded that a fairer
and more equitable education system is desired.
NCEA digital assessment

Six teacher participants stated that their schools (n=5) had engaged in NCEA digital trials and pilots (T8-
Betty, T11-Ray, T25-Andrea, T34-Julie, T37-Meda, and T51-David). They shared the view that, in general,
the idea of digital assessment is positive as “it is the future and going to make life easier” (T66-Debbie).
Drawing from the interviews, the trials seemed to have worked reasonably well in schools. T42-Ingrid
stated that teaching and learning is usually informed by the way NCEA is structured. Teachers are
expected to ensure their students understand what they need to know, especially relating to assessments.
She also thought that digitisation cuts costs as less printing is required. According to T51-David, digital
assessment could help students who have difficulty with handwriting. However, T23-Bob asserted that the
NZQA has made a huge financial investment in the digital assessment initiative, so its promotion is
unlikely to go backwards.
According to the teacher participants, four issues were identified as the most common around digital
assessment. First, current digital assessment was questioned with regard to its relationship to the purpose
of education. T56-Penny thought that it is difficult to reflect the actual level of a student if there are many
multiple-choice questions involved. T23-Bob felt that current trials and pilots are not particularly effective
because many teachers are essentially teaching the skills needed to use the assessment system.
Likewise, T11-Ray believed that, under trials and pilots, students have been taught “how to be more
precise during examinations” and he thought that “students can achieve higher marks, and more students
can pass.” However, he was concerned this could drive teachers and students away from learning and
more towards preparing for examinations. He did not agree with the idea that higher marks equal better
education. T11-Ray also shared similar views to T23-Bob, and considered that some teachers only teach
the exact information in the system, which is not about linking ideas, building creativity, or creative
thinking. They both worried that such digital assessments, in the end, might turn into a disincentive for
learning.
Second, not all students have a positive experience with digital assessment. According to T51-David, half
of his students did not like digital assessment and preferred the traditional pen and paper format. A main
problem with science assessment is that mathematical and formula writing can be problematic in digital
format. Such matters may limit students’ performance during assessment, in addition to being unable to
reflect what students actually understand and what they are capable of doing.
Third, both T34-Julie and T51-David did not perceive any significant difference in terms of students’
performance due to the introduction of digital assessment; instead, they simply regarded it as “another
way of doing a task” (T51-David).
Fourth, a concern surrounding potential equality issues was raised. T42-Ingrid, coming from a Decile 4
rural school, stated that all schools and students do not have equal access to technology, so there may
exist a significant disadvantage for students who have low-budget devices with low specifications or those
who do not even own a device. With regard to the assessments, disadvantages could emerge for such
students when compared to those with high-end devices. Furthermore, in some schools, like T11-Ray’s,
99
teachers and students need to pay to use platforms such as Education Perfect.27 Students who cannot
afford it may not be familiar with the assessment, leading to a disadvantage. T66-Debbie added that
Internet access and speed could also be an equality issue, given that her Decile 9 school suffered from
Internet problems. She and T11-Ray noted that insufficient infrastructure such as limited servers would be
problematic for teachers’ and students’ Internet access.
The MoE digital initiatives

Twelve participants discussed their views on the current digital initiatives led by the MoE. According to
T23-Bob, BYOD should be regarded as a funding model instead of a pedagogical model since it is
basically about students paying for the digital devices that used to be paid for and installed by schools.
However, drawing from the interviews, teachers’ perspectives towards the BYOD initiative were more
related to their teaching experience in their BYOD environments because the issue of funding did not
hugely impact their instructional practices.
Participants generally expressed optimism about the current BYOD initiative. For instance, T56-Penny and
T66-Debbie believed that the introduction of the BYOD initiative is positive and should result in a natural
progression. T66-Debbie said, “I think it is a real shame that some schools are too scared to use it. I don’t
really want to experience going backwards. I want to be in a BYOD environment all the time.” She
believed that BYOD would definitely become the future of education across the country and even
worldwide. E1-Paige, drawing from her professional life, felt that the effective use of technology can
support teaching and learning. T35-Mike and T8-Robin stated that, even if a little late, the MoE has started
to become aware of what students need to have in the 21st century, especially the skill sets that future
employers desire.
Five teacher participants (T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T37-Meda, T47-Robin, and T51-David) acknowledged the
government investment in the hardware side of BYOD in schools, such as high-speed Internet and
teachers’ laptops schemes. T25-Julie felt fortunate that her rural school has had ultrafast broadband since
the early stages. T51-David claimed that the laptop scheme has been important in getting teachers to use
technology. T37-Meda was pleased to see that the provided laptops are upgraded every 3 years and the
MoE are willing to listen to suggestions from teachers and schools about the types of preferred devices.
Drawing from the interviews, support from the MoE also includes online services, such as Pond28 and
MyPortfolio.29 Pond was an online platform for teacher and educator communities to create and share
educational resources. T34-Julie and T35-Mike asserted that Pond was a good place to have
conversations with other teachers, but T35-Mike felt it could be “tough going” because he did not actually
know those teachers and prefers to have face-to-face interaction. MyPortfolio offers a personal learning
environment to set objectives, manage plans for development, and record and demonstrate evidence of
learning achievement. T34-Julie claimed that it facilitates the showcasing of teaching performance and
27
Education Perfect is a commercial online learning platform. See https://www.educationperfect.com
28
Pond was closed down on 28 June 2019; its website was https://www.pond.co.nz/
29
See https://myportfolio.school.nz/
100
professional recognition:
At the moment, we [teachers at her school] are using MyPortfolio for all our teacher inquiries and
for us to put all the PTC30 on, so they [the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand] can keep a
monitor of teacher registrations31 through MyPortfolio. They have got most of the school either
doing that or doing blogs to monitor all teacher criteria. (T34-Julie)
Participants also shared their concerns around the current digital initiatives. For example, when promoting
the BYOD initiative, schools and teachers need to think more deeply about how to adopt the technology:
It [technology] definitely can hinder learning if it is used for the sake of it. If it is not designed to
very carefully fit the educational purpose and to support the intended learning outcomes, then it is
just like any other tool and it would not work. (E1-Paige)
Additionally, T35-Mike felt that there is a lack of a comprehensive learning platform led by the MoE, even
though there are multiple options available. He further explained that Pond could not fulfil the role like the
commercial platform of Education Perfect, whereas Google Classroom32 appeared to be “rather limited in
scope.” Different teachers may use different platforms at the same school, which may confuse students
and make them struggle to cope with the differences between classes. Regarding the MoE laptop
scheme, both T11-Ray and T42-Ingrid considered that the computers provided are not fast or strong
enough and that limited local storage can also be a problem.
T35-Mike also thought that the change across the country is too slow, and “the conversations around
BYOD are still the same as those being held a few years ago.” Topics discussed in external conferences
and symposiums were rather dated, with most of them simply relating to technical matters, such as how to
use a specific program or platform. He pointed out that “many teachers are struggling about where to go
from here.” In this regard, they would like to be guided by a much clearer direction and blueprint for future
progress. The same feeling was inferred by T11-Ray:
I don’t actually think that the ministry sets direction anywhere or anyhow. If they have set it, they’ll
set it for NCEA, which has been a complete disaster for teachers, students, and families because,
although it offers a wide range of people access to get qualifications, it has become a complete rat
race of credit. We [teachers] will completely lose the NZC to the rat race to get teachers preparing
students for NCEA. All we do is to struggle with NCEA. (T11-Ray)
Moreover, issues surrounding infrastructure and equality of access still exist. First, three participants (T42-
Ingrid, T47-Robin, and T66-Debbie) were concerned that the BYOD initiative would prove to be difficult
30
PTC refers to practising teacher criteria, describing “the criteria for quality teaching that are to be met by all fully
certificated teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand” (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2018a, n.p.).
31
In NZ, the fully certificated teachers are required to renew their practising certificate every 3 years. Eligible teachers
“are of good character and fit to be a teacher, have completed satisfactory professional development within the last
three years, have completed satisfactory recent teaching service, [and] have been meaningfully assessed against and
have met the Standards for the Teaching Profession” (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2018b, n.p.).
32
Google Classroom is an online platform for schools and teachers to create and share learning resources and to
grade assignments.
101
because there are schools in NZ that do not have good Internet or devices. Such a situation may result in
them falling behind in the system. Second, access also involves teachers’ access to PLD. T42-Ingrid
commented that, for rural schools, very few relievers are able come in to cover the teaching needed to
release staff for PLD because it usually requires travelling time and cost, such as an overnight stay. Some
teachers may not be able to attend PLD in other regions or visit other schools due to the shortage of
relievers. Third, a digital divide exists between students with and without access to technology at school
and at home, as well as the disparity between urban and rural schools. T42-Ingrid stated that: “They [MoE]
are not always aware of the reality of low-decile schools and also in rural areas. There seems to be a real
disconnect between the MoE and the challenges that rural schools face.” According to T37-Meda, the
MoE should acknowledge that BYOD brings financial pressure to parents, which is against the goal of free
education pursued by the MoE. Likewise, T11-Ray emphasised that, apart from devices, many programs
and platforms are too expensive for teachers and students to afford.
In addition, five participants believed that the MoE should offer teachers more support (T11-Ray, T23-Bob,
T35-Mike, T51-David, and T66-Debbie). They claimed that current technical support is not enough, and
the MoE cannot expect teachers to work in the new BYOD environment immediately. T51-David stressed
the importance of “time for teachers to improve themselves.” T35-Mike and T66-Debbie felt there was a
lack of MoE solutions to help teachers who encounter difficulties when designing instruction and teaching
for BYOD environments, even though the MoE has been aware of the matter.
It should be noted that not all participants have had experience with or were aware of MoE digital
initiatives. T26-Andrea said that teachers at her school were not aware of many MoE-initiated services or
platforms. Even though they had signed up to Pond, they had not gone there for resources. Her school
has been responsible for providing support to teachers’ BYOD teaching. T56-Penny was not aware of any
MoE digital initiatives, which she thought was probably due to the fact that she teaches at a private school.
Research-informed vision
Prior studies on technology and education appear to be part of the macro context. T35-Mike and T47-
Robin reported that their school’s science department has conducted reading and inquiry into educational
research. In this regard, their school vision and department’s curriculum design have been informed by
prior research. Their science department has identified some theories and applications as significant for
their work, including the visible learning research of Professor John Hattie, SOLO taxonomy, the universal
design for learning (UDL) model, the SAMR model, and the TPACK framework.
Research-informed vision is also about applying a critical-thinking mindset to learning with technology.
T11-Ray and T47-Robin stated that current research has shown that there is no significant correlation
between BYOD and learning performance. They further pointed out that the reasons behind this are
unclear: whether it is the teachers’ problems or issues with measures of learning performance, or a
fundamental problem with the use of technology. T11-Ray was also unsure about “whether the BYOD
initiative is actually going to be positive in terms of its social, cultural, spiritual, ethical, and academic
impacts.”
6.3.2 Meso context

Two factors are identified from the interviews as shaping the meso context of the teacher participants’
102
instructional design practices: BYOD implementation and science education in schools.
BYOD implementation in schools

The progress of BYOD implementation in participants’ schools is varied, as shown in Table 25. Among the
10 schools, the earliest BYOD adoption started in 2011 in two schools (T8-Betty/T37-Meda, and T11-Ray).
Seven schools have implemented BYOD across all year levels. Three schools were still in the process of
partial or trial BYOD implementation, and two of them were planning to extend BYOD from junior to senior
levels. The extension plan, as reported by the participants, came with the consideration of the upcoming
NCEA digital assessment.
Table 25
BYOD Implementation Progress in Participants’ Schools from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
School Progress of BYOD implementation
Participant Location Decile Full BYOD Partial BYOD Future Plan
T8-Betty/ Auckland 7 Any device
T37-Meda
T11-Ray Wellington 9 Any device
T23-Bob Auckland 8 Microsoft Planning to extend BYOD
to senior school; planning
to allow students to bring
any device
T25-Andrea Taupo 6 iPad
T34-Julie Gisborne district 1 Chromebook
(rural area)
T35-Mike/ Auckland 8 Any device Planning to extend BYOD
T47-Robin to senior school
T42-Ingrid Tararua district 4 Any device
(rural area)
T51-David Christchurch 9 Any device Unstated
T56-Penny Auckland N/A Microsoft
T66-Debbie Auckland 9 Any device
As shown in Table 25, four schools specify the type of device that is allowed, whereas six schools do not.
Three participants (08-Betty, T37-Meda, and T51-David) expected that their students could access the
same type of device for equability and better management.
Participants also commented on their schools’ BYOD implementation in terms of the school culture,
infrastructure and support, ILE, and students’ responsible use of technology. First, seven participants
shared views of their school culture relating to the BYOD environment. They agreed that their schools
have created a BYOD-friendly atmosphere and are willing to take risks and persevere. Specifically, T11-
Ray’s school had tried an experiment with a class that ran the Khan Academy33 for a year. However, it was
not a success because students preferred to be taught by teachers with more face-to-face conversation
and emotional support. His school is also attempting to use VR technology as well as looking at
integrating digital games into the curriculum design. According to T34-Julie, schools should put students
33
Khan Academy is a non-profit educational organisation that produces free online lecture videos. See
https://www.khanacademy.org
103
first and do what is the best for them instead of waiting for MoE initiatives. Some schools, such as T35-
Mike and T47-Robin’s, adopted “a bottom-up approach,” implying that teachers participate in the decision-
making process related to the school’s BYOD implementation. T8-Betty and T37-Meda felt proud of their
school because it was “ahead of many schools in NZ” and has been positioned as a successful BYOD
example by the MoE. Their school has also hosted visits from the MoE and from schools in NZ and
worldwide.
Second, regarding school infrastructure and support, T8-Betty and T66-Debbie appreciated the robust Wi-
Fi network at their school, whereas T23-Bob, T25-Andrea, and T42-Ingrid gave a mixed response, stating
that Internet connection is generally good but that sometimes the online platforms can be slow or not user-
friendly. Further, the technology used in class may not be up to date. T11-Ray and T34-Julie complained
about the infrastructure, specifically the unstable network and limited storage. In terms of technical
support, T11-Ray and T56-Penny acknowledged the help from school technicians, while T35-Mike’s
school technical support was provided by an external company, which only related to resolving problems
around Internet access, hardware, programs, and platforms. However, three participants mentioned that
the necessary support from their schools was lacking. T11-Ray said, “there are no actual digital resources
available for teachers to use in the new BYOD environment.” For this reason, he had to spend his
personal time going through the Internet, sometimes spending his own money on purchasing or
subscribing to digital services in order to try different opportunities and design instruction. Moreover, T42-
Ingrid thought that there are challenges for leadership in changing the senior science programme due to
the fear of risk. Likewise, T23-Bob commented that his school’s leadership has a lack of clear direction on
why and how to implement the BYOD initiative, in addition to a lack of real communication between
departments. He felt BYOD seems more like “another selling point for school promotion.”
Third, teachers appeared to have mixed attitudes towards ILE. E1-Paige had talked with several
secondary teachers, and some of them disliked ILE as it is more difficult to manage the classes, while
some loved it because they could work collaboratively and teach in teams. As reported by T23-Bob, ILE
does not imply teachers deliver instruction differently because “there may still be rows of student desks
and the teacher at the front lecturing.” He believed that modifying the classroom may bring little difference
in teaching and learning if a teacher’s instructional practice fails to adapt to the changes of the physical
setting.
Fourth, in terms of students’ responsible use of technology, T66-Debbie’s school has attached importance
to social media bullying and has “talked a great deal about digital citizenship, especially what they should
never do in the virtual world.” T42-Ingrid’s school has introduced a traffic light system regarding mobile
phone usage, with red meaning that no phone can be taken out, orange meaning that students can use
their phones with teacher’s permission, and green meaning that all devices are allowed in class. Such a
policy provides flexibility for teachers with regard to device management, and students are able to
understand when they can use their mobile phones for learning in class. But not all schools are the same
as T42-Ingrid’s and T66-Debbie’s. For instance, T23-Bob commented that his school is missing an
opportunity to teach students how to behave in a digital environment. In this regard, when the students
leave school, they may not know about digital footprints or how to be responsible online. T11-Ray
discussed his schools’ arrangement relating to digital citizenship education. Taking the user agreement as
104
an example, it seems common that teachers, students, or parents do not read it carefully or understand it
before signing. The Netsafe digital citizenship course is usually carried out at the end of Y10, but,
according to T11-Ray, it should be offered much earlier, probably in Y9 or even in primary school.
Science education in schools

Participants discussed the differences with regard to science education and BYOD implementation
between junior and senior year levels. Drawing from the interviews, BYOD implementation tends to have
more flexibility in junior levels, and teachers are more willing to try different teaching approaches. T8-Betty
claimed that the junior-year level is more about having a range of activities that suit all kinds of teaching
and learning styles over a period of time. T35-Mike stated that his department would need time to review
and think about how to redefine the junior course after a few years of trials. In T66-Debbie’s school, books
are not used in junior-level science anymore.
In terms of senior levels, teachers normally prioritise their work for preparing students for NCEA
assessments. For example, T8-Betty encouraged her senior students to look for information that helps
prepare for examinations. Compared to juniors, her senior students are more serious about the quality of
groupwork due to assessment. T11-Ray and T35-Mike expressed similar views that, with regard to
achieving assessment goals for seniors, their teaching approach is less technology integrated and more
traditional. In T66-Debbie’s school, unlike at junior level, books are still used in senior science. E2-Rose
was worried that the public attention and content structure of the NCEA may dominate teachers’ thinking:
Newspapers publish league tables of schools’ NCEA results, and, until very recently, the
government had a target of 85% of students having to get Level 2 NCEA. You can understand
why teachers focus on it … that all the signals coming into them are that it is the most important
thing they have to do.
Whereas, for me, I personally think that the most important thing that learning science has to do is
actually what the curriculum says and not what the NCEA models. What the curriculum says is
that we [NZ science teachers] have to get students ready to be citizens who are actively involved
in making decisions about things where science has an impact. They are so urgent for our planet,
such as climate change. (E2-Rose)
According to E2-Rose and E3-Rae, different teachers have different perceptions about NCEA: some may
find it too constraining or compartmentalising, while some see it as an opportunity to allow them to design
a curriculum that meets the high-level expectations of the NZC. Many teachers may not think carefully
about the purpose of learning for seniors because achieving NCEA credits can easily become the main
learning purpose, but this is not the same for teaching juniors since there are no external qualifications at
junior levels. For example, T35-Mike acknowledged that, in previous years, his science department was
content driven rather than curriculum driven, while NOS and the mastery of science concepts were not
being focused on.
Science education, as discussed by E2-Rose, should be mainly about getting students ready to be
citizens who are actively involved in making decisions about issues where science has an impact, such as
medical treatment. NOS and informed citizenship should be reflected in NCEA standards and, in
particular, by the way technology is used in the classroom. Schools’ science education is supposed to take
105
full advantage of BYOD. Devices may have been used to replace books for students’ access to
information, but this is not enough. Instructional practices and learning activities with technology should be
designed to be more sophisticated in their intention so as to offer students opportunities to practise and
improve skills such as critical thinking and understanding the complexity of issues. The same view was
shared by E3-Rae: it is important for schools and teachers to reflect the purpose of science education in
the way that they design the science curriculum and instructional practices.
6.3.3 Micro context

Four factors were identified as shaping the micro context of the teacher participants’ instructional design
practices: setting, students, teachers’ perceived affordances, and teachers’ perceived constraints of the
BYOD environment.
Setting
Apart from T34-Julie’s class with 18 students, the other participants reported that their class sizes ranged
between 25 and 30 students. T23-Bob was teaching a lower ability class, and T42-Ingrid also had some
students with a lower ability. In T25-Andrea’s class, there were five students with lower reading ability and
one with a serious medical condition, so a teacher aide was on-site to provide extra help.
Five participants emphasised the importance of creating a comfortable and encouraging learning
environment for the students. T8-Betty noted that some teachers allow music in class, which may help
students concentrate better; she found it is distracting, but she asserted that music in class depends on
the preferences of teachers and students. T37-Meda claimed that building trust and a good working
relationship with students is the key to a supportive and friendly learning environment. She would tell them
that “I am preparing you to be a future scientist. I am not preparing you to pass an assessment of Year 9”
(T37-Meda). By providing support and encouragement, she felt there was more of a balance regarding
work and input from everyone in the groups, rather than some groups being ahead while the others were
lost. T56-Penny asserted that it is important to ensure that students can access useful resources and
interactive activities online so as to keep them interested and motivated. Lastly, according to E1-Paige and
E3-Rae, teachers are ideally expected to develop a learning space where students are really interested in
what they are doing. This can facilitate the opportunities to explore questions, gather information, and do
experiments. Students could develop skills so as to allow them to make sense of science data, and the
BYOD environment can fit in an enabling way to ensure such a situation can happen.
Students
Participants generally agreed that the majority of students are more tech-savvy than the teachers.
According to T11-Ray, many of today’s students appear to be better informed and more knowledgeable, in
addition to also being more socialised, cultured, and responsive to technology. One of his students, who
sometimes got distracted in class, was running a website with 20,000 paying subscribers. T11-Ray said
that the student may not pass a particular test due to the distraction from studying, but he was actually
independently learning different skills using technology, and such work and skills are probably more
valuable to him in both the short and long term. From T11-Ray’s perspective, that student’s personal
learning and digital skills development met the expectation of many educators, that is, learning how to
learn and knowing what to learn in order to follow personal interests and passions.
106
However, this is not always the case. T56-Penny once conducted a survey with 125 students at her school
and found that 90% of students wanted to have a book at hand rather than having everything on a shared
Google Doc, as they were worried about the possibility of online data being deleted. T35-Mike also found
some students preferred to have a traditional didactic approach. Both of them agreed that developing
students’ resiliency is significant at the early stage of BYOD implementation. They expected students to
improve digital skills so that they could be comfortable with daily use of technology.
Teachers’ perceived affordances

Teacher participants were invited to elaborate on their responses regarding the perceived affordances and
perceived constraints of their BYOD environments in the Phase 2 online survey. The perceived
affordances highlighted in the interviews included access from a technological lens, inquiry, student
agency, and formative assessment from a pedagogical lens.
Access
Teacher participants generally agreed that the BYOD environment allows students to access information
and connect with scientists for inquiry and learning. Specifically, seven participants agreed that online
information can be easily shared, checked, and recorded. A variety of programs and platforms are
available for learning, for example, shared documents such as Google Docs and interactive quizzes like
Kahoot, and parents are able to access students’ work online (T8-Betty, T11-Ray, T23-Bob, T25-Andrea,
T37-Meda, T47-Robin, and T56-Penny). T37-Meda and T51-David reported that using digital documents
implies less paper use. Additionally, students could connect and have video meetings with scientists in NZ
and internationally, which can be recorded as future learning resources. T8-Betty once reached an NZ
scientist working in the United States and realised that the scientist’s NZ identity made the students feel
more interested in and related to the subject. She and her colleagues also had the opportunity to
collaborate with NASA34 researchers on developing teaching resources.
According to T11-Ray, T34-Julie, and T37-Meda, access to technology, to some extent, enables
educational equality. For students from different backgrounds, especially refugees, immigrants, and those
who are struggling with the English language, the use of technology may help them to communicate better
because they can search online and use instant translations. In this regard, they can access information
and learn just like others. Furthermore, the BYOD environment may benefit those with special needs. A
student from T34-Julie’s classroom was dyslexic and used the speech-to-text function on their personal
device so as to put their own ideas on the screen instead of writing them down. T11-Ray reported that
those who are autistic or suffer from Asperger syndrome may not want to have face-to-face interaction.
For them, lessons designed through technology like Minecraft35 may help them to explore their interests
and build confidence.
Inquiry
Drawing from the interviews, the BYOD environment can afford student inquiry. T66-Debbie believed that
teaching in a BYOD environment frees teachers up because they can put learning objectives and tasks on
34
NASA refers to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States.
35
Minecraft is a sandbox video game about building with blocks and going on adventures.
107
Google Classroom, so students know what they have to do and why:
In the past, I was stuck at the front writing things up on the whiteboard, but now I can walk around
with my iPad in the room. It is more interactive. I have more time now to talk to the students. (T66-
Debbie)
T66-Debbie further claimed that it is easier to differentiate those who are working faster and ask them
what else could they be doing instead of simply giving them another worksheet. The same idea was
expressed by T42-Ingrid, who also noted that teachers can better handle students with different learning
paces and needs. According to T51-David, freeing teachers up would “help to speed up the instructional
process, so there could be more time for science experiments.”
Moreover, collaboration and teamwork may be enhanced since students work together on projects with
technology (T23-Bob, T37-Meda, and T56-Penny). T66-Debbie stated that, in the past, she was more
involved in trying to get them engaged in the tasks. Now, with BYOD, her students are usually more
engaged and far more willing to do the tasks and groupwork. T23-Bob mentioned that students sometimes
feel embarrassed about their answers or questions, but now with anonymity in an online forum, they can
engage in discussions and learn from others.
Participants also believed that the BYOD environment offers students more opportunities to develop
learning skills. As mentioned by T51-David, students are using the digital devices in class that they are
used to outside the classroom. They can also access different digital tools and activities, which are
impossible in a traditional classroom, such as collecting and sharing evidence using Google Docs. They
can also do presentations in different ways such as creating a video (T8-Betty, T37-Meda, T56-Penny, and
T66-Debbie). Moreover, T8-Betty and T35-Mike felt that using technology can help students develop
learning skills for NCEA digital assessments, future university study, and the workplace. Students can also
learn skills relating to coping with self-submission, avoiding plagiarism, and working to due dates.
Student agency
According to the interviews, the BYOD environment can afford students more agency. Students in BYOD
environments have more control of their learning and more freedom to make choices about what and how
to learn in a way they find interesting and efficient. T51-David explained that today’s classroom is more
student-centred and less teacher-centred:
It’s a lot less of me delivering information and a lot more of them finding it and presenting it in
different ways. There is a lot more of an opportunity for them to collaborate than in the traditional
way I might have delivered the topic. (T51-David)
The BYOD environment appears to allow for more autonomy in students’ learning. As suggested by
participants, students can choose the pace, material, and project context for their study. Making their own
decisions also implies that students know what they want to learn and how well they have been doing
(T25-Andrea, T34-Julie, T42-Ingrid, and T47-Robin), for example:
The big advantage is that students can work at their own pace for understanding. Teachers are
not teaching one lesson and then move onto the next. Students can go through as they feel that
108
they have reached the level of understanding and completed all the work. All the materials are
always there [online] for them to review or go back to.
So it [learning in a BYOD environment] certainly fits students’ individual speed of learning. I have
a few students this year who are fast learners, and they would be three times as fast as the
slowest students. Also, that is not difficult to manage because all the information is there for them
to work their way through. (T42-Ingrid)
Formative assessment
Seven participants believed that using technology can help teachers to carry out formative assessment
and provide instant feedback more easily (T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie), for example:
It [teaching and learning in a BYOD environment] allows real-time assessment. I can sit in front of
the computer in the class when they are putting in the answers so I can give immediate feedback
as they are doing the answers. (T23-Bob)
The students want feedback all the time now. Prior to having a BYOD environment, feedback was
normally given once or twice, and now it is a lot more. We [teachers] are on call all the time and
they expect the feedback all the time. But I think that is actually good because they want to pass,
they want to learn, and they want to get better grades. (T34-Julie)
Using technology, teachers can monitor students’ learning progress so as to understand the learning pace
and needs of individual students and the whole class (T35-Mike, T42-Ingrid, and T47-Robin), for example:
I am actually monitoring the whole time as to where they are and if they are not where they should
be. I can stop them and say “guys, come on. If you are only at this stage here and you’ve got one
period left, how do you think you are going to get from here to there [the learning objectives of the
instruction]?”
I am monitoring and giving feed forward. It’s not formal; nothing is formal which is really hard to
capture. But I am talking to the kids. The thing I do get is a really good relationship with them
because I am there with them all the time. (T47-Robin)
Teachers’ perceived constraints

The perceived constraints highlighted in the interviews included problems with access, and infrastructure
and technical support from a technological lens, as well as students’ use of technology, and the changing
role of the teacher from a pedagogical lens.
Access
Participants expressed concerns about unequal access to technology. T11-Ray stated that not all parents
can afford a device. The devices recommended by some schools can be rather expensive. T47-Robin
acknowledged an equality issue exists between students in class and at home, and between rural and
urban schools and areas. She expects the MoE to help address this issue.
Students’ device readiness may also lead to an access constraint. When a student forgets to bring a
device, there will be an access problem if the school is unable to provide an extra device on-site (T42-
Ingrid). T25-Andrea, T51-David, and T56-Penny reported that some students may come to the class with a
109
flat battery, which can be problematic if there are not enough power ports or cables. Occasionally,
students forget passwords and are sent to a technician, which may also affect their learning in class.
Infrastructure and technical support

Drawing from the interviews, insufficient infrastructure and technical support can constrain teaching and
learning, for example:
There’s always networking problems. Sometimes the network goes down and some of the
students are trying to do online assessments and suddenly they cannot access the content on
their iPads. (T23-Bob)
The biggest problem we have is the infrastructure. That is something that needs to be upped. That
doesn’t need to be the ministry though. I think it is [the responsibility of] the government, because
the cables and stuff like that are not [the responsibility of the] ministry. It is a bigger picture, but it
also needs to be improved in the city. (T47-Robin)
When I first started using it [technology], the Internet was a huge issue. It would not work; it would
drop out. Teachers would have this really great plan of using technology for teaching such as
Google Docs and they were all planning to use and master it. But then it [unstable network] would
just crash on us. (T66-Debbie)
These participants claimed that they used to suffer from Internet speed problems. A weak and unreliable
network constrains working with programs and platforms, and it can affect access to online assessments,
which may further impact teachers’ experience and perceptions of technology.
Students’ use of technology

According to the participants, students’ use of technology can be a pedagogical constraint of the BYOD
environment. First, not all students can effectively use technology for learning, which could impact their
learning performance and personal confidence. As reported by T37-Meda and T42-Ingrid, students with a
lower ability or a lack of digital skills may feel lost; some students and groups can be ahead of others while
some are behind. T11-Ray was concerned that some students may lack understanding about data
ownership and copyright issues online, and they may engage in plagiarism unintentionally or intentionally.
Second, nine participants observed distraction and misuse of technology in class (E1-Paige, T8-Betty,
T11-Ray, T35-Mike, T37-Meda, T47-Robin, T51-David, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie). Students go off task
easily to access social media, games, or websites that are not related to the subject. When engaging in
such distractions and misuse, some students immediately hide irrelevant content by changing the screen if
teachers are nearby. T56-Penny reported that a few students try to get a reaction across the room by
editing or deleting texts, or undoing recent actions on a Google Doc. However, the view was not
unanimous, for example, T66-Debbie stated that distractions and misbehaviours are not emerging issues
and have always existed regardless of the setting, for example, “staring out of the window or playing
noughts and crosses.”
The changing role of teachers

Drawing from the interviews, the changing role of teachers can be a pedagogical constraint of the BYOD
environment. According to T11-Ray, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, and T42-Ingrid, providing quality formative
110
feedback online can be time-consuming and it is challenging for them to balance online and offline work
with individual students. T11-Ray talked about the potential risks for teachers in terms of online
communication with students: some teachers are unsure if they can connect with students through social
media. He reported that these kinds of issues are not yet addressed in many schools’ PLD programmes.
Additionally, teachers in a BYOD environment need to use technology effectively, but according to T11-
Ray and T34-Julie, many teachers have not been upskilled with regard to using technology in education:
“It’s a different paradigm. Many teachers are not actually trained for that and are not aware of it; they’re
not comfortable with BYOD and don’t know how to use the technology” (T11-Ray). T37-Meda noted that
many teachers were frustrated the first time they taught in a BYOD environment.
In conclusion, this section has presented participants’ perspectives on the macro, meso, and micro
contexts regarding the BYOD environment, drawn from the interviews. Participants were generally
optimistic about the BYOD initiatives across NZ and within their schools. NCEA digital assessment and
MoE digital initiatives, despite some of the participants’ concerns, have responded to the needs of
developing students’ digital skillsets as well as the needs of teaching and learning with technology.
Participants generally believed that the flexibility of the NZ education system allows them to have
considerable autonomy in teaching and designing instruction within the NZC and school curriculum
framework, but some of them felt the NCEA may dominate teachers’ thinking and influence their
instructional practices at senior levels. This section has also elaborated teachers’ perceived affordances
(access, inquiry, student agency, and formative assessment) and perceived constraints (infrastructure and
technical support, students’ use of technology, and the changing role of the teacher) of their BYOD
environments. Overall, participants valued how well the wider contexts and instructional design practices
reflect the purpose of science education, and they maintained that schools’, teachers’, and students’
access to technology and support should be a fundamental condition of the BYOD environment.
6.4 Professional Learning and Development and Teacher Knowledge

This section presents findings related to participants’ PLD on teaching for the BYOD environment as well
as teacher knowledge using the TPACK framework. As mentioned in the literature review chapter, PLD
and teacher knowledge is assumed to influence teachers’ perceptions and adoption of technology in their
teaching.
6.4.1 Professional Learning and Development

Regarding teachers’ PLD on teaching for the BYOD environment, three topics were covered in the
interviews: PLD in schools, teacher education, and personal PLD.
School-based PLD
Five participants felt their schools had offered enough PLD opportunities dedicated to BYOD teaching (T8-
Betty, T23-Bob, T37-Meda, T51-David, and T66-Debbie). According to the interviews, PLD in those
schools shared three common characteristics: strong collaborative culture and peer support, regular
meetings regarding BYOD teaching, and orderly arrangement of PLD sessions. These characteristics
suggest that leadership and support are significant to the success of school-based PLD.
Similar views on effective leadership were expressed by T25-Andrea, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, and T47-
111
Robin. They expected teachers’ needs to be listened to, and PLD in schools to be structured in terms of
the PLD content and schedule. As suggested by seven participants, it is important for the school
leadership to acknowledge that different teachers have a different learning curve, thus tailored and
personalised PLD is strongly desired where they can access experts’ feedback and advice (T8-Betty, T11-
Ray, T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T42-Ingrid, and T51-David). Additionally, six participants realised that
some PLD sessions nationwide are still rather dated and only focus on technical aspects, such as how to
use a particular platform (T11-Ray, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T47-Robin, T51-David, and T56-Penny). T47-
Robin advised that school PLD needs to be relevant, practical, and applicable to current practice. These
participants also argued that school PLD should be curriculum driven and pedagogy focused.
Moreover, participants asked for schools’ and the MoE’s support financially and timewise. T11-Ray
complained that many teachers are paying for PLD for themselves, and many external PLD sessions and
conferences are rather expensive. Financial support for PLD is lacking in many schools. Six participants
expressed concern that there is not enough time to participate in PLD (T8-Betty, T11-Ray, T25-Andrea,
T34-Julie, T42-Ingrid, and T51-David).
With regard to peer teachers, T8-Betty, T37-Meda, and T51-David acknowledged that some teachers are
doing outstanding work around BYOD teaching and are willing to share their experience. Peer
collaboration is reported as important PLD because teachers can learn from practical examples,
communicate with others, and rethink and reflect on their own practices (E3-Rae, T11-Ray, T25-Andrea,
T37-Meda, and T56-Penny). However, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T42-Ingrid, T47-Robin, and T56-Penny
realised the varying levels of ability among teachers and believed there is resistance coming from
persistent traditional teaching beliefs, fear of relinquishing control, and a lack of technological knowledge.
In terms of views on new teachers, T8-Betty, T25-Andrea, T35-Mike, T37-Meda, and T56-Penny felt many
new teachers are generally able to bring fresh ideas and confidence, and try new approaches, and are
keen to teach in a BYOD environment. It seems that most of them have better technological knowledge,
probably because they are used to working with technology at tertiary or even secondary school. But T11-
Ray considered that some new teachers are not well equipped for the new paradigm or educational
philosophy. T23-Bob felt that some new teachers may not have a clear vision and plan, and “they feel
overwhelmed and do not know where to start.” However, T66-Debbie acknowledged that it is always a
complicated job to learn to be a teacher, whether or not they are teaching in a BYOD environment. Many
new teachers struggle with learning to be a teacher and knowing what to do with technology. She further
stated that many universities where teachers are trained may not have given much help or guidance with
the BYOD environment.
Teacher education
The conversation on new teachers led to a topic of NZ teacher education. T56-Penny and T66-Debbie
remained positive and anticipated that teacher education would have a role in effectively equipping
teachers with updated knowledge and skills for future teaching with technology. T42-Ingrid commented
that the tertiary sector has done “a fair job, but certainly not excellent.” She was concerned that
experienced teacher educators may have little BYOD experience, which might create a gap between the
tertiary sector and schools. Similar concerns were expressed by T11-Ray, T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T35-Mike,
112
T47-Robin, and T51-David, for example:
Some teacher educators do not seem to fully understand the changes brought by technology.
They may have some publications around BYOD, but actually have little knowledge of technology
or do not engage as a technology user. If teacher educators have little experience with the current
technology like SNS, they may have little relevance to teaching BYOD. (T11-Ray)
According to the participants, the tertiary sector may not be well aware of the school needs today.
Changes in schools and classrooms are moving faster than in teacher education. A lack of flexibility in
teacher education means it is unable to adapt to today's schools and classrooms. Furthermore,
participants felt a weak connection between traditional theories of education and current teaching
practices with technology. T11-Ray had attended four universities and was undertaking his fifth teacher
education programme at the time of interview. Based on his experience, he was critical of the lack of
“significant change in teacher education in a generation; it is still the same as many years ago.”
Four participants commented that there is little information on teacher education provided for schools and
teachers (T35-Mike, T51-David, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie). T35-Mike and T51-David felt unclear about
whether the universities are delivering teacher education following MoE initiatives and the trends in
schools such as ILE. They felt unclear about what the universities expect pre-service teachers to be able
to do after graduation. T51-David, drawing from his recent research experience, reported “a huge
disconnect between the university research community and teachers.” He felt that schools and teachers
are not well informed since there is little direct dissemination of information from universities to schools.
Personal PLD
According to the participants, personal PLD mainly involves academic education as well as other face-to-
face and online opportunities out of school. Some participants were engaged in providing PLD to help with
the teacher community. Participants also discussed their plans for personal PLD.
Six participants stated that they have completed further part-time studies while working (T8-Betty, T11-
Ray, T37-Meda, T47-Robin, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie). They believed it was a useful opportunity to
broaden their perspectives about what can be possible in the educational use of technology. They were
able to relate their practices to theories and learn new instructional strategies and skills. T11-Ray, T37-
Meda, and T66-Debbie felt their education at the Mind Lab was highly relevant to their BYOD teaching.
Apart from further academic education, there are various PLD opportunities that participants engaged in
independently. First, some participants believed it is important to learn from trial and error, and carry out
self-reflection on their own teaching (T25-Andrea, T35-Mike, T47-Robin, T51-David, T56-Penny, and T66-
Debbie). Second, networking with peer teachers was seen as helpful. Some kept connecting with teachers
from their own schools and even those nationwide and worldwide (T25-Andrea, T23-Bob, T35-Mike, and
T37-Meda). There are multiple teacher communities on SNS, for example, #EdChats and #WellyED
groups on Twitter and groups on Facebook (T11-Ray and T66-Debbie). Third, personal PLD can be
conducted virtually by accessing online resources from platforms like Pond and YouTube (T25-Andrea and
T34-Julie). Fourth, there are PLD workshops, seminars, and conferences organised by professional
bodies, such as the uLearn conference (T56-Penny and T66-Debbie). As mentioned by T23-Bob, some
corporates like Microsoft also offer PLD programmes for teachers.
113
Six participants had contributed to the teacher community’s PLD. T11-Ray created and shared videos and
resources online through platforms like Pond and YouTube. As an HOD, T47-Robin has led the
department and helped science teachers face challenges. T23-Bob was certified as a Microsoft Innovative
Educator Expert and he recommended that PLD programme to other teachers. He has also been active in
leading the weekly Auckland-wide PLD. Likewise, T66-Penny identified herself as a strong and supportive
person within her school. She felt the school’s collaborative environment is particularly important to
motivate teachers to share ideas and help each other to achieve goals. Additionally, T25-Andrea has been
mentored and is now developing as a mentor in a virtual PLD network. T37-Meda is an e-learning mentor
for science teachers at her school and meets other mentors once a month to keep up to date. She and
other mentors developed a PLD programme to help science teachers to use Google Classroom. They
carried out classroom observations and provided feedback as well.
Five participants discussed their future plan for personal PLD. T11-Ray said he would like to collaborate
nationally and internationally and learn what other teachers have been doing differently. T25-Andrea and
T37-Meda are looking to learn more about relevant research and theories such as UDL to inform their use
of technology in education. T35-Mike and T56-Penny set goals and made action plans by focusing on their
teaching as inquiry cycles as well as their knowledge of technology and pedagogy.
However, T42-Ingrid and T51-David did not have a plan for personal PLD. T51-David preferred to focus on
his ongoing work and continue to improve his developed instruction. As for T42-Ingrid, she claimed that
she has been unable to engage in or even make plans for personal PLD due to a busy personal life, thus
self-learning outside school was not foreseeable for her. She also reported that teaching in a rural school
makes it impractical for her to access external support on a regular basis—timewise and financially.
Furthermore, she has a weak connection with the teacher community, for example, she was not informed
about or aware of external PLD opportunities.
6.4.2 Teacher knowledge

As mentioned in the literature review (see subsection 2.3.2), teacher knowledge was studied using the
TPACK framework in this research. A transformative perspective is adopted to view the TPACK framework
as a unique body of teacher knowledge, which is constructed from the interaction of the three knowledge
bases of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge bases. Hence, this subsection firstly presents
participants’ development of their three knowledge domains (TK, PK, and CK), then summarises their
TPACK-development approaches and strategies from a transformative view.
Technological knowledge development

Drawing from the interviews, teacher participants’ TK is developed generally through self-learning and
external supports, as summarised in Table 26. As noted at the beginning of the chapter, areas in the table
with no marks cannot be assumed to indicate that participants’ TK is not developed through particular
approaches. This lack of marks only can indicate that the participants did not mention those approaches in
their interviews.
114
Table 26
Participants’ TK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Self-learning External supports
Academic Workshops and Online ICT
Participant education conferences resources Trials technicians Colleagues Students
T8-Betty • •
T11-Ray • • • •
T23-Bob •
T25-Andrea • • • •
T34-Julie •
T35-Mike • • •
T37-Meda •
T42-Ingrid •
T47-Robin • • • •
T51-David •
T56-Penny • • •
T66-Debbie • • • •
The majority of teacher participants (n=11) stated that they have engaged in various self-learning
opportunities to develop TK. Six of them received further academic education and learnt different
variations of technology and their use in the education context. T11-Ray and T66-Debbie attended
workshops and conferences to know more about emerging technology and its possibilities in education.
Two participants used online resources to develop their TK: T11-Ray enrolled in online courses, and T34-
Julie has been used to accessing the Internet for solutions to technical problems and instructions for
programs and platforms. Seven participants claimed that they are active users of technology and have
been trying and comparing different programs and platforms. They believed their trials help identify the
technology that they are fairly comfortable with and the technology to avoid for being unreliable, because
they felt that addressing technical issues could be time-consuming. Moreover, for T23-Bob and T25-
Andrea, technology is not simply for substitution, and teachers need to use it to the fullest capacity and do
things that are impossible traditionally.
Six participants stated that external support has been helpful to their TK. ICT technicians from schools can
provide instant technical assistance. In the case of T42-Ingrid, a community of local schools combined to
employ an ICT technician who visited schools regularly. She had heavily relied on the technical support to
gradually develop her TK so she could save time and focus more on the instructional design practice
rather than dealing with technical issues. But the community of schools had decided to discontinue
funding for that technician position. She felt disappointed and stated that she was not yet confident in her
TK. At T35-Mike’s school, an external company is responsible for infrastructure maintenance and technical
support, but the company’s response usually takes time and problems cannot be addressed instantly. He
felt such support may be insufficient. Additionally, five participants reported that learning from colleagues
would be important as they are more relatable. Furthermore, three participants received technical support
from students who appear to be more tech-savvy than teachers. They felt that having students’
contribution may help grow positive teacher–student relationships. As stated by T66-Debbie, students
have the chance to apply their digital skills by helping with technical issues. Instead of asking students to
use specific programs and platforms, she preferred to have them explain what technology they would use
to complete the learning tasks. She considered it a chance to develop teachers’ and students’ TK.
115
Pedagogical knowledge development

Drawing from the interviews, it appears that teacher participants’ PK is normally developed through self-
reflection and PLD, as summarised in Table 27.
Table 27
Participants’ PK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Self-reflection PLD
Purpose of Educational Instructional Academic School PLD and
Participant education research practices education peer connection
T8-Betty • • •
T11-Ray • • • •
T23-Bob •
T25-Andrea • •
T34-Julie •
T35-Mike • •
T37-Meda • •
T42-Ingrid • •
T47-Robin • • •
T51-David •
T56-Penny • •
T66-Debbie • • •
The majority (n=11) mentioned that their PK is developed through self-reflection on the purpose of
education, relevant research, and their instructional practices. Six of them stressed the significance of the
educational purpose. According to T11-Ray, it is always necessary to respond to “a fundamental question
of what are we teaching and why.” T25-Andrea, T42-Ingrid, and T47-Robin stated that teaching students
how to learn is essential, which directly relates to the quality of teaching. T25-Andrea further explained
that teachers should learn how to use technology to change teaching so as to bring students more
opportunities to develop agency and manage their own learning. T56-Penny and T66-Debbie shared
similar understanding and suggested that teachers should have “a variety of pedagogical deliveries” to
keep students engaging and working collaboratively, as well as helping students to apply knowledge and
skills in life and future workplaces.
Moreover, four participants reported that their understanding of pedagogy and self-reflection was informed
by the relevant educational research. For example, T66-Debbie said, “I want to make sure when I do
BYOD in the classroom that I am following the SAMR model, so I try to look for new ways to make it
[teaching and learning] different.” From her own perspective, the SAMR model can guide her to be
continuously innovative with the use of technology as well as promoting her PK and instructional practice.
As reported by 10 participants, PK can be developed by self-reflection on one’s own instructional

practices. T8-Betty observed that some teachers with less experience may teach with technology
superficially, so constant reflection on instructional practices would be key to developing their PK and
improving teaching. T11-Ray, T25-Andrea, and T35-Mike suggested teachers embrace different trials in
their instructional practices. They argued that, through observation and reflection, teachers can get
inspired and be able to figure out how to apply knowledge and experience in their own teaching.
In terms of PK development via PLD, some participants felt that their further tertiary education gave them
a chance to think about how and why they are using technology to teach. Other helpful opportunities to
116
develop PK include school PLD, and the connection and collaboration with other schools and teachers.
Content knowledge development

According to the interviews, teacher participants’ CK can be developed through instructional design
practices, interaction with students, and a connection with the wider community, as summarised in Table
28. T34-Julie and T47-Robin acknowledged that the broadened CK can improve teacher confidence.
Table 28
Participants’ CK Development from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Instructional design Interaction with Connection with the
Participant practices students wider community Unsure
T8-Betty • •
T11-Ray • •
T23-Bob •
T25-Andrea •
T34-Julie •
T35-Mike •
T37-Meda •
T42-Ingrid •
T47-Robin • •
T51-David •
T56-Penny •
T66-Debbie •
Teaching in a BYOD environment can motivate teachers to keep up to date with science CK. As
mentioned by T11-Ray, T34-Julie, and T35-Mike, science knowledge is growing exponentially. To make
science more relatable, during the instructional design process, teachers should keep the content updated
with the current events and debates. T8-Betty explained that teachers do not usually have expertise
knowledge in all science areas. Since a textbook is normally not provided by schools or the MoE, teachers
need to rely on the resources from their science department and the Internet. For example:
In the past, I learnt and memorised everything, because that was how I was taught to learn
science, whereas now I rely a lot more on technology. This means that, if a student has a question
and I can’t answer it, we [she and students] can look it up online together to find an answer within
that class. In the past, I might have gone and asked other teachers or searched for the answer
later outside of class because I didn’t have computer. (T66-Debbie)
T66-Debbie reported that CK could be acquired immediately in a BYOD classroom. Likewise, according to
T25-Andrea, T47-Robin, and T56-Penny, teachers are no longer the sole source of CK; students can learn
science from many sources. New content may be brought up by students during discussion and
presentation, which means that teachers can develop CK via their interaction with students.
Connecting with the wider teacher and science community could also be helpful in teachers’ CK
development, according to T8-Betty, T11-Ray, and T37-Meda. Through online platforms such as Pond,
teachers can access shared resources and create materials through collaboration with other teachers.
Additionally, connecting with scientists worldwide could provide different perspectives on particular
science topics as well as broaden teachers’ CK.
However, T23-Bob and T51-David did not agree that teachers’ CK can be significantly developed because
117
of the BYOD initiative. They believe the BYOD environment could help them deliver CK to students more
easily, but it is not about expanding teachers’ CK. As for T51-David, he identified himself as a lifelong
learner always looking for CK through science magazines or the Internet, so whether or not he teaches in
a BYOD environment, he would constantly develop CK.
TPACK development
The previous parts of this subsection have presented teacher participants’ TK, PK, and CK development.
However, their development of the three knowledge domains may not necessarily lead to their overall
TPACK development. As discussed in the literature review (see subsection 2.3.2), the present study
adopts the TPACK framework as a reference for understanding teacher knowledge. Within a
transformative view, TPACK is seen to be developed as a holistic body of teacher knowledge instead of
depending on the separate development of TK, PK, and/or CK.
The TPACK-development approaches and strategies of teacher participants are categorised according to
their responses to the interviews. Their approaches and strategies are organised and presented in light of
the categorisation summarised by Harris (2016) who classified eight approaches and 12 strategies of
TPACK development in a comprehensive manner. However, not all of her identified approaches and
strategies emerged in this study. Table 29 presents the relevant five approaches and seven strategies of
TPACK development which are found to closely reflect teacher participants’ responses. The table also
outlines the shared characteristics of each group of participants drawn from the data.
118
Table 29
TPACK-Development Approaches and Strategies from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
TPACK development Findings
Approach Strategy Description Participant Characteristics
TPK-focus Technology “Educational T51-David 1. They value and constantly evaluate the effectiveness of using technology in
approach mapping affordances and T56-Penny class.
constraints of 2. They value students’ engagement and achievement of learning objectives.
particular devices and 3. They are heavy users of technology and learn TK through trial and error.
software applications 4. They identify the affordances and constraints of different types of technologies
are explored and as well as finding out the technologies they are comfortable with and those they
applied to content- would avoid using.
specific teaching and 5. They attempt to minimise the impacts of technical issues by always preparing
learning.” back-up plans. Solving technical problems is not seen as urgent in class.
6. They believe their CK can be developed along with students.
Reflective/ Teacher inquiry “Data-based, T25-Andrea 1. They believe the purpose of education should be the focus, especially teaching
reflexive systematic T47-Robin students how to learn and apply knowledge as well as preparing them for the
approach exploration of T66-Debbie future workplace.
teacher-identified 2. They value constant reflection on teaching inquiry by associating with the wider
focus in teaching contexts, including NZC, research, and prior experience.
119
and/or learning.” 3. They acknowledge teaching practice keeps evolving.

4. They attempt to think and teach more creatively and take advantage of
technology.
5. CK and TK are not regarded as the focuses of teacher knowledge because both
can be developed along with students.
Case “Meta-analytic T37-Meda 1. She constantly reflects on her use of technology in teaching and keeps up to
development; reflection upon use of date with the development of technology.
learning technologies in 2. She believes technology should be used more broadly at the school, including
trajectory teaching, with a group daily administration.
of educators and/or a 3. She values teaching inquiry and constantly reflects on it.
researcher.” 4. She works closely with peer teachers to support each other’s teaching in the
BYOD environment.
5. She is actively involved in the school PLD and mentoring programme.
TPACK development Findings

Approach Strategy Description Participant Characteristics
TPACK self- “Periodic self- T11-Ray 1. They value and constantly evaluate the effectiveness of using technology in
assessment; assessment of extant T34-Julie class.
just-in-time and desired TPACK 2. They attempt to think and teach more creatively and take advantage of
professional levels (all technology.
development complements), used 3. They identify themselves as proactive learners, have plans for personal PLD,
to direct individualised learn about technology and its use in education through trial and error, and
professional learning.” overcome problems by themselves.
4. They value students’ engagement and achievement of learning objectives and
emphasise the need to guide and challenge students.
5. They acknowledge that not all students know much about technology.
Problem- Curriculum- “Authentic, T42-Ingrid 1. She values timely technical support.
based based, authentic contextualised 2. She works closely with the school technician for her instructional design
approach problem solving; problem-solving using practices so as to save time and decrease workload.
solving problems content-related 3. She attempts to align CK with the wider contexts, such as NZC, technology and
of practice technologies and/or the ways of delivery.
repurposed general- 4. She believes teacher knowledge continues to grow during the process of
purpose devices and instructional design and teaching practices.
applications.”
120
Instructional Learning activity “Developing TPACK T35-Mike 1. He works closely with HOD and peer teachers to develop and review the
planning types while focusing upon school’s science curriculum.
approach instructional planning 2. He and his department have regular meetings to discuss and review BYOD
of curriculum-based teaching by associating with the wider contexts, including NZC, research and
lessons, projects, or prior experience.
units.” 3. He constantly reflects on his use of technologies in teaching and keeps up to
date with the development in the science area.
4. He sets clear goals and makes action plans for personal PLD.
Workplace Community of “Teachers’ TPACK is T8-Betty 1. They value the wider connection with other schools, teachers, educators, and
learning practice shaped by processes T23-Bob researchers.
approach of identity 2. They make contributions to the teacher communities in the local areas and
development and online.
practice that are 3. They attend a variety of face-to-face and virtual PLD occasions nationwide and
contextually and internationally.
communally effected 4. They are heavy users of technology and learn TK through trial and error.
and held.” 5. They attempt to think and teach more creatively and take advantage of
technology.
From Harris (2016, pp. 198–199)
To conclude, this section has outlined the teacher participants’ involvement in PLD and their perspectives
on teacher knowledge related to their teaching in a BYOD environment. Drawing from the interviews, their
own PLD engagement may be driven by personal reflection on teacher knowledge and the availability of
external support. As for school-based PLD, effective leadership appears to be significant to help the
schools and teachers to identify the PLD needs as well as to organise timely PLD programmes.
Collaborative culture and peer connection are regarded as important to promote teachers’ PLD
engagement and teacher knowledge. A tailored and personalised PLD programme is desired because
different teachers have different learning curves and needs. Additionally, teacher participants expected
teacher education to be more up to date and relevant to the current practices at schools.
In terms of teacher knowledge, participants’ TK, PK, and CK are found to be developed through a variety
of channels. It is noted that not all teacher participants considered that the three knowledge bases are
equally important. Some participants may pay extra attention to the particular knowledge base(s). Lastly,
viewing participants’ teacher knowledge holistically, five approaches and seven strategies of TPACK
development has been identified and presented. Participants’ TPACK development appears to be
influenced by their understanding of the wider contexts, individual teaching values, personal use and
perceptions of technology, interaction with the wider community, and the availability of supports.

This section uses the ADDIE framework to describe the procedures of teacher participants’ instructional
design practices in a systematic manner, following the five phases—analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation. The common procedures arranged by Branch (2009; see Table 4 in
subsection 2.4.2) were used to inform the organisation of data. In the evaluation phase, the SAMR model
is adopted to present participants’ reflections on the extent of their use of technology in education.
6.5.1 Analysis
The analysis phase in the ADDIE framework is about identifying a performance gap and possible reasons
behind it. Drawing from the interviews, three procedures were generally involved in participants’ analysis
phase: understanding the wider contexts of the BYOD environment, knowing the students and determining
learning topics, and outlining the instructional objectives.
Understanding the wider contexts of the BYOD environment

Teachers’ contextualising their BYOD environment is an essential step in the analysis phase as it shapes
their understanding of the wider contexts, including the educational system, national and school curricula,
and the BYOD implementation in their schools and classrooms. Teachers’ understanding of the wider
contexts would thereby inform their instructional design practice in order to reflect the learning objectives
outlined in the NZC as well as to respond to the educational purpose and needs of their schools and
students. Section 6.3 presented participants’ perspectives of the macro, meso, and micro contexts in
relation to their instructional design practices for the BYOD environments.
Knowing the students and determining learning topics

The second procedure in the analysis phase is about getting to know the students, which means that
teachers identify the group of students and recognise their students as individuals. They also determine
121
the learning topics. As mentioned in Chapter 3 research methods (see subsection 3.3.3), during the
interviews, teacher participants were asked to discuss their instructional design practices by associating
with a recent experience including the science-learning topic and the group of students at the time.
Table 30 summarises the students and learning topics that were reported by the participants when asked
to talk about a recent instructional design experience. To present the basic information of the students
involved in their given examples, the table lists the class size, school year, and any special conditions in
the class mentioned by the teacher participants. The table also lists the learning topics involved in their
given examples. It is noted that T23-Bob and T47-Robin chose not to use a specific case or learning topic
to elaborate their instructional design procedures. Instead, they chose to talk about their general
instructional design practices. Additionally, the table summarises the four identified instructional objectives
related to their given examples. These four objectives will be elaborated following the table.
122
Table 30
Analysis Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Student Instructional objective
Class School Scientific Digital Student Exam
Participant size year Note Learning context/topic inquiry skills agency preparation
T8-Betty 28 Y13 Development of a habitable planet C, P •
T11-Ray 30 Y9 N/A E, P •
T23-Bob 30 Y10 Lower ability class Geology M
T25-Andrea 28 Y10 Some students have lower reading Kitchen chemistry C, E, I •
ability; one student has a serious
medical condition
T34-Julie 18 Y13 Heat installation C •
T35-Mike 30 Y10 Forces and motion E, M, P •
T37-Meda 25 Y9 Grip of shoes E, I, L
T42-Ingrid 26 Y12 Some have lower ability Animal survival in extreme environments I, M • • •
123
T47-Robin 30 Y10 N/A C • •

T51-David 30 Y9 Space M •
T56-Penny 25 Y8 Introduction to chemistry and matter C, M •
T66-Debbie 30 Y9 A top stream science class Energy M
Note. C = collaboration; E = experimental investigation; I = interpretation of data; L = laboratory safety; M = mastery of relevant science concepts and ideas; P = presentation of
findings.
Outlining the instructional objectives

In the analysis phase, as well as understanding the wider context, and knowing the students and topics,
teachers would also outline the instructional objectives. Four objectives were identified from the
interviews: scientific inquiry, digital skills, student agency, and exam preparation, as summarised in Table
30.
First, improving students’ scientific inquiry is one of the primary instructional objectives. Six areas were
found to be related to scientific inquiry: mastery of relevant science concepts and ideas, collaboration,
experimental investigation, interpretation of data, presentation of findings, and laboratory safety.
Specifically, six participants anticipated that students would learn the key science concepts and ideas.
Five participants mentioned the importance of collaboration and teamwork in scientific inquiry. Their
instructions were designed to allow groupwork, either face to face, online, or mixed. Four participants
provided opportunities for students to carry out experiments by proposing hypotheses, testing, and trials.
Furthermore, three participants valued students’ comprehension of knowledge, and expected students to
link and interpret data, observe patterns, and make predictions and conclusions. Three participants
expected students to create content and present findings as part of the scientific inquiry through various
mediums, such as a digital booklet (T8-Betty), video (T11-Ray), and report writing (T35-Mike). T37-Meda
added that students should have a sense of health and safety when working in a laboratory.
Second, four participants stressed the importance of helping students to develop digital skills. T8-Betty
and T11-Ray considered that students should be able to know how to use technology effectively as their
digital skills have an impact on their learning process in the BYOD environment. T8-Betty felt that
students’ digital skills will be required in their future study in university and at work, so having students
work using technology is “treating them like adults and it is what life in the real world is like.” Furthermore,
the objective of developing students’ digital skills is also about helping students to know how to approach
information online with a critical-thinking mindset. T56-Penny and T42-Ingrid hoped students would learn
to make good choices about what information to trust and how to effectively sort through information.
Third, the objective of promoting student agency was found to be significant in five participants’ analysis
phase. They attempted to empower students and offer them more opportunities to take control of their
learning. Hence, their instructions appear to be rather flexible and allow students to explore interests and
make choices about learning topics and activities within the curriculum. They also aimed to improve
students’ motivation and engagement in learning.
Fourth, three participants reported that preparing students for assessments is among their primary
instructional objectives. T47-Robin and T42-Ingrid asserted that the designed instruction should allow
students to meet assessment standards, especially those with lower ability. T35-Mike followed the NCEA
requirements, and helped students to develop study skills so they could apply knowledge and be well
prepared for tests in different contexts. It should be noted that setting exam preparation as an instructional
objective does not necessarily mean their instructional design practices are assessment driven. These
three participants did not imply that they focus only on assessment.
Overall, the analysis phase generally includes contextualising the BYOD environment, knowing the
students and determining the learning topics, and instructional objectives. Participants may focus
124
differently on the above procedures, but their analysis continues to inform the subsequent phases.
6.5.2 Design
The second phase in the ADDIE framework—design—is about relating the desired performance to
suitable methods. Three procedures were found to be involved in teacher participants’ design phase:
conducting a task inventory for students, composing students’ performance objectives for tasks, and
generating assessment items or strategies. Table 31 summarises the key points against these three
procedures of teacher participants’ design phases. Following the table, these three procedures will be
further discussed. It is noted that T23-Bob did not elaborate on his task inventory; instead, he showed a
few samples on OneNote to introduce how he organised the instructional activities and sequence.
125
Table 31
Design Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Participant Tasks for students Students’ performance objectives Assessment item/strategy
T8-Betty 1. Collaborative booklet production To demonstrate their learning and A digital booklet that is created and presented
2. Inquiry and groupwork teamwork by creating a digital booklet collaboratively, etc.
3. Forum discussion
4. Online meeting with scientist, etc.
T11-Ray 1. Science experiment To showcase their understanding of NOS A video that is created collaboratively, etc.
2. Video production, etc. through creating a video
T23-Bob 1. Forum discussion N/A N/A
2. Online meeting with scientist
3. Inquiry and groupwork, etc.
T25-Andrea 1. Selection of learning context/topics To demonstrate an experiment and 1. An experiment that is carried out
2. Inquiry and groupwork (science experiment) present the findings independently or collaboratively
3. Forum discussion 2. A topic test on paper, etc.
4. Homework/self-directed learning, etc.
T34-Julie 1. Selection of learning contexts/topics 1. To collect information and collaborate Google Sheets and Docs that are collaboratively
126
2. Inquiry and groupwork, etc. like a scientist created, etc.

2. To present experiment results to show
reflection on observation and mistakes
T35-Mike 1. Selection of learning contexts/topics To demonstrate an experiment and 1. Report/assignment on experiment written
2. Inquiry and groupwork (science experiment), present the findings independently or collaboratively
etc. 2. Online assessments, etc.
T37-Meda 1. Inquiry and groupwork To complete multiple tasks and achieve 1. Online assignment
2. Homework/self-directed learning assessments 2. Google Sheets and Docs that are created
3. Quizzes, etc. collaboratively
3. Book assignment
4. A presentation that is prepared independently
or collaboratively, etc.
T42-Ingrid 1. Selection of learning contexts/topics To carry out inquiry and achieve Online internal and external assessments, etc.
2. Inquiry and groupwork assessments
3. Quizzes, etc.
Participant Tasks for students Students’ performance objectives Assessment item/strategy

T47-Robin 1. Selection of learning contexts/topics To present findings and achieve 1. A presentation that is prepared independently
2. Selection of activities: assessments or collaboratively
one literacy activity, 2. Online internal and external assessments, etc.
one practical activity, and one cooperative
activity, etc.
3. Inquiry and groupwork, etc.
T51-David 1. Science experiment To complete multiple tasks and achieve 1. Google Sheets and Docs that are created
2. Video production assessments collaboratively
3. Essay writing 2. A video that is created independently or
4. Travel brochure creation, etc. collaboratively
3. A travel brochure that is created independently
or collaboratively
4. Online assessments, etc.
T56-Penny 1. Inquiry and groupwork (science experiment) To complete multiple tasks and achieve 1. Google Sheets and Docs that are created
2. Quizzes assessments collaboratively
3. Forum discussion, etc. 2. A presentation that is prepared independently
or collaboratively
127
T66-Debbie 1. Inquiry and groupwork To create a 3D model 1. Google Sheets and Docs that are created
2. 3D model production using iPad collaboratively
2. A 3D model produced using iPad
Confirming the tasks for students

Confirming the tasks was the first of the three procedures in the design phase. The tasks mentioned by
participants can be categorised into three major groups: selection of a learning context or topic,
independent and interactive tasks, and presentation of learning outcomes. Regarding the first group of
tasks, five participants indicated that they would normally prepare multiple learning contexts or topics for a
specific instruction, with students required to choose from these for their own learning (T25-Andrea, T34-
Julie, T35-Mike, T42-Ingrid, and T47-Robin). They expected students to make their own decisions, and
study science in a context that they were more familiar with or interested in. T47-Robin and T56-Penny felt
that learning contexts/topics ought to be designed to be highly relevant to students’ lives and learning
needs. They believed that students can learn better when they are interested, and a relevant learning
context/topic would help keep students engaged in class.
All participants prepared both independent and interactive tasks for learning and revision. Many tasks
could be performed either independently or collaboratively, such as data collection and science
experiments. Some tasks were specifically designed for virtual interaction, such as online meetings with a
scientist or a forum discussion (T8-Betty, T23-Bob, T25-Andrea, and T56-Penny).
Additionally, a variety of presentation approaches were found in the task inventory, including digital
booklet, video, photo essay, brochure, and 3D-model production (T8-Betty, T11-Ray, T51-David, and T66-
Debbie). These approaches were reported to promote students’ digital skills and allow meaningful use of
technology instead of simple substitution.
Composing students’ performance objectives, and generating assessment

items/strategies
Composing students’ performance objectives and generating assessment items/strategies, respectively
the second and the third procedures in the design phase, appeared to be closely related to each other.
Drawing from the interviews, the main performance objectives for students are to show their science
knowledge and understanding of what they have learnt. Performance objectives and the assessment
items/strategies are related to the performance students should exhibit after completing the tasks. In
general, the participants adopted formative and summative assessments in their designing instruction.
Participants valued students’ learning process and outcomes. For instance, according to T25-Andrea and
T35-Mike, students should be able to perform experiments for scientific inquiry, which can be assessed
through teacher observation, worksheets, report writing, or tests. As for learning outcomes like a video
production and 3D modelling, participants considered that the final products were students’ application of
knowledge. Through these final products, teachers could assess students’ comprehension and application
of knowledge.
Overall, in the design phase, technology helped participants to design a variety of tasks and assessment
items/strategies. Some tasks, such as virtual interaction and video production, are considered to prepare
students for future workplaces. Many tasks are impossible without technology. However, technology was
not always the top priority among all participants as many of them placed pedagogy and learning
contexts/topics first in the design phase. For example, T8-Bettty, T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T42-
128
Ingrid, and T51-David emphasised the importance of pedagogical thinking and reflection, and their primary
concern was about addressing students’ learning needs and engagement. T35-Mike and T51-David
highlighted that the designed tasks and learning intentions should align with the expectations and
requirements of the NZC.
6.5.3 Development
The third phase in the ADDIE framework—development—is about preparing relevant resources that are
used during instruction. Three procedures were found to be generally involved in the participants’
development phase: determining instructional activities, selecting technology, and developing guidance for
students. Table 32 summarises the key points against these three procedures of teacher participants’
development phases. It is noted that T11-Ray did not discuss the details of his instructional activities or
guidance for students. Following the table, these three procedures will be discussed further.
129
Table 32
Development Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Participant Teacher’s instructional activities Technology Guidance for students
T8-Betty 1. Informing students of learning objectives and success 1. Google Classroom Having students follow hard ground rules
criteria 2. Digital booklet application with flexible boundaries, e.g., cannot edit
2. Introducing digital booklets and infographics by showing 3. Infographic design using or delete others’ work, etc.
samples and modelling the process Piktocharta
3. Groupwork (groups of 3–4) 4. Video meeting with scientists
a. A three-period task of booklet creation using Skype if needed and
b. Students inquire and process information possible
c. They check with each other for accuracy 5. Videos etc.
d. They produce a digital booklet
4. Student presentation, peer review, and discussion
5. Providing feedback, etc.
T11-Ray N/A 1. Google Classroom N/A
2. Video-editing application
3. Videos
4. Online games, etc.
130
T23-Bob 1. Having students use OneNote to access learning 1. Video meeting with scientists Having students carry out their own
objectives and success criteria using Skype if needed and learning by following the objectives listed
2. Introducing key tasks and content using OneNote possible on OneNote, etc.
3. Having students complete the tasks and tests, then tick off 2. OneNote for key content,
the list of learning objectives on OneNote, etc. resources, and notes
3. Online games
4. Other technology depending on
needs
5. Back-up plan with printouts and
worksheets, etc.
T25-Andrea 1. Informing students of learning objectives and success 1. Learning management system Having students decide what kinds of
criteria (LMS): Ultranet and Google technology to use to complete tasks, etc.
2. Delivering through double periods by including: Classroom
a. Science experiment 2. Videos
b. Model making 3. Interaction with experiments using
3. Student self-reflection, peer review and discussion, etc. screenshots, photography, digital
annotation, and paper labels
4. Emails, etc.

T34-Julie 1. Informing students of learning objectives and success 1. Google Sites, Docs and Sheets 1. Having students choose the learning
criteria 2. Back-up plan with printouts, contexts/topics that they are personally
2. Providing students with different appropriate learning downloaded video clips, and back- interested in and may benefit from in
contexts/topics and letting them choose, etc. up copies on different devices and future
storage, etc. 2. Having students look for information that
is of high quality and at the right level,
etc.
T35-Mike 1. Informing students of learning objectives and essential 1. LMS: Education Perfect and Having students choose their own level of
knowledge Moodle science learning from:
2. Providing students with different appropriate learning 2. Google Sites, Docs and Sheets,
a. Applied science (four periods per
contexts/topics (two biology topics, two physics topics, and etc.
week; internal assessments; for
two chemistry topics) and letting them choose
students with lower ability)
3. Science experiment (one period per week as a laboratory
b. General science (four periods per
day)
week; internal assessments)
4. Monitoring students’ learning progress through Education
c. Double science (eight periods per
Perfect
week for two science subjects; six
5. Having students submit work through Moodle
external and four internal
assessments), etc.
131
T37-Meda 1. Informing students of the next lesson’s objectives, tasks, 1. LMS: Education Perfect and Having students be responsible for their
and resources a few days beforehand so they can prepare Google Classroom own learning, for example, students
in advance 2. Online quizzes, etc. should always remember to bring a fully
2. Completing a set of tasks for around 5 minutes and charged device to the school, etc.
reviewing assigned work at the beginning of the class
3. Groupwork (group of 4)
a. Forming groups with mixed abilities in terms of English
language skills, digital skills, and learning confidence
b. Online assignment and book assignment
T42-Ingrid 1. Having students work in groups or independently based on 1. Google Classroom 1. Having students decide what kinds of
their own learning styles 2. Online quizzes technology to use to complete tasks
2. Monitoring students’ learning progress by talking with them 3. Videos, etc. 2. Having students look for information that
individually is of high quality and at the right level,
3. Having students complete internal and/or external etc.
assessments based on their own choices, etc.

T47-Robin 1. Informing students of some self-learning activities before LMS: Google Classroom and Having students decide what kinds of
class through an online platform Moodle, etc. technology to use to complete tasks, etc.
2. Informing students of learning objectives and essential
knowledge and skills
3. Providing students with different learning contexts/topics
and activities so they can choose one literacy activity, one
practical activity, and one cooperative activity
4. Groupwork or independent work
5. Monitoring students’ learning progress by talking with them
individually
T51-David 1. Informing students of learning objectives and success 1. Education Perfect Having students understand why they
criteria 2. Video-editing application need to complete tasks and how the tasks
2. Providing students with a specific learning context/topic and 3. Photo-editing application relate to their development of knowledge
multiple tasks 4. Videos and skills, etc.
3. Groupwork (groups of 3–4) and independent work 5. Online quizzes, etc.
T56-Penny 1. Informing students of learning objectives and essential 1. Digital microscope camera Having students understand why they
132
knowledge (ProScope) need to complete tasks and how the tasks

2. Groupwork and/or independent work for multiple tasks 2. Online quizzes (Kohoot) relate to their development of knowledge
a. Asking students to identify main ideas, formulate and 3. Videos and skills, etc.
address self-generated questions 4. OneNote for key content,
b. Asking to collect and interpret information resources and notes
3. Student presentation, peer review, and discussion 5. Google Docs, etc.
T66-Debbie 1. Informing students of learning objectives and essential 1. Google Classroom 1. Having students decide what kinds of
knowledge 2. 3D-modelling application technology to use to complete tasks,
2. Providing students with different appropriate learning 3. Video-editing application and explain why they chose it
contexts/topics and letting them choose 4. Videos, etc. 2. Having students follow well-defined
3. Groupwork and/or independent work for eight tasks and ground rules, etc.
one assignment
4. Student presentation, peer review and discussion
a
Piktochart is a web-based infographic application. See https://piktochart.com/
Determining teachers’ instructional activities

Determining instructional activities was the first of the three procedures in the development phase.
Teachers’ instructional activities here refers to how a teacher delivers instruction in class. Drawing from
Table 32, there are some similarities among their instructional activities. First, at the beginning of the
class, teachers typically inform students of learning objectives, success criteria, and essential knowledge.
However, T37-Meda was different from other teachers as she adopted a flipped classroom approach.
Second, participants would introduce and explain the learning contexts/topics and tasks, and some may
have provided students with options to choose from (T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T47-Robin, T51-David, and
T66-Debbie). Students could carry out in-class tasks independently or collaboratively. T35-Mike valued
experiments as “students can know about the nature of science learning and investigation.” T47-Robin
reported that her school has developed a structured combination of activities: students need to choose at
least one literacy activity, one practical activity, and one cooperative activity. This structured combination
allows students to develop various skills. Regarding grouping students for collaborative work, T37-Meda
preferred to have each group comprise students of mixed abilities in English language skills, digital skills
and learning confidence. She believed this helps to create a more inclusive and cooperative learning
environment.
Third, participants’ feedback is usually provided during and after task performance, and their instructional
activities normally conclude with student presentation, discussion, and reflection. As reported by T11-Ray
and T34-Julie, teachers need to monitor learning in order to inform adjustments in their teaching.
Therefore, teachers should know what the students are doing as well as their learning paces and levels,
and control students’ behaviour issues with technology in class. Furthermore, teachers would need to
rethink and make appropriate adjustments to their future teaching. T66-Debbie acknowledged that “the
traditional didactic style may not fit in the BYOD environment.” Teachers ought to develop and evolve their
instructional practice based on the needs of the students. Additionally, learning from successful
experience can help avoid errors and save time in teachers’ instructional design practice. T42-Ingrid and
T51-David believed it helpful to cooperate with the wider teacher communities, reflect on others’ practice,
and build up their own collections of resources and activities.
Selecting technology
Selecting technology was the second of the three procedures in the development phase. Participants
typically used Google Classroom, Education Perfect, and/or Moodle as the LMS to create, manage, and
access resources (such as websites, images, videos, and games), questions, forums, and feedback. T35-
Mike summarised three useful features of an LMS. The first relates to time management. Important events
like assessment dates can be shown in a calendar with on-time reminders. The second feature is about
posting brief introductions, such as knowledge, ideas, and guidance around behaviours in a laboratory
environment. Students can thereby be well informed before the class. Third, when it comes to exam
revision, the content organisation on LMS can help students to holistically view the structure and make
connections with essential knowledge.
There are two different views of back-up planning for teaching in the BYOD environment. T23-Bob and
T34-Julie said they usually have a back-up plan in case of technical issues that might impact their lessons.
133
They may have printouts, downloaded files, and extra copies prepared. However, T37-Meda did not have
any back-up plan as she argued that there are always resources nearby, such as books in the library.
Students could still be able to access information and learn, simply by reading.
Many teachers appeared to be confident in selecting and using technology for teaching, but some relied
on extra technical support. According to T11-Ray, T25-Andrea, T34-Julie, and T56-Penny, to better
develop instruction, teachers need to know how to use and take advantage of technology, and create
opportunities for students to study with technology. T8-Betty noted the need to choose the right types of
technology. As for T42-Ingrid, she did not seem to have many problems with her analysis and design
phases, but she relied heavily on technical help at her development phase as she was used to having an
ICT technician’s assistance at school. Since her community of schools decided not to continue to fund the
technician position, she said she would maintain what she had been doing with technology or turn to other
staff for technical help.
Developing guidance for students

The development phase also involves preparing and providing information to guide students through the
lesson. Five kinds of guidance were identified from the interviews. The first is to have students follow
ground rules, which relates to students’ behaviour issues with technology, especially distraction and
misuse. T8-Betty recalled that a Google Doc was once intentionally changed to a different language by a
student who wanted to get a reaction in class. She and T66-Debbie believed that well-defined ground
rules can serve as a system to back up teachers’ management of students’ use of technology. The second
is to have students take responsibility for their learning (T23-Bob, T37-Meda, T51-David, and T56-Penny).
For example, they ought to follow instruction, bring fully charged devices, and understand why they should
complete the tasks and how the tasks relate to the development of knowledge and skills. The third is to
have students identify their knowledge levels and interests in science learning (T34-Julie and T35-Mike).
The fourth is to have students decide what kinds of technology they will use to complete the tasks (T25-
Andrea, T42-Ingrid, T47-Robin, and T66-Debbie). The fifth is to have students obtain information that is of
high quality and at the right level for them (T34-Julie and T42-Ingrid).
Overall, in the development phase, teachers plan how to deliver instruction in class. This includes deciding
on instructional activities and selecting technology. They also develop guidance for students to help them
learn to take charge of their own learning. Participants at this phase valued how learning can be better
supported and how teaching can be improved with the use of technology.
6.5.4 Implementation
The fourth phase in the ADDIE framework—implementation—is about preparing the learning environment
for instructional practice. Participants talked about what they have done to create a supportive learning
environment, and discussed their opinions about what the role of a teacher should be when teaching in a
BYOD environment. Participants were also asked to describe an ideal scenario of science teaching and
learning, which can help identify what has been missing in current practices. Table 33 summarises
participants’ key responses to these three aspects from their reflection on the implementation phase.
Following the table, these three aspects will be further discussed.
134
Table 33
Implementation Phase from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
Participant Learning environment Teacher’s role Ideal scenario
T8-Betty 1. Ensuring students understand the 1. Setting goals and negotiating the tasks with 1. Equal access to technology
learning objectives and success students 2. Students are always ready for the BYOD
criteria 2. Supporting students’ learning as a facilitator and environment, coming with books and devices
2. Questioning and challenging letting go of control 3. More use of digital books and online resources
students 3. Maintaining good relationships with students for learning
3. Helping students in group work to
focus on decision making and
negotiation rather than presentation
4. Helping students develop skills by
hand, e.g., handwriting and graph
drawing
5. Allowing music if it helps to
concentrate during solo work, but
not during groupwork, etc.
T11-Ray 1. Focusing more on the science 1. Supporting students’ learning as a facilitator, a 1. Accessing a wide range of devices and cutting-
experiment so students can learn guide, a conductor, a seeker of resources, a coach, edge technology
135
through it, rather than telling the and a motivator 2. Moving towards collaborative teaching
students what he wants them to 2. Being less of the teacher as the sage, the keeper of
know knowledge, or the expert
2. Encouraging students to share 3. Maintaining good relationships with students
ideas and produce a video to show 4. Managing students’ use of technology
their understanding, etc.
T23-Bob 1. Keeping important notes on the 1. Being aware of what the students are doing and 1. Project-based learning so students can learn
whiteboard and OneNote how it links with other subjects, so as to make certain aspects from different subjects through
2. Walking around to observe and learning more holistic a project and make connections between
providing constant feedback, etc. 2. Supporting students’ learning as a facilitator, subjects
moving away from teaching content 2. More collaboration between teachers
3. Guiding students to become independent learners
4. Focusing on skills like collaboration instead of the
learning context/topic
5. Catering to individual needs and giving feedback

T25-Andrea 1. Allowing students to study at their 1. Setting goals and tasks then letting students figure 1. Education system becomes more responsive
own pace out how to solve the tasks using available to students’ needs
2. Creating more opportunities for resources and technology 2. Education at school is well connected with the
collaboration 2. Catering to individual needs and giving feedback local community and workplace
3. Ensuring students’ learning 3. Learning can take place anytime, anywhere
experiences are exciting
T34-Julie 1. Questioning and challenging 1. Guiding and challenging students 1. Providing at least five learning contexts/topics
students 2. Maintaining students’ learning interest and for students to choose from
2. Maintaining good teacher–student engagement 2. Ensuring the learning contexts/topics are
relationships 3. Catering to individual needs and giving feedback related to students’ lives, so they can easily
3. Walking around to observe and apply the acquired knowledge
providing constant feedback, etc.
T35-Mike 1. Allowing students to study at their 1. Collaborating and exploring ideas with students 1. Project-based learning so students can learn
own pace 2. Ensuring the acquired information is of high quality certain aspects from different subjects through
2. Creating more opportunities for 3. Ensuring students can access information, and a project, and apply their skills and knowledge
collaboration helping and guiding when needed of different subjects
3. Ensuring students confidently use 4. Challenging students about content evaluation and 2. Providing students with internally and
technology for learning critical thinking externally assessed credits and lining up ideas
136
4. Walking around to observe and 5. Maintaining students’ learning interest and in the NZC
providing constant feedback, etc. engagement 3. Education system responds well to the needs
6. Enabling practical work and collaborative work of the workforce so students develop
7. Ensuring student agency by allowing freedom to workplace skills and their capability to learn
choose different learning contexts/topics, activities,
and pace
T37-Meda 1. Questioning and challenging 1. Supporting students’ learning as a facilitator, 1. Accessing the same types of devices, which
students helping them to search for relevant information and can be managed more easily
2. Encouraging students to explain learn to explore and investigate independently 2. No more behaviour issues in terms of the use
and share ideas 2. Creating a supportive environment to build of technology
3. Creating more opportunities for students’ confidence, work, and presentation as a
collaboration scientist
4. Maintaining good teacher–student 3. Preparing students to become future scientists
relationships rather than only aiming to pass assessments
5. Ensuring students confidently use 4. Guiding and explaining when students feel they
technology for learning, etc. struggle

T42-Ingrid 1. Maintaining good teacher–student 1. Guiding students to navigate and use information A lower student–teacher ratio
relationships effectively
2. Ensuring students confidently use 2. Measuring and monitoring students’ learning
technology for learning, etc. progress
3. Maintaining students’ learning interest and
engagement
4. Catering to individual needs and giving feedback
T47-Robin 1. Questioning and challenging 1. Setting goals and negotiating tasks with students 1. Before class, students prepare themselves by
students 2. Walking around and observing reading and using online resources, so they
2. Ensuring students are engaging in 3. Guiding and challenging students have a basic understanding
independent work and groupwork 4. Ensuring students engage and participate 2. During class, students can consolidate and
3. Walking around to observe and apply their knowledge through groupwork and
providing constant feedback, etc. discussion
T51-David 1. Questioning and challenging 1. Supporting students’ learning as a motivator and 1. A faster and more reliable Internet connection
students challenger 2. A better physical setting for science learning:
2. Ensuring students confidently use 2. Being part of the filtering system to help students a. A dry area for technology access
technology for learning identify what (e.g., knowledge, skill) is important, b. A wet area for experiments
and work on it c. A class size of about 20 students
137
5. Maintaining students’ learning interest and 3. More opportunities for students to interact with
engagement scientists
T56-Penny 1. Encouraging quality and comments 1. Managing students’ use of technology 1. Exploring a variety of ways to deliver
that show critical thinking in the 2. Delivering essential content knowledge and helping information
forum discussions students develop understandings 2. Keeping learning experiences enjoyable and
2. Walking around to observe and 3. Addressing constraints in teaching and learning challenging
providing constant feedback
3. Ensuring students confidently use
technology for learning
4. Ensuring students are engaging in
independent work and groupwork,
etc.

T66-Debbie 1. Allowing students to study at their 1. Ensuring the SAMR model is essentially followed in 1. Students do not need lessons to learn content
own pace, and asking them to look the instructional design practice that they already understand
for new tasks by themselves 2. Being an expert in the subject 2. Having lessons that are more personalised
instead of telling them what to do 3. Maintaining students’ learning interest and and developed for students’ needs, so they
next engagement can develop their own knowledge
2. Ensuring students are engaging in 4. Supporting students’ learning as a facilitator,
independent work and groupwork modelling how to learn and be a learner
3. Ensuring students confidently use 5. Guiding students to know how to use technology in
technology for learning, etc. a creative way, and preparing them for their future
with technology
6. Managing students’ use of technology
7. Identifying and catering to individual students’
learning needs
8. Helping students achieve assessments and apply
their acquired knowledge
9. Developing real-life learning contexts/topics for
learning and problem solving
138
Creating a supportive learning environment

Creating a supportive learning environment was the first of the three aspects of the teacher participants’
reflections on their implementation phase. Drawing from the interviews, teacher participants had generally
taken four common actions to create a supportive learning environment throughout their current practices.
The first was to ensure students are clear about the learning objectives, essential knowledge, and success
criteria at the beginning of the lesson (T8-Betty and T23-Bob). This could help teachers to guide the
subsequent inquiry and activities. Second, participants allowed students to choose the activities and
technology for their own learning, and study at their own pace. They aimed to promote students’ interest
and engagement in learning (T8-Betty, T25-Andrea, T35-Mike, and T66-Debbie). The third was to provide
opportunities to support scientific inquiry. Participants encouraged students to seek and interpret
information, share ideas, and present findings independently or collaboratively. They expected students to
enhance their digital skills so as to use technology confidently in conducting scientific inquiry (T11-Ray,
T25-Andre, T35-Mike, T37-Meda, T47-Robin, T51-David, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie). Fourth,
participants challenged and monitored students during scientific inquiry. They would ask questions and
challenge students to think more critically, for example, about the quality of information and their
interpretation. Participants would also walk around to observe students’ learning engagement (T8-Betty,
T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, T37-Meda, T47-Robin, T51-David, and T56-Penny).
Clarifying the role of the teacher

Clarifying the role of the teacher was the second of the three aspects of teacher participants’ reflections on
their implementation phase. In general, participants considered that teachers are supposed to set the
direction of learning; to provide help, guidance, and constant feedback; to manage students’ use of
technology in class; and to ensure students are on the right track. However, according to T23-Bob, some
students struggle with the changing role of teachers, and they “prefer a traditional didactic approach” (T23-
Bob). He felt it necessary to explain his expectations of independent learning and “ideas around 21st-
century learning” to students.
There were mixed perspectives about using the term facilitator to describe the role of a teacher. Five
participants thought that the term facilitator suggests teachers should move away from teaching content,
and support students to learn how to learn and become a learner (T8-Betty, T11-Ray, T23-Bob, T37-Meda,
and T66-Debbie). However, T35-Mike felt that “the word ‘facilitator’ failed to capture the totally different
role of a teacher in a BYOD environment.” He argued that there is very little teacher-led learning
nowadays. The source of knowledge has shifted from the teacher to the Internet; teachers are there to
ensure the quality of information provided to the students, and to provide guidance and feedback.
“Teachers, in most cases, are like gatekeepers” (T35-Mike).
Similar to T35-Mike’s views on a teacher’s role, T34-Julie, T42-Ingrid, T47-Robin, and T51-David
suggested teachers need to know how to let go of control and how to challenge students’ thinking.
Teachers should also know how to better guide students to learn, navigate information online, determine
the quality and validity of online resources, and find the resources that are at the right level for them.
139
Envisioning an ideal scenario

Regarding the last aspect of teacher participants’ reflections on their implementation phase, they were
asked to envision and describe an ideal scenario of science teaching and learning, which could help to
understand their expectations as well as identify what may be missing in current practice. Six types of
scenario emerged from the interview.
The first is about technology and equality. T11-Ray and T51-David valued access to reliable infrastructure
and cutting-edge technology. T8-Betty and T37-Meda thought equal access to technology would make it
easier for teachers to manage students’ use of technology when everyone could access the same
devices.
Second, T11-Ray, T23-Bob, T25-Andrea, and T51-David valued more collaboration with their wider
communities, such as coteaching, and connecting with other teachers, schools, local communities, and
scientists.
Third, according to T23-Bob, T34-Julie, T35-Mike, and T47-Robin, learning contexts/topics which are more
relevant to trending issues would ensure student engagement by covering cross-curricular knowledge.
This would help students to develop better comprehension skills and apply knowledge from different
subjects.
In the fourth scenario type, student agency and learning experiences would be enhanced by offering
students the freedom to choose their own learning contexts/topics, activities, and pace. In this scenario,
students would take advantage of technology to make seamless learning possible (T25-Andrea, T51-
David, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie). Moreover, T42-Ingrid and T51-David believed that a lower student–
teacher ratio would help them better cater to individual needs and give feedback more frequently.
In the fifth scenario, students would be ready for a BYOD environment. According to T8-Betty, T37-Meda,
and T47-Robin, students would be well prepared, for example, following instruction to develop basic
understandings before coming to class, having their device ready, and having self-discipline in class.
In the sixth scenario, according to T25-Andrea, T35-Mike, and T66-Debbie, the education system,
especially assessment, would be more responsive to the needs of students and the workforce. In a BYOD
environment, students would learn differently and develop a distinct set of knowledge and skills related to
working with technology. Assessment and curriculum at national and school level would accommodate
current and future workforce needs and ensure students are well prepared.
Overall, in the implementation phase, teacher participants had taken actions to support student learning in
a BYOD learning environment. They acknowledged that the role of the teacher has changed, which may
be challenging for some teachers and students. Some of them asserted that the education system should
be more responsive and address emerging issues such as equality, and that students need to be more
responsible for their own learning.
6.5.5 Evaluation
The last phase in the ADDIE framework—evaluation—is about assessing the quality of instructional
practices. In the interviews, teacher participants reviewed their instructional design practice, reflected on
their use of technology in education using the SAMR model, and identified areas for their future
140
improvement.
Reviewing instructional practice

Teacher participants generally made positive comments, and also reported issues and concerns about
their overall instructional design practices for their BYOD environments.
Positive comments
Three types of positive comments emerged from the interviews. In general, teacher participants felt that
teaching and learning in a BYOD environment could help achieve instructional objectives, enhance the
quality and effectiveness of instruction, and improve students’ learning experience. Table 34 summarises
participants’ positive comments about their instructional design practices. Following the table, these three
categories of comments will be discussed.
Table 34
Summary of Participants’ Positive Comments of their Instructional Design Practices from Interview Data in
Study Phase 3
Achieved instructional Enhanced quality and Improved learning
Participant objectives effectiveness of instruction experience
T8-Betty • • •
T11-Ray • • •
T23-Bob •
T25-Andrea •
T34-Julie • • •
T35-Mike • • •
T37-Meda • • •
T42-Ingrid • •
T47-Robin •
T51-David • • •
T56-Penny • • •
T66-Debbie • • •
First, 10 participants reported that their instructional objectives outlined in the analysis phase were well
achieved. The identified instructional goals (see subsection 6.5.1) in the analysis phase include scientific
inquiry, digital skills, student agency, and exam preparation. However, T47-Robin reported that “the
[assessment] data shows us it is the same if not better, and we have not had a huge rise we wanted.” Her
reflection was mainly based on the academic performance of the students which did not show a significant
difference between before and after the BYOD implementation. As for T25-Andrea, she felt the goals
around the science content were basically achieved. But her goal of student agency was not well achieved
since “some of them still expected the old traditional way—just being told what to do and being given the
answers—so they need to shift their thinking and mindset.”
Second, 11 participants believed the quality and effectiveness of instruction improved. For example, T66-
Debbie reported that, “I have much more time now to actually talk to the students because I am not tied to
the front of the room instructing and that makes my life a lot easier in the room.” Instead of focusing on
content delivery, teachers felt they could interact with students more by supporting their scientific inquiry
process, and helping those who are struggling, with timely feedback. But T23-Bob did not feel the overall
quality and effectiveness of instruction had been enhanced because “from a pedagogical point of view,
141
senior students have a better ability to look for the resources for learning, and juniors did not seem to have
the same ability as seniors.”
Third, according to eight participants, students’ learning experience was enhanced, although this does not
necessarily imply that their assessment results improved. It is more about student agency, independent
and collaborative learning, and study skills, especially skills of learning how to learn. Learning with
technology can be enjoyable and interesting. For example, T8-Betty said, “students are proud of the end
products that they complete on their devices.” She believed students using technology can carry out
scientific inquiry as scientists, by doing what scientists do at work. Likewise, T34-Julie felt her students
who were learning with technology became “a lot more individualised, independent learners and they can
work collaboratively together as well.” She found students were able to “point out sources of errors and
discussed their results openly.” But T25-Andrea felt student agency in her class was not yet well achieved.
T23-Bob, T42-Ingrid, and T47-Robin did not specifically comment on whether they felt their instructions
helped improved students’ learning experience.
Other comments
Apart from the positive comments, participants also discussed other reflections on their instructional
design practices for their BYOD environments. First, T8-Betty acknowledged the differences in learning
focus between junior and senior students in a BYOD environment: juniors have a range of activities that
suit all kinds of styles over a period of time; compared to juniors, seniors focus more on looking for
information that helps them prepare for exams, and seniors are more serious about the quality of
groupwork and consider it among their preferences for assessment tasks.
Second, according to T11-Ray, T51-David, T56-Penny, and T66-Debbie, the current assessment practices
may not be able to accurately reflect students’ learning. They expected the assessment practices would
be reviewed, reflected on, and matched with current student learning in order to help understand the
actual learning outcomes in the BYOD environment.
Third, T25-Andrea reported that the use of technology may “uncover poor teaching.” If a teacher cannot
personalise the lesson to maintain student engagement, the students might be off task. She commented
that if students are not doing the work, the teacher would be responsible because the instruction may not
be well designed or implemented.
Fourth, T34-Julie acknowledged that, during her instructional design practice, she initially had perceptual
bias about students’ digital skills. She assumed that they had more pre-knowledge about technology,
meaning she spent little time showing them how to use the technology in class, such as Google Sheets.
She then identified some problems related to students’ use of Google Sheets and had to stop and
demonstrate in detail, which impacted the effectiveness of her instruction and the time available for
teaching.
Fifth, providing feedback online was seen as being time-consuming (T35-Mike and T42-Ingrid). Even
though it is easy for students to submit their work online, it can be challenging for teachers to thoroughly
check every single document and forum discussion. Teachers may miss something important in the
student work that did not initially seem so important.
142
Finally, four teacher participants discussed the workload of instructional design practice. T11-Ray and
T51-David had invested a lot of personal time and effort to build up a collection of activities and resources.
E1-Paige thought that it is a huge task for teachers to integrate technology creatively in teaching.
Managing students’ use of technology in class and during breaks is seen to be a different area of
expertise. As for T47-Robin and T66-Debbie, at the initial stage of BYOD adoption, they considered it
time-consuming to design and develop instruction and materials, and to align with the NZC and NCEA
assessments; but acknowledged that once these are designed and developed, less time is needed for
preparation.
Reflecting on the use of technology in education using the SAMR model

Regarding the second of the three aspects involved in teacher participants’ reflection on their evaluation
phase, they were invited to use the SAMR model to discuss the extent of their use of technology in
teaching. As stated by T35-Mike, T37-Meda, and T66-Debbie, the SAMR model is useful for teachers to
reflect and evaluate how well they have been doing with technology. Drawing from the interviews,
modification and redefinition appeared to closely reflect the extent of their own technology use in teaching.
Table 35 summarises their reflections on why they chose to use modification or redefinition to describe the
extent of their technology use in teaching. The table also summarises their views about what they can do
to improve their current instructional practice. Following the table, the key points from their reflections will
be discussed.
143
Table 35
Self-Reflection Using SAMR Model and Future Improvement from Interview Data in Study Phase 3
SAMR model
Participants Modification Redefinition Future improvement
T8-Betty 1. Her instructional practice focused more on 1. To spend more time on rethinking and
reasons to adopt a BYOD environment reviewing instructional practices
rather than how to teach in a BYOD 2. To provide feedback in class more
environment frequently
2. Students could work on new tasks in a
BYOD environment
3. Students were more creative in their work
4. NOS in the science curriculum seemed to
be easier to integrate into the learning
environment
5. Students could learn science by working as
a scientist
T11-Ray Trying to take advantage of all of technology’s 1. To have more opportunities for groupwork
potential was the best use of technology, and and learning with games
should be the purpose of using technology in 2. To encourage students to try and apply
144
education new ideas

3. To help students become citizens of the
world with more social responsibility and
better cultural and multilingual abilities
4. To discover new developments in
technology and teaching, and then make
connections
T23-Bob 1. Learning happened with connections 1. To have more collaboration with other
between different subjects schools and teachers
2. Teachers and students could have a 2. To have students collaborating between
broader knowledge and understanding of schools
education
3. Personalised learning could be easily
enabled and developed
SAMR model
T25-Andrea 1. She kept using and trying new methods of 1. To try new opportunities, such as
teaching with technology connecting with field experts and engaging
2. She was not afraid of failures and is willing in online teaching communities
to redesign her lessons if necessary 2. To explore different functions of Google
3. Student agency was promoted as they Classroom
could choose own learning contexts/topics 3. To ask students to reflect on their learning
and decide how to learn about the concepts more frequently
T34-Julie 1. Sufficient guidance, resources, and 1. To modify the sequence of instruction to
feedback could be provided to students ensure students can carry out learning
2. Students could work on new tasks in a smoothly, for example, to demonstrate the
BYOD environment whole process of working with new
3. Students were challenged with questions technology like Google Sheets first, then to
(why and how) so they could expand and move on to the lesson
improve the quality of their work 2. To have a better understanding of what
4. There were more chances for students’ self- students want and where they want to go
reflection as they could redefine, review and in the future
redo what they had done
145
T35-Mike 1. Some opportunities were not yet utilised: None, as he was generally satisfied with the
a. Access to the wider community current practice
b. New activities using technology such as
video production
c. Schoolwide communication between
departments in terms of BYOD teaching
and learning contexts/topics
2. Many instructional activities could be carried
out even in a non-BYOD environment
3. It was unclear how to move to redefinition
T37-Meda 1. A lot of work had been done around the To make the instruction more specific and
educational use of technology less vague
2. The use of technology depended on the
nature of the tasks
3. There was always room for improvement
SAMR model
T42-Ingrid 1. She valued how to best deliver instruction To find a better way to provide constant—but
using technology, rather than using more less time-consuming—feedback to students
types of technology or using it more
frequently
2. She was always clear with her instructional
objectives and could achieve them in a
BYOD environment
3. Personalised learning could be easily
enabled and developed
T47-Robin 1. She was confident and comfortable with the None, as she was generally satisfied with the
current use of technology in class current practice
2. The department’s structured activities
helped facilitate instructional practice
3. Extending the use of technology was not a
top priority in teaching
4. Not all students could access technology
5. There was not significant improvement in
student performance
146
T51-David 1. His delivery of instruction was improved by None, as he was generally satisfied with the
using technology current practice. But he would continue to
2. There were new ways of using technology in constantly review the instruction and adjust
learning, such as animation for interactive his teaching based on the students’ abilities
visual illustration
3. There was more time for experiments as the
instructional process was faster
4. Slight rather than radical enhancement
through media such as music, cartoons, and
humour
SAMR model
T56-Penny 1. Many hands-on tasks were enabled by 1. To try to create teams and have the
technology teammates sit on opposite sides of the
2. She kept using and trying new methods of room so they can only work through
teaching with technology technology
3. Students could work on new tasks in a 2. To modify digital assessment to make
BYOD environment automatic marking more accurate
4. Students could develop critical thinking
though the use of technology
5. Sufficient feedback could be provided to
students
T66-Debbie 1. It was hard to accomplish redefinition after 1. To get rid of paper workbooks entirely
only 3 years of BYOD teaching 2. To design more tasks around creating 3D
2. NCEA assessment was still traditional and models with technology
limited
147
Five participants used modification to describe their use of technology in their teaching. In general, they
were comfortable with their current practice with technology, and especially valued the enhanced quality
and effectiveness of instruction due to technology integration. They believed redesigning learning activities
has become possible in their BYOD environment.
They also talked about why they did not describe their use of technology using redefinition. T66-Debbie
stated that her lack of teaching experience may be a disadvantage for her when it comes to combining
technology affordances with teaching. T47-Robin and T51-David had not yet felt a significant improvement
in learning performance. T35-Mike and T37-Meda acknowledged that there is room for further
improvement, such as exploring the potential of technology. Furthermore, T35-Mike felt confused about
how to be more creative with technology and was unclear about how to move to redefinition. He argued
that individual efforts are not enough, and a schoolwide strategy is needed. He expected there could be
more time dedicated to cross-department cooperation, to work together to “deliver an achievable roadmap
for increasing technology integration at the school.”
Seven interview participants indicated that redefinition describes the extent to which they use technology
in teaching. Drawing from the interviews, in general, they believed they have created new learning tasks
with the use of technology. They showed strong interest in teaching with technology, even with insufficient
financial incentives. They are heavy users of technology in daily lives and have realised that learning
nowadays is completely different from before. They considered themselves adaptive to the changing
educational setting, student learning needs, and the changing role of teachers.
T37-Meda believed that the use of technology depends on the nature of the task. Likewise, T8-Betty
stressed that a teacher’s use of technology can be rather flexible, and commented:
I use all of the above [four modes of SAMR], depending on the task. I get students to create
collaboratively when possible, so they can recognise that they all have knowledge that they can
use and share. Sometimes I work at a modification mode, especially when I want the student’s
voice. I use technology as a tool just like pen and paper. At our school we are beyond seeing
BYOD as an end. It is a means to an end. (T8-Betty)
Identifying areas for future improvement

Identifying areas for future improvement was the last aspect involved in teacher participants’ reflections on
their evaluation phase, which are also summarised in Table 35. T35-Mike, T47-Robin, and T51-David were
satisfied with the current state and did not think there were any particular areas in which they needed to
improve their current instructional design practices. According to T47-Robin, she and her colleagues “have
done a good job” with their background research and developed structured instruction for the science
department. She commented that they were at the stage where teachers were adapting to the BYOD
environment, and they were still unclear what the next phase would look like.
Five common areas for future improvement were identified from the interviews. First, T11-Ray, T34-Julie,
and T56-Penny said that they would try to understand and cater to student learning needs as well as
develop different tasks to facilitate learning. Second, T8-Betty, T25-Andrea, and T42-Ingrid wanted to
explore how to provide feedback more efficiently and frequently. Third, T23-Bob and T25-Andrea hoped to
connect with the wider community more in the future. The fourth is to discover and try new opportunities
148
brought by technology (T11-Ray, T25-Andrea, and T66-Debbie). Fifth, T8-Betty, T34-Julie, T37-Meda,
T51-David, and T56-Penny would like to spend more time constantly reviewing and adjusting their
instructional design practice, including assessment practice.
Overall, in the evaluation phase, teacher participants were generally positive about their current
instructional design practices. They believed they had already utilised many potentials of technology to
create new learning tasks and to cater to students’ needs. Some comments around existing issues and
areas for future improvement appear to be associated with the wider contexts, such as assessment
practice, school strategy, and collaboration with peers. Additionally, participants were able to identify
possible actions that they can take to further enhance their instructional design practices, with more focus
on student learning needs, interactions with students and the wider community, and constant self-
reflection.
This section has outlined the five phases (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation)
of the teacher participants’ instructional design practices. First, in the analysis phase, teachers’
understanding of the wider contexts appears to inform the other four phases. This phase also includes
knowing the students as well as determining the learning topics and instructional objectives. Second, the
design phase focuses on aligning learning tasks and performance objectives with the predetermined
instructional objectives. Third, in the development phase, teachers specify how the instruction is delivered
in class, choose the appropriate technology, and develop guidance for their students. Fourth, the
implementation phase focuses on how teachers create a learning environment to support student learning
in class. Participants also reflected on what the role of a teacher should be and envisioned an ideal
scenario of science teaching and learning. Fifth, the evaluation phase includes a review of the instructional
design process and the effectiveness of instruction with the use of technology. The teacher participants
used either modification or redefinition from the SAMR model to describe the extent of their use of
technology in education. They were generally confident about their current teaching with technology and
yet still utilised the evaluation to inform their future practice.
6.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the findings from the one-on-one semi-structured interviews in Phase 3. Three
sections of findings have been presented: the first was about both experts’ and teacher participants’
understanding of the macro, meso, and micro contexts regarding the BYOD environment; the second was
to present the teacher participants’ reflections on their PLD and knowledge development using the TPACK
framework; the last section of findings reported the participants’ reflections on instructional design practice
using the ADDIE framework and SAMR model.
Drawing from the findings, it appears that the wider contexts and the teacher knowledge are strongly
associated with teachers’ instructional design practices. For example, some issues identified in the BYOD
classroom are related to the macro context, such as educational equality and assessment, as well as with
the micro context, such as students’ agency and use of technology. PLD and teacher knowledge can
reflect what teachers know about teaching in a BYOD environment and their approaches for self-
improvement. They generally valued TK and PK more than CK.
When considering instructional design practices, both analysis and evaluation phases constantly informed
149
the participants’ three phases of design, development, and implementation. Furthermore, in these three
phases, most participants valued technology and attempted to explore its potential. However, a few
participants, such as T8-Betty, considered technology a tool only and paid more attention to the students’
learning process. Furthermore, all participants agreed that supporting students’ use of technology is
significant for their current and future study, assessment, and employment. In this study, teacher
participants, using the SAMR model, showed a positive attitude about their current use of technology and
future instructional design practice.
150
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions
7 Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter provides a discussion of the research findings and draws conclusions from the study. It starts
by revisiting the research goal and research questions. It then synthesises findings by relating the key
conceptual strands to relevant theory and literature, and discusses the emerging topic of the digital divide.
Finally, it presents the study’s theoretical and practical implications before outlining the limitations of the
present research and providing recommendations for future studies.
7.2 On Reflection
This section links the findings with the research questions and the three phases. The findings are
discussed based on the three conceptual strands: BYOD environments and wider contexts, teacher
knowledge, and instructional design practices. The section also reviews the topic of the digital divide that
emerged from the study.
7.2.1 Review of the research

The research goal of this study was to explore and understand how science teachers carry out
instructional design practices for BYOD environments in NZ secondary schools. In order to achieve this
research goal and address the key research question, the study attempted to answer five subsidiary
questions:
SQ1 What are the pedagogical and technological affordances and constraints perceived by science
teachers teaching in a BYOD environment?
SQ2 How can the perceived affordances and constraints of a BYOD environment be addressed
through science teachers' instructional design practice?
SQ3 What are the procedures involved in science teachers’ instructional design practices for a
BYOD environment?
SQ4 What relevant knowledge do science teachers need to have to be able to teach in a BYOD
environment?
SQ5 How can science teachers be supported in their professional development related to the
instructional design practices for a BYOD environment?
These questions were then unpacked and addressed by conducting the current research through the
three study phases. Findings from the three phases were reported in the preceding chapters (Chapters 4,
5, and 6, respectively). In detail, through reviewing 222 NZ secondary schools’ online BYOD-related
documents related to their BYOD initiatives, Chapter 4 primarily outlined the status of the adoption of
BYOD initiatives by NZ secondary schools and provided a summary of the BYOD-related documents
(Phase 1). Chapters 5 and 6 respectively provided findings from the online open-ended survey with 72
science teachers (Phase 2) and the one-on-one semi-structured interviews with 12 science teachers and
three experts in the field of NZ secondary science education (Phase 3). Expert interviews in Phase 3
provided supplementary information which enriched the understanding of the wider contexts and informed
151
the analysis of teachers' interview data. Both Chapters 5 and 6 presented an overview of teacher
participants’ perspectives of their BYOD environments, instructional design practices, teacher knowledge,
and PLD. Chapter 6 provided deeper insights into the individual accounts of participants. Table 36
summarises the topics of findings covered in each study phase. The table also indicates which context in
the macro–meso–micro structure was primarily represented in the topics of findings. It should be noted
that the present study focuses on the micro contexts—BYOD environments; the findings related to the
macro and meso contexts could facilitate the understanding of the research problem.
Table 36
Linking the Findings from Three Phases with the Macro–Meso–Micro Contexts
Study Context
phase Findings Macro Meso Micro
1 BYOD adoption in NZ secondary schools, device preference by •
schools, and the common topics and issues covered by the BYOD-
related documents
2 Teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints •
PLD opportunities •
Instructional design practices •
3 Teachers’ and experts’ perspectives of the macro, meso, and micro • • •
contexts of the BYOD environments, including teachers’ perceived
affordances and perceived constraints
PLD opportunities and teacher knowledge development •
Instructional design practices •
The findings from three phases sit at the junction of three conceptual strands which are related to the five
subsidiary questions: BYOD environments and wider contexts (SQ1 and SQ2), teacher knowledge (SQ4
and SQ5), and instructional design practices (SQ3). These three strands also constitute the key
components in the conceptual framework of the study (see Figure 8 from subsection 2.5.2). Figure 10
presents these three strands and their relationship to the five subsidiary research questions and the three
phases.
152
Perceived affordances and

SQ1 perceived constraints Phase 1
Micro context: BYOD environments
Meso context
SQ2
Macro context
Phase 2
SQ3
TPACK framework
Teacher knowledge
SQ4
ADDIE framework
Phase 3
SQ5 SAMR model
Science teachers’
instructional design practices
Figure 10. Three conceptual strands and their relations with the five subsidiary research questions and
three phases.
To review the three phases’ findings and address the five subsidiary research questions, this section will
synthesise and discuss findings based on the three conceptual strands. The first strand, BYOD
environments and wider contexts, includes NZ secondary schools’ BYOD adoption and policy framework,
and teachers’ perceived affordances, and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment. The discussion
of the second strand, teacher knowledge, focuses on PLD opportunities, communities of practice (CoPs),
TPACK development, and teacher education. The third strand, instructional design practices, is discussed
through the lens of the ADDIE framework and includes the examination of situation (analysis), the creation
of instruction (design, development, and implementation), and the evaluation of instruction.
7.2.2 BYOD environments and wider contexts

The discussion of the first conceptual strand, BYOD environments and wider contexts, is based on the
findings from schools’ BYOD-related documents and participants’ perceptions of the BYOD environments.
This subsection reviews schools’ adoption of BYOD initiatives and their BYOD policy framework,
Subsequently, it discusses teachers’ perceived affordance and perceived constraints of the BYOD
environment that were identified in the study.
Schools’ BYOD adoption and policy framework

The discussion of BYOD environments and wider contexts begins with schools’ BYOD adoption and policy
frameworks, involving three areas: BYOD technology-provision models adopted by schools, device
preference and use in class, and schools’ BYOD policy framework.
BYOD technology-provision models adopted by schools

The study defines BYOD as a model of technology provision. Following Stavert’s (2013) categorisation,
this study suggests that there could be three categories of BYOD models of technology provision. Phase 1
153
findings did not reflect the model of allowing any personally owned digital device, but reflected the other
two models: 73 out of 222 schools (33%) tightly controlled devices allowed on campus by specifying the
types of devices, and 149 schools (67%) limited the devices to those that meet specific requirements.
There are several possible explanations for this result. First, schools would need to identify the range of
devices to ensure the security and administration of network and devices (McLean, 2016; Sweeney,
2012). Otherwise, allowing a broad range of devices may require considerable technical support and
expenditure. Second, Phases 2 findings suggest that, even though many schools’ BYOD policies have
narrowed the range of devices, some teacher participants still perceived the diversity of devices as one of
the technical constraints, as they felt it challenging to accommodate various types of devices and address
technical issues in class. Therefore, for practical reasons, many schools are not likely to adopt a BYOD
model that has no limitation on the range of personal digital devices students can use.
Device preference and use in class

Another aspect of schools’ BYOD adoption is the device preference and use in class. Findings from
Phases 1 and 2 indicate that the most preferred and commonly used devices are laptops and tablets,
which may be mainly attributed to the schools’ BYOD guidance on device requirements, and teachers’ and
students’ familiarity with those devices. The findings showed that mobile phones were the least used
device in the BYOD classrooms, and a few schools and teachers would prohibit phone use in class or
even during breaks. Apart from the schools’ guidance on phone use, the low preference for and use of
mobile phones may be attributed to teachers’ perceived constraints of mobile phones, for example: that
some programs and platforms may be unavailable on phones or cannot perform as effectively as laptops
and tablets due to the small screen size and capability of phones; that students may use phones for non-
education purposes in class, such as games and social media. However, it should be acknowledged that
mobile phones could be useful in some learning situations, such as outdoor inquiry or the use of AR in
education (Adams Becker et al., 2016; Cochrane et al., 2014). Overall, drawing from the findings, the
study suggests that device preference and use in class is informed by schools’ BYOD guidance on device
requirements and teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints of technology.
Schools’ BYOD policy framework

The study in Phase 1 identified seven overarching categories of schools’ BYOD-related documents:
vision, enrolment, news, reports, general information about BYOD, information on responsible use of
technology in a BYOD environment, and technical instruction. Through the four-dimensional policy model
developed by Cooper et al. (2004), the study shows that the collated BYOD-related documents are able to
reflect all four policy dimensions. Specifically, through the normative dimension, schools’ BYOD policy
development is normally informed and influenced by the NZC framework and schools’ educational beliefs.
Schools’ BYOD deployment and embrace of technology in education are based on a belief that the use of
technology would be important and necessary in students’ daily life and their future study and
employment. Through the structural dimension, the NCEA digital assessment, as a significant change over
the next few years, has motivated schools to adopt and take advantage of the BYOD initiatives in order to
prepare teachers and students for the digital assessment practices and to address the future needs of
learning. Through the constituentive dimension, schools’ BYOD policy acknowledge and address the
interests of different stakeholders, including students’ learning needs, parents’ concerns such as device
154
affordability and requirement, teachers’ PLD needs, researchers’ findings and advice on BYOD, and
partnership with technology providers. Through the technical dimension, BYOD adoption requires school
leadership to set direction and carry out strategic planning at the preliminary stage of deployment, for
example, investing in adequate network infrastructure and providing technical support for acceptable
devices. The BYOD-related documents also show that, to facilitate teaching, schools and teachers need to
address students’ behaviour issues with technology by means such as the responsible use of technology
agreements and disciplinary actions in the case of breaches. Combined, the seven categories of
documents reflect the normative, structural, constituentive, and technical policy dimensions, which can be
seen as shaping the overall BYOD policy framework in NZ secondary schools.
There are similarities between the Phase 1 findings of NZ schools’ BYOD-related documents and the
study by Gkamas et al. (2016) who proposed a 10-step framework for designing a secure BYOD policy for
schools in Greece. Their BYOD policy framework includes communication with all stakeholders,
determination of funding scheme, definition of mobile device specifications, acceptable use policy, device
and data security policy, mobile device technical support scheme, network infrastructure upgrade,
technical service redesign, learning-activities and teaching-strategies redesign, and teachers’ PLD. Both
studies have clearly included the constituentive and technical dimensions of the BYOD policy. Gkamas et
al.’s framework appears to have a stronger focus on addressing issues of technical support and security,
but the normative and structural dimensions are not explicitly reflected through the 10 steps. One of the
possible explanations is that their framework was proposed to support schools’ BYOD implementation
stage, and these schools should have gone through the preliminary stage of planning and explaining their
BYOD policy’s intention. Regarding the NZ schools in this study, some teachers and parents in NZ stayed
sceptical about digital initiatives such as BYOD and ILE (Eder, 2018). Through the reflected normative and
structural dimensions, the study shows that schools’ BYOD-related documents have presented the
rationale for the schools’ BYOD deployment in order to address concerns from teachers and parents.
Apart from viewing the two studies through the lens of the four-dimensional policy model, there are
differences in the focus of policy content. Specifically, Gkamas et al.’s (2016) framework explicitly includes
the learning-activities and teaching-strategies redesign as well as teacher’s PLD, implying that they
acknowledged the importance of instructional design practices for the BYOD environment. Similar ideas
were not well reflected in the Phase 1 findings; instead, the seven categories of documents are more
associated with the BYOD-related administration such as ICT guidance. The differences between the two
studies in the focus of policy content suggest that little is known about how NZ schools’ BYOD policy
frameworks have supported and engaged with teachers’ instructional practices. However, Phases 2 and 3
findings show that many schools have actually been providing teachers with BYOD-related PLD
opportunities and many teachers have been developing their teacher knowledge and instructional design
practices.
Findings from the schools’ BYOD-related documents suggest that there may be a gap between PLD-
related policy and practice. The study acknowledged that the Phase 1 data collection method—collecting
BYOD-related documents published by NZ schools online—was unable to fully present the overall BYOD
policies at schools or represent the actual practices of BYOD deployment and implementation. This is
because not all NZ schools publish every document on their BYOD policies online; the published
155
documents are generally indicative and cannot reflect schools’ practice as they may evolve over time.
Additionally, policy documents, as high-level statements of intent, would not cover detailed descriptions of
policy implementation. Policy may only provide general guidance for schools’ PLD and might not represent
the changing PLD needs and practices. Teachers’ common and individual PLD needs may constantly
change in the wake of their familiarity with the BYOD environment. Their perceived affordances and
perceived constraints of teaching in a BYOD environment might inform their ongoing reflection on their
teacher knowledge and instructional practices. For example, as reported in the study, teachers have their
personal PLD needs and preferred approach to teacher knowledge development. Centrally organised PLD
such as workshops, generally outlined in the policy, may not attend to individual needs. Personalised PLD
such as mentoring and engagement in teacher communities emerged as the desired approach from the
study, which might not be anticipated by policymakers. Therefore, even though PLD-related policies are
normally made to inform practice, the implementation process might deviate from policy in order to adapt
to changes of common and individual PLD needs.
Teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment

Apart from reviewing the NZ schools’ BYOD adoption and policy framework, the discussion of BYOD
environments and wider contexts also involves science teachers’ perceptions of their BYOD
environments—micro contexts—which were influenced by the meso and macro contexts. The study
explored teachers’ perceptions by identifying their perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the
BYOD environments.
Through the Phase 2 survey completed by 72 science teachers, the study identified five perceived
affordances and five perceived constraints. Phase 3 interviews with 12 teachers gained further insight into
teacher participants’ perceptions as well as a better understanding of the most common affordances and
constraints identified in Phase 2. The following discussion of teachers’ perceived affordances and
perceived constraints will be presented through technological and pedagogical lenses.
Perceived technological affordances and constraints

Viewed through the technological lens, the study identified access, and the diversity of devices, programs,
and platforms as two perceived affordances; the study also identified access, the diversity of devices, and
infrastructure and technical support as three perceived constraints.
Specifically, the study shows that access can be considered both an affordance and a constraint. On one
hand, the BYOD environment and the ease of technology use allows for easy access to information
across spatial and temporal boundaries, meaning that teachers and students can easily interact with
technology, access online resources, and network with the wider community such as peers and scientists.
On the other hand, access can be perceived as a constraint if some students cannot access technology,
especially when they cannot afford a device, have a device that does not meet the school-required
minimum specifications, or forget to bring or charge the device. The access constraint may also be related
to the lack of sufficient infrastructure and technical support which was identified as another perceived
constraint. Drawing from the findings related to teachers’ perceptions of access, and infrastructure and
technical support, the study suggests that access to technology (including digital devices, Internet,
programs, and platforms) would be essential to the access to information and learning opportunities
156
enabled by technology. As reported by Zipke et al. (2019), with limited access and lack of up-to-date
technology, students may not have equal access to technology or learning opportunities, and teachers
may be reluctant to use technology. Therefore, the study suggests schools ensure teachers’ and students’
access to technology in the BYOD environment, for example, having school-owned devices available for
students who cannot access their own devices, regularly maintaining the school’s network infrastructure,
and having ICT technicians provide immediate technical support on campus and online.
Regarding the diversity of devices, programs, and platforms, teacher participants generally perceived that
different kinds of devices, programs, and platforms could bring diverse learning opportunities because the
use of technology could provide multiple options to design and develop learning tasks. Meanwhile, the
diversity of devices was also identified as a technological constraint due to teachers’ perceptions of the
complexity and difficulty in dealing with different types of devices in class. Teachers’ perceptions of the
diverse devices, programs, and platforms seems to be associated with teacher knowledge of technology
(Tunjera & Chigona, 2020; Webb & Cox, 2004). This suggests that schools may need to choose a BYOD
technology-provision model that specifies the types of devices used in class. Schools could also support
teachers in the effective use of technology in education, identify useful programs and platforms for
teaching and learning, and help them to understand how to carry out instructional practices with these
technologies, for example, by providing guidance and PLD opportunities such as mentoring.
Additionally, according to Phases 2 and 3 findings, some teachers perceived that the diversity of devices
may lead to compatibility issues with some programs and platforms, even though the Phase 1 study
shows that the majority of schools limit personally owned devices to those with specific functionality.
Compatibility issues may be related to different operating systems and technical specifications.
Competition in the ICT industry may also impact cross-platform compatibility. However, with the ongoing
development of technology, especially cloud computing, many educational resources, programs, and
platforms could be web-based—they could be run on a web server instead of locally installed and stored
on the operating system of a device (Dick et al., 2015; Stavert, 2013). Teachers and students could store
and share information, and access programs and platforms by using web-based applications, such as
Google G Suite for Education and Piktochart. But teachers and students may sometimes rely on programs
and platforms that are locally installed on the devices. As argued by Dick et al. (2015), “regardless of the
strides that have been made in compatibility, it is still critical that the development of the instruction never
be initiated before addressing such matters” (p. 102). The study suggests that teachers would need to
consolidate technology selection so as to ensure compatibility. Furthermore, given that rich online
educational resources have been provided by NZ government initiatives, such as TKI, LEARNZ,36 and
Science Learning Hub, 37 schools and teachers could also make use of the free programs and resources in
science teaching.
36
LEARNZ is a comprehensive virtual field-trip program, which is free for NZ teachers and students. See
http://www.learnz.org.nz/
37
Science Learning Hub provides free teaching resources, multimedia and hands-on activities for science teaching
and learning. See https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/
157
Perceived pedagogical affordances and constraints

Through the pedagogical lens, the study identified inquiry, agency, and formative assessment as three
perceived affordances; the study also identified students’ use of technology, and the changing role of
teachers, as two perceived constraints.
As for perceived pedagogical affordances, first, the inquiry affordance is consistent with that of
Jimoyiannis (2010) and Song (2014), and it implies that learning in a BYOD environment could facilitate
students’ scientific inquiry, including carrying out experiments, creating resources and presentations, and
collaborating with others with the use of technology. This affordance, facilitation of students’ scientific
inquiry, appears to reflect the NOS substrands outlined in the NZC document: understanding about
science, investigating in science, communicating in science, and participating and contributing (MoE,
2007b). Before introducing BYOD initiatives, scientific inquiry has already been embedded in the NZ
science curriculum and teachers’ instructional practice. However, drawing from the findings from Phases 2
and 3, the study suggests that the use of technology could provide teachers with more diverse
opportunities for science teaching and learning, such as virtual simulation, data collection and
organisation, and collaborative report writing. The diversity of programs and platforms allows teachers to
explore different ways to support students to carry out scientific inquiry and engage with science like a
scientist. Therefore, when teachers are able to use technology to its advantage in their instructional design
practice, their science instruction may make a meaningful alignment with the NOS strand.
Second, regarding agency, the study shows that learning in a BYOD environment could allow students to
maintain a sense of ownership while learning; hence students are considered to take more responsibility
for their learning, and become more independent, self-directed, and engaged learners. Likewise,
Dinsmore (2019) found that the students’ increased autonomy could motivate their learning. However, it
should be noted that student agency is not naturally embedded in the BYOD environment; instead,
students have a sense of agency when they feel in control of their learning and believe that their
behaviour and learning approach could influence the activities they are involved in and the structure of
their learning experience as it unfolds. Since the BYOD environment affords teachers diverse programs
and platforms, teachers could explore and make use of technology so as to create different options of
learning contexts/topics and tasks for students to make their own choices and exercise agency. Apart from
developing learning options, schools and teachers may also need to guide students to effectively use
technology in the BYOD environment to access information, participate in learning, and contribute to their
learning community.
Third, regarding formative assessment affordance, teachers are able to create multiple formative
assessment opportunities through technology, including online quizzes and collaborative assignments,
such as creation of videos and digital booklets. These kinds of assessments give students opportunities to
become familiar with technology and develop their technological skills. Additionally, formative assessment
implies that teachers could provide immediate feedback and monitor students’ learning progress in a
BYOD environment. Angeli and Valanides (2009) found that timely and constructive feedback leads to a
statistically significant increase in students’ performance. However, drawing from the findings, the study
suggests that feedback could be conducted not only by teachers, but also by students themselves and
their peers, especially when they carry out independent inquiry and collaborative tasks. Students may be
158
able to validate their understanding and reflect their acquired knowledge through the online environment.
This also implies that it is important to help students develop a critical-thinking mindset and analyse the
quality of information.
As for the perceived pedagogical constraints, students’ use of technology was identified as a constraint
that may hinder teaching and learning due to the misuse and/or excessive use of technology, as was
students’ lack of digital skills. Specifically, drawing from the discussion on the schools’ BYOD policy
framework, the findings from Phase 1 show that many schools have recognised the potential constraint
related to students’ misuse and excessive use of technology, and they have attempted to encourage
students’ responsible use of technology, for example, by having students sign digital citizenship
agreements and clarifying disciplinary action for misconduct. But one of the teacher participants was
concerned that students may not have actually read or fully understood the agreements, with lengthy text,
before signing; some students may not adhere to the spirit of the contract or recognise the impact of
signing and breaking these agreements. Even though having students sign a digital citizenship agreement
can be an opportunity for students to recognise the school’s expectation regarding what they can and
cannot do with technology, such practice may not necessarily be an effective approach to help students
develop digital citizenship. Most people rarely read through user agreements which are long and written in
legal language, and they have become habituated by various digital services and social media platforms
to ignore them. Therefore, schools should not only use digital citizenship agreements as an opportunity to
educate, but should also explore effective ways to acculturate students to think and practice digital
citizenship. Schools should deliver digital citizenship education to encourage and reinforce responsibility
and accountability, unpack important principles of the digital citizenship, and create a dialogue among
students and teachers on the issues of misuse and excessive use technology. Additionally, schools and
teachers may need to review how well they have addressed the potential issues with students’ technology
use, and to evaluate the effectiveness of relevant BYOD policy implementation and practice. However, a
comment from one participant may not fully represent all aspects of schools’ and teachers’ practice in
teaching and supporting students’ responsible use of technology since there may be other forms of
practice involved that were not mentioned in the Phase 2 survey and Phase 3 interview.
Regarding students’ digital skills, the study shows that some teachers may have assumptions about
students being digitally fluent. In fact, many teachers would need to spend extra time teaching students
how to use technology and addressing technical issues in class. This seems to relate to another perceived
constraint regarding the changing role of teachers. Combined, the study suggests that, similar to NOS in
the science curriculum, addressing the pedagogical constraints regarding students’ use of technology
could be embedded in the daily teaching and learning. It means that authentic and specific contexts would
be needed to help students understand how to use technology responsibly and effectively in different
situations.
Another identified constraint—the changing role of the teacher—was perceived by teachers probably
because they felt that teaching in a BYOD environment is different than in a traditional classroom:
teachers do not only deliver the instruction, but also need to cater to student needs related to technology
use. As pointed out by Shea and Stockford (2015) and Zagami (2015), technical assistance in class has
mostly shifted from schools’ ICT departments to teachers in class. This perceived constraint appears to be
159
strongly related to teachers’ knowledge of technology, their perceived workload (such as providing instant
feedback online), and their professional identity. As asserted by Gkamas et al. (2019), having insufficient
human resources to address technical issues may bring substantial problems to the BYOD environment,
for example, teachers and students may not be able to access immediate technical support from ICT
professionals. The study shows that some teachers would need to spend more time in developing their
technological knowledge and facilitating students’ use of technology in class. The time addressing
technical issues in class could possibly disrupt teachers’ plans for their instruction. Teachers may also
need to include extra time to introduce and explain the technology involved in class. In this case, the major
change of teacher role appears to be about having teachers adapt to the use of technology in designing
and delivering instruction, and support students’ use of technology in learning.
In conclusion, the above discussion on the first conceptual strand, BYOD environments and wider
contexts, reviewed two areas of findings: schools’ BYOD adoption and policy framework, and teachers’
perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment. Regarding schools’ BYOD
adoption and policy framework, Phase 1 findings show that most schools specify the range or the type of
devices that can be brought to schools; the most preferred and commonly used devices in class are
laptops and tablets, followed by mobile phones. Even though mobile phones are not widely accepted in
schools, the study suggests that phones could still be useful in scenarios such as outdoor inquiry and AR
application. Drawing from the collated BYOD-related documents, the study shows that many NZ
secondary schools appear to have developed a rather comprehensive BYOD policy framework from the
lens of the four-dimensional policy model (Cooper et al., 2004). In general, the policy framework has
presented a rationale for the schools’ BYOD deployment and has a strong focus on BYOD-related
administration and addressing practical issues such as ICT guidance and device use regulation.
Schools’ BYOD policy framework appears to have generally covered and attempted to address some
affordances and constraints of technology on the meso level. Specifically, as for access, the diversity of
devices, and infrastructure and technical support, many schools’ BYOD policy indicates their ICT strategy
and support for students’ access to technology, and specifies the range or the type of devices that can be
brought to schools, and technical assistance on campus; as for students’ use of technology, schools’
BYOD policies involve regulation of students’ acceptable use of technology and disciplinary action for
misconduct; as for the changing role of teachers, schools’ BYOD policies include plans for teachers’ PLD
programmes. Meanwhile, the study suggests that there may a gap between policy and practice which
could be explained by the limitation of the data collection method, the constant change of teachers’
common and personal PLD needs and practices, and the change of policy implementation.
The study also infers that teachers’ instructional design practices can be informed by their perceived
affordances and perceived constraints of technology. Specifically, given that the BYOD environment can
afford teachers and students access and diversity of devices, programs, and platforms, teachers are able
to develop different learning opportunities with technology to help support students’ inquiry and agency.
Additionally, to address students’ use of technology and new changes to the teachers’ role, teachers may
need to know how to examine, evaluate, and contextualise different kinds of technologies as they come
along, and support students’ effective and responsible use of technology in different learning situations.
160
7.2.3 Teacher knowledge

The discussion of the second conceptual strand, teacher knowledge, focuses on four areas which were
highlighted through the Phase 2 survey and Phase 3 interviews: PLD opportunities, CoPs, TPACK
development, and teacher education.
PLD opportunities
Through Phases 2 and 3, the study identified four main kinds of PLD opportunities related to developing
teacher knowledge of teaching in a BYOD environment: in-house PLD sessions, online courses and peer
connections, academic qualifications, workshops and conferences. Teachers can access PLD
programmes which are normally organised by schools, supported by communities and corporates, or self-
arranged.
Regarding schools’ PLD opportunities, as mentioned in the previous discussion, many schools included
teachers’ PLD as part of their strategic plan in their BYOD policy but with few details. It appears that
schools have acknowledged that new policy initiatives generally involve relevant PLD needs, and the
intention to help teachers adapt to the changing environment with BYOD adoption. However, it does not
mean that schools have identified or addressed their teachers’ common and individual PLD needs or
known how to provide teachers with appropriate PLD opportunities. A few teacher participants felt some
in-house PLD sessions, such as workshops, were inadequate or irrelevant. Therefore, to reflect the policy
intention of supporting teachers’ practices in a BYOD environment, schools may need to understand
teachers’ needs and their preferred PLD forms before making arrangements in a centralised manner.
In addition to PLD provided by schools, the study shows that many teachers also engage in personal PLD.
This implies that these teachers have attempted to take control of their own PLD by seeking opportunities
to enhance their BYOD-related knowledge, skills, and instructional practice (Haque, 2014). Additionally,
six participants from Phase 3 made contributions to the PLD events from their CoPs, such as sharing
materials, organising PLD, and mentoring peers. As reported by Varghese et al. (2019) and Zipke et al.
(2019), teachers with a strong personal interest and attitude are not only motivated to pursue personal
PLD but also support their schools’ BYOD implementation and work closely with peers from their CoPs.
Likewise, the findings from Phases 2 and 3 suggest that many participants have recognised the need to
develop their teacher knowledge; some have also taken actions for themselves and the teacher
community by looking for, participating in, and even leading PLD programmes. By enacting leadership
roles, teachers could be empowered to support their peers, engage in collaborative mentoring and
relationship building, and make changes to their practices. This could also help create a teacher-driven
and self-directed culture in schools and the CoPs.
Drawing from the reflection of participants who have participated in the provided and/or personal PLD, the
main concerns of current PLD opportunities were about the lack of support financially and timewise as well
as the lack of relevance to their practices. Specifically, while some participants acknowledged the
leadership and organisation of PLD from schools and the MoE, others believed there could be more
support financially and timewise for their PLD. Additionally, many PLD programmes were designed to be
one-size-fits-all or to address specific technical issues in teaching, which may not be highly relevant to
teachers’ instructional practices. Participants generally desired opportunities that could meet their
161
personal PLD needs, and many of them found collaboration with peer teachers particularly helpful.
Researchers, such as M. Lee and Levins (2012), Tunjera and Chigona (2020) and Zipke et al. (2019),
reached a similar conclusion that teachers would feel more comfortable and encouraged by learning from
peer teachers who teach with effective use of technology. Therefore, findings in this study infer that
engaging in CoPs seem to be a preferred PLD choice of teachers.
Communities of practice
The second topic in the discussion of the teacher knowledge strand is CoP, which is a PLD choice of
teachers, which emerged from the study. CoPs can be a physical or virtual entity formed by groups of
teachers “who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their
knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,
2002, p. 4). According to Wenger et al. (2002), CoPs are voluntary and organic, meaning that they are
mostly teacher-driven and develop naturally based on teachers’ common goals, interests, and collective
experiences; CoPs are also flexible in response to teachers’ immediate problems and personalised PLD,
and teachers can apply their learning from CoPs in different contexts (Trust & Horrocks, 2016; Wenger et
al., 2002).
Drawing from the findings, the study suggests that CoPs may not necessarily be voluntary or organic as a
CoP could be formed within a school’ science department, formed by a group of local teachers, or formed
by a group of science teachers online. The establishment and development of CoPs might be influenced
by a school’s organisational culture as well as the policymakers’ support and involvement. In other words,
the study infers that the MoE and schools may attempt to encourage teachers’ engagement in CoPs. For
example, some of the MoE initiatives have supported CoPs for teachers’ PLD: Communities of Learning |
Kāhui Ako (CoLs)38 can apply for centrally funded PLD and plan how to tailor the PLD to a particular need
for groups of local teachers; the MoE have provided platforms for teachers to engage in online CoPs, such
as the Pond and VLN platforms (MoE, 2015b, 2020).
Even though these initiatives have provided resources and platforms for the cultivation of CoPs, teachers’
voluntary participation is still particularly important for the sustainable development of CoPs. Some of the
initiatives might not be well used to their best advantage in supporting CoPs. For example, Pond, a
platform for teachers to access and share teaching materials, was closed in 2019 after its 5-year
operation, mainly due to low usage. Several factors could explain the low CoP engagement: first, some
teachers might feel a lack of personal relationship or feel uncomfortable to share personal experiences in
an online community especially when they are new to the online community or not familiar with virtual
interaction; second, staying active in the online community and evaluating the quality of shared materials
may require more time and effort which might thereby increase teachers’ workload; third, the platform may
not meet some teachers’ expectations especially when they cannot find the resources that they are
looking for; fourth, when teachers need immediate support, they may turn to colleagues that they trust
rather than using online CoPs as a source of support. Thus, it is important for policymakers and
researchers to think about the sustainability of CoPs and investigate how to maintain teachers’
38
“A Community of Learning | Kāhui Ako is a group of education and training providers that form around children and
young people's learning pathways, and work together to help them achieve their full potential” (MoE, 2020, para. 1).
162
enthusiasm and long-term engagement in CoPs.
TPACK development
The third topic in the discussion of the teacher knowledge strand is TPACK development. Phase 3
interviews approached teacher knowledge using the TPACK framework, and Table 29 in subsection 6.4.2
indicated the relevant five approaches of TPACK development (Harris, 2016) which most closely reflected
12 teacher participants’ responses: TPK-focused, reflective/reflexive, problem-based, instructional
planning, and workplace learning approaches; the other three approaches—collaborative instructional
design, PCK-focused, and computer-adaptive approaches—were not found to be particularly relevant to
the participants’ reflections. The study infers that teacher participants’ TPACK development appears to be
impacted by their individual teaching values, personal use and perceptions of technology, interaction with
CoPs, and the availability of support.
The study is in agreement with Harris (2016) who believed that “in-service teachers will continue to
require—and benefit from—focused, situated, authentic, and personalised ways to develop their
technological pedagogical content knowledge” (p. 202). Teacher participants had their own priorities in
teacher knowledge development, so they attempted to look for PLD opportunities that were highly relevant
to their practices and met their individual needs in different areas, not just TPACK-focused PLD needs.
This study suggests that many teachers have been exercising agency by reflecting on their practice,
acknowledging their personal PLD needs, and exploring PLD approaches that may help address their
pedagogical challenges in the BYOD environment. The study also infers that the MoE and schools could
continue to provide support and diverse PLD opportunities for teachers to choose to participate in based
on their personal PLD and TPACK-development needs.
Teacher education
Lastly, the discussion of the teacher knowledge strand also involves the topic of teacher education, which
emerged from the Phase 3 interviews. The findings show that not all participants felt positive about
contemporary teacher education in NZ, with little relevant information available to them about the
preparation of student teachers for teaching with technology. Some participants expressed concern to
varying degrees, and their major concern was about the relevance of teacher education to current
practices with technology. Likewise, Tunjera and Chigona (2020) found that most of their participants—
teacher educators—were using technology as substitution and augmentation as per the SAMR model,
implying that technology was placed into the existing traditional educational structure instead of being
explored innovatively for the new pedagogical possibilities it could facilitate. Drawing from their study and
findings from Phase 3, this study infers that technology integration in teacher education programmes may
inform and influence student teachers’ use of technology in future teaching. Hence, there is a need for
teacher educators to know how to design, develop, and deliver instructions in which TPACK is embedded
in order to prepare student teachers to teach confidently and effectively with technology. However, it
should be noted that there is not enough evidence from this research or literature showing that the current
teacher education in NZ is insufficient in applying technology in education. For example, some participants
found the programmes from Mind Lab useful and relevant. Therefore, future research could investigate NZ
teacher educators’ practices and effectiveness with technology, and explore how well the current teacher
education in NZ is preparing student teachers to teach with technology.
163
In conclusion, the above discussion on the second conceptual strand, teacher knowledge, reviewed four
areas of findings: PLD opportunities, CoPs, TPACK development, and teacher education. The study infers
that teachers’ participation in PLD may be related to support financially and timewise, relevance to their
practice, availability of PLD information, as well as their personal PLD needs and interests. Therefore,
schools’ PLD-related policy and programmes need to recognise the value of diverse PLD approaches
rather than advocating for a standardised approach.
The study suggests that there may be no best practices regarding PLD or TPACK development since
teachers are individuals who learn in different ways, but it shows that CoPs appear to be a preferred PLD
choice of many teachers. Hence, to achieve the teacher knowledge-development goals and create a
teacher-driven and self-directed culture, schools may need to understand teachers’ needs and their
preferred PLD forms, support teachers to take on mentorship and leadership of PLD programmes, and
help teachers identify other CoPs’ events and encourage their participation in CoPs. Through CoLs,
schools would need to design funded PLD that can sufficiently address teachers’ needs. For teachers,
their TPACK development appears to be impacted by their individual teaching values, personal use and
perceptions of technology, interaction with CoPs, and the availability of support. The study shows that the
development of technological knowledge did not seem to be a priority among many teachers; instead, they
believed that pedagogy should guide the use of technology, and they appeared to prefer more
personalised, pedagogy-focused, and practice-relevant PLD opportunities. To improve relevant knowledge
and practice, teachers would thereby need to exercise agency by constantly reflecting on their practice
and exploring and engaging in the PLD opportunities such as CoPs that help address the challenges and
their perceived constraints. Furthermore, the study infers that it may be important to maintain teachers’
enthusiasm and long-term engagement in CoPs. The sustainability of CoPs may involve support from
schools and MoE initiatives, and further investigation by researchers.
The study also infers a possible impact of teacher education on teacher knowledge and instructional
design practice with technology. Student teachers’ confidence and effectiveness in teaching with
technology may be facilitated if teacher educators are able to design, develop, and deliver instructions in
which TPACK is embedded. Thus, the study suggests further research may be needed to investigate the
use of technology in the context of NZ teacher education.
7.2.4 Instructional design practices

The discussion of the third conceptual strand focuses on reviewing the science teachers’ instructional
design practices reflected in Phases 2 and 3 findings. The study in Phase 2 presented findings from 72
teacher participants’ reflections regarding their changes in instructional practice and their self-reflections
on the extent of their use of technology in education through the lens of SAMR model. Additionally, the
Phase 3 findings explained 12 teacher participants’ instructional design practices for the BYOD
environments by elaborating the five phases—analysis, design, development, implementation, and
evaluation. The study in Phase 3 followed the ADDIE framework and used Branch’s (2009) 21 common
procedures to inform the organisation of data. As shown in Chapter 6 (see section 6.5), the study identified
15 common procedures summarised from Phase 3. Table 37 compares Branch’s 21 common procedures
with teacher participants’ 15 common procedures identified in the present study, and the table notes
explain the difference. According to the table, some procedures were combined as one; not all 21
164
procedures were reflected in Phase 3 because Branch’s procedures were originally proposed to approach
generic instructional design practices, and some were more relevant to the context of corporates’ human
resource development than to school education.
Table 37
Comparing Branch’s (2009) 21 Common Procedures with Teacher Participants' Common Procedures that
Emerged in Study Phase 3
Phase Branch’s 21 common procedures Common procedures reflected in the study
Analysis 1. Validating the performance gapa 1. Understanding the wider contexts of
the BYOD environmenta
2. Determining instructional objectives 2. Outlining the instructional objectives
3. Confirming the intended audience 3. Knowing the students and determining
learning topics
4. Identifying required resourcesa
5. Determining potential delivery
systems (including cost estimate)b
6. Composing a project management
planb
Design 7. Conducting a task inventory 4. Conducting a task inventory for
students
8. Composing performance objectivesd 5. Composing students’ performance
objectives for tasksd
9. Generating testing strategiese 6. Generating assessment items or
strategiese
10. Calculating return on investmenta
Development 11. Generating contentc 7. Determining instructional activitiesc
12. Selecting or developing supporting 8. Selecting technology
media
13. Developing guidance for the student 9. Developing guidance for students
14. Developing guidance for the teacherb
15. Conducting formative revisionsc
16. Conducting a pilot testb
Implementation 17. Preparing the teacher 10. Identifying the role of a teacher
18. Preparing the student 11. Creating a supportive learning
environment
12. Envisioning an ideal scenario of
science teaching and learningf
Evaluation 19. Determining evaluation criteriad
20. Selecting evaluation toolse
21. Conducting evaluations 13. Reviewing instructional practice
14. Reflecting on the use of technology in
education using the SAMR model
15. Identifying areas for future
improvement
a
Validating the performance gap and identifying required resources were categorised as “understanding the wider
contexts of the BYOD environment.” bThese four procedures did not seem to be particularly relevant to school
teachers’ practices; instead, they are more relevant to the instructional design practices in non-education sectors,
such as corporates’ human resource development. cGenerating content and conducting formative revision were
categorised as “determining instructional activities.” dComposing performance objectives and determining evaluation
criteria were categorised as “composing students’ performance objectives for tasks.” eGenerating testing strategies
and selecting evaluation tools were categorised as “generating assessment items or strategies.” fIn Phase 3
interviews, teacher participants were invited to envision an ideal scenario of science teaching and learning, as a part
of their reflection of their implementation phase. However, this does not appear to be a procedure that would
necessarily be involved in their instructional design practices.
165
To review teachers’ instructional design practices, the discussion in this subsection is structured around
the three core components of the instructional design process proposed by Brown and Green (2016):
examining the situation, creating the instruction, and evaluating the instruction. These three components
represent the generally agreed upon and principal phases of the instructional design process, which draw
from the ADDIE framework by combining design, development, and implementation as a coherent set of
practices—creating the instruction.
Examining the situation: Analysis

The first component of instructional design practices—examining the situation—relates to analysing the
situated contexts, instructional needs, tasks, and the learner, in accordance with teachers’ analysis phase
from the ADDIE framework. Drawing from Phase 3 interviews, the study identified five macro contextual
factors (technology use in everyday life, NZ education and secondary science education, NCEA digital
assessment, MoE digital initiatives, and research-informed vision), two meso contextual factors (BYOD
implementation and science education in schools), and four micro contextual factors (setting, students,
teachers’ perceived affordances, and perceived constraints of the BYOD environment). Combined, the
study infers that teachers may normally regard these contextual factors as influencing the BYOD
implementation at schools and their instructional design practices, hence they may take them into
consideration in their analysis phase.
Since the discussion of the first conceptual strand—the BYOD environments—has covered contextual
factors, the discussion here focuses on reviewing four areas of teachers’ reflections and analysis which
were closely relevant to their teaching: NZC, NCEA and its digital assessment implementation, student
characteristics and student needs, and teaching practices and instructional objectives.
The New Zealand Curriculum

The first common area in teachers’ analysis phase is related to the NZC. Teacher participants in Phase 3
generally followed the NZC framework and school curriculum to approach their instructional design
practices and set instructional objectives. The NZC document has outlined the achievement objectives of
each science strand at different levels, providing schools with guidelines as to designing and developing
their school curriculum (MoE, 2007a, 2007b). As commented by Haque (2014) and Vannier (2012), NZC
outlines a holistic and learner-centred approach, provides a high degree of flexibility, and encourages
teachers to design instructions with a future focus on learning, collaboration, and agency. Likewise, the
study shows that some participants believed that the NZC is not simply the starting point of a linear
process in their practices; instead, it is used to help their school and teachers to conduct ongoing reviews
about how to best address the needs of the students by designing appropriate inquiry learning projects.
Therefore, it appears that connecting to curriculum can be an iterative process for teachers’ instructional
design practice and teachers can approach NZC in a way that suits them. Furthermore, according to a few
participants, connecting to curriculum can also be a collaborative process, meaning that teachers from
different subject departments can work together to develop learning contexts and projects by connecting
multiple learning areas. Even though collaboratively connecting curriculum was not commonly mentioned
by many participants, it could still be a possible approach for teachers and schools to explore in their
future practice.
166
NCEA and its digital assessment implementation

The second area in teachers’ analysis phase is about NCEA and its digital assessment implementation.
Phase 3 findings show that the NCEA assessment seems to have a twofold influence on shaping learning.
On one hand, the introduction of digital assessment appears to motivate schools and teachers to include
the development of students’ digital skills as part of the learning goals. Many teacher participants believed
that the digitisation of assessment is a positive change as it embraces and reinforces the tendency of
technology adoption in education. This also highlights the need to ensure schools’, teachers’ and students’
access to technology. On the other hand, teachers may have different perceptions about the current digital
assessment practice and NCEA. A few teachers were concerned that moving the traditional form of
assessment from paper to digital devices may not necessarily make a difference. Additionally, to cope with
the change in assessment practice, some teachers may focus on teaching the exact information and their
teaching approach would become more exam-oriented. This implies that their teaching practices may risk
deviating from the purpose of education: helping students learn how to learn. Moreover, many participants
believed that achieving NCEA credits has been considered as a main learning purpose in secondary
schools. Likewise, Haque (2014) noted that the NCEA requirements might complicate and outweigh the
NZC implementation, particularly in senior year levels. Some participants felt that, with the consideration
of NCEA assessment, senior students tend to be better at navigating information with technology to help
them prepare for assessment tasks and examinations.
Overall, in their analysis phase, apart from following the NZC framework, teachers, especially those
teaching senior levels, also need to align curriculum and assessment thinking. But it could be challenging
for teachers due to the lack of alignment in the development of NZC and NCEA (Hipkins et al., 2016). The
study suggests that teachers generally expect that the NCEA digital assessment will continually develop to
reflect what students have actually learned and what they are capable of doing in the context of learning
science with technology. The study also infers that the development of NCEA digital assessment might
provide an opportunity for policymakers and NZQA to review the assessment practice and honour the
NZC intention regarding providing rich learning experiences.
Student characteristics and student needs

The third area in teachers’ analysis phase is student characteristics and student needs. Findings from
Phases 2 and 3 suggest that science teachers can demonstrate their understanding of student
characteristics in BYOD environments. As summarised in Table 38, the identification of student
characteristics can be categorised according to their stable similarities and differences and their changing
similarities and differences, given that a characteristic normally remains stable or exhibits change over
time (Brown & Green, 2016; P. L. Smith & Ragan, 2005).
167
Table 38
Summary of Student Characteristics Based on Findings from Study Phases 2 and 3
Similarities Differences
Stable Students are of a similar age and year Students’ personal science-learning conditions,
level of schooling; abilities, traits, and digital skills are different;
Many students use technology every Students are from different SES backgrounds;
day;
In the NZ context, some students are from a
Students have similar needs related to migrant background and may speak a language
science learning; other than English;
Students can access school-provided Students in one class may access different
educational resources and support in educational resources and support compared
class. with other schools and regions.
Changing Students normally develop science Students’ personal science-learning

knowledge over a period of instruction; motivations and interests may change over
time;
Students could develop knowledge and
skills regarding technology in a BYOD Students’ autonomy/agency and competence
learning environment over time; (such as learning pace, abilities, traits, and
performance) may change over time;
Student needs may be gradually
addressed and changed over time. Students’ digital skills may evolve over time.
Drawing from the findings and Table 38, the study shows that the common student characteristics
recognised by teachers are relevant to the student demographic and SES background, student learning
abilities and traits, student needs for knowledge development, and the educational support available for
students. It is apparent that teacher participants take student characteristics into consideration as part of
their understanding of the BYOD environments—the micro context—which thereby inform their
instructional design practices. For example, in order to create opportunities for students to support and
learn from each other, some teachers form small groups with mixed abilities in English language skills,
digital skills, and learning confidence; to ensure students have access to technology in class, some
teachers have students work together and share the use of a device, or have students use the school-
provided devices; to cater to different learning needs and paces, teachers can provide different learning
contexts/topics and activities for students to choose from.
Regarding student needs, drawing from Phases 2 and 3 findings, the study infers that teachers normally
recognise, analyse, and attempt to address three kinds of student needs: the need to understand the
instruction and technology, social needs, and growth needs. First, to address the need to understand the
instruction and technology, teacher participants generally set up explicit instructional goals and outcome
expectations so students are informed about the instruction. They may also facilitate students’ technology
use to support their learning in the BYOD environment. The second student need, social needs, involves
the elements of a sense of belonging and online interaction with peers (Dinsmore, 2019; Savin-Baden,
2015). The study shows that teacher participants acknowledged an increasing trend for collaboration and
engagement in learning in the BYOD environments, so they attempted to create opportunities for
teamwork using technology. The third student need, growth needs, involves student agency and learning
achievement in a BYOD environment. The findings show that teacher participants supported student
agency by providing students with multiple options of learning contexts/topics and activities, and also by
allowing students to choose their learning pace and materials. To help make science more relevant and
168
motivate students to integrate science learning into their lives, some participants kept themselves up to
date with developments in the science field, for example, by reading science-related materials, following
relevant SNS accounts, watching videos, and connecting with scientists.
Teaching practices and instructional objectives

The fourth area in teachers’ analysis phase is about their reflection on teaching practices and instructional
objectives. According to Huang et al. (2019), teachers’ reflection on their practices can be seen as a
balancing mechanism that helps ensure the achievement of instructional objectives, keeps their teaching
quality stable, and informs future instructional practices. Therefore, the study infers that, through
reflection, teachers are able to recognise issues such as performance deficiencies and student learning
needs, and they may attempt to address those issues in future practices. Setting out and developing
instructional objectives could provide an opportunity for teachers to address those identified issues in their
instructional design process.
The study in Phase 3 identified four common instructional objectives: scientific inquiry, digital skills,
student agency, and exam preparation. Furthermore, the objective of scientific inquiry could be divided
into six key aspects: mastery of relevant scientific concepts and ideas, collaboration, experimental
investigation, interpretation of data, presentation of findings, and laboratory safety. As shown in Table 39,
the study suggests that the four instructional objectives appear to represent the key competencies that are
outlined in the NZC; the objective of scientific inquiry also seems to align well with the NOS strand from
the NZC and corresponds with the citizen-focus purpose of science education proposed by Gluckman
(2011).
Specifically, as for key competencies in NZC, first, the thinking capability, such as making sense of
information and ideas, could be developed through students’ exam preparation and scientific inquiry
including understanding relevant scientific concepts and interpreting data. Second, the capability of using
language, symbols, and texts in the science context can be improved by promoting students’ learning
skills with technology and preparing for exams. This capability can also be enhanced when students
develop an understanding of concepts and ideas in the science discipline, perform experiments, make
sense of data, and present findings. Third, the self-management competency is highly related to student
agency. Fourth, the capability of relating to others involves listening, negotiating, and sharing ideas with
others. It can be developed through collaboration during the scientific inquiry. Fifth, the participating and
contributing competency is about connecting with the community. It can be developed through
collaborating and learning with technology.
As for the NOS strand, the substrand of understanding about science can be reflected through learning
concepts and ideas about the science discipline. The substrand of investigating in science can be
reflected through students’ collaboration, experimental investigation, data interpretation, presentation of
findings, and practice of laboratory safety and hazard management. The substrand of communicating in
science can be reflected through students’ collaboration, data interpretation, and presentation of findings.
The participating and contributing substrand is about having students able to make informed decisions
and take appropriate actions using their scientific knowledge and perspectives. It can be reflected through
making sense of data and presenting findings.
169
Table 39
Linking the Science Teachers’ Instructional Objectives Identified in Phase 3 with the Key Competencies in the NZC and the NOS Substrands
Key competencies in NZCa NOS substrandsb
Using language, Relating Participating Participating
Science teachers’ instructional symbols, and Managing to and Understanding Investigating Communicating and
objectives Thinking texts self others contributingc about science in science in science contributingc
Scientific inquirya • • • •
Mastery of relevant science
○ ○ ○
concepts and ideasb
Collaborationb ○ ○ ○ ○
b
Experimental investigation ○ ○
Interpretation of datab ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
b
Presentation of findings ○ ○ ○ ○
Laboratory safetyb ○
Digital skillsa • •
170
Student agencya •
a
Exam preparation • •
a
The four instructional objectives are linked with the key competencies in the NZC. bThe six subobjectives of scientific inquiry are linked with the substrands of NOS. cParticipating
and contributing as a key competency in NZC is different from that as an NOS substrand. The participating and contributing competency in NZC “is about actively involved in
communities”, such as family, whanau, and schools, and it “includes a capacity to contribute appropriately as a group member, to make connections with others, and to creat
opportunities for others in the group” (Ministry of Education, 2007b, p. 13). The participating and contributing substrand in NOS has an aim of bringing “a scientific perspective to
decisions and actions as appropriate” (Ministry of Education, 2007a, p. 23).
Creating the instruction: Design, development, and implementation

The second component of instructional design practice—creating the instruction—relates to the
organisation of the instruction and the construction of the learning environment, reflecting the design,
development, and implementation phases from the ADDIE framework.
Organising the instruction

Drawing from Phase 3 findings, the study shows that teacher participants’ design, development, and
implementation phases focus on preparing the delivery of instructions; therefore, unpacking the
instructional events can be helpful in understanding how science teachers attempt to carry out their
instructional practices (Brown & Green, 2016). Chapter 6 has summarised 12 teacher participants’
instructional activities, as shown in Table 32 (see subsection 6.5.3). To capture the common instructional
process, Table 40 maps the teacher participants’ common instructional activities onto the nine instructional
events proposed by Gagné et al. (2005). According to the table, teacher participants appeared to be able
to cover all of the instructional events and integrate technology into their science teaching.
Table 40
Linking Instructional Events to Teacher Participants' Common Instructional Activities Summarised in
Findings from Study Phase 3
Instructional event Teacher participants’ common instructional activities
Gaining attention Introducing learning contexts/topics
Having students complete pre-class learning tasks, such as watching videos or
taking quizzes
Informing the learner Informing students of learning objectives, criteria of success, and essential
of the objective knowledge
Stimulating recall of Reviewing the learning tasks that were assigned in the previous lesson or
prerequisite learned posted online
capabilities
Presenting the Introducing learning tasks that can be chosen by students based on their
stimulus material interests
Presenting relevant content that may be facilitated by the use of technology
Providing learning Providing ground rules in terms of students’ behaviour issues with technology,
guidance especially distraction and misuse
Having students take responsibility for their learning and identify personal
knowledge levels and interests in learning science
Having students decide what kinds of technology they would use to complete
the tasks
Having students obtain information that is of high quality and at the right level
for them
Eliciting performance Questioning and challenging students about their collected information and their
understanding of the science content
Asking students to elaborate or explain their understanding and their work
Providing feedback Walking around in the class to observe students’ individual or group work and
about performance provide timely feedback
correctness
Providing online feedback on students’ submitted work
171
Instructional event Teacher participants’ common instructional activities

Assessing the Embedding questions throughout instruction by oral questioning, quizzes, and
performance games
Delivering assignments and other learning tasks for students to complete
Enhancing retention Having students create their own reference materials and showcase their
and transfer science learning through multiple presentation approaches, such as making a
video or producing a digital booklet;
Providing extra materials and after-class learning tasks for students to practise
what they learn;
Introducing different contexts/topics to encourage students to recall and apply
what they learn in different situations
Adapted from Gagné et al. (2005, p. 195)
Additionally, the study shows that a variety of strategies are reflected in teacher participants’ instructional
design practice, which can be characterised as per Gagné et al. (2005): panel/focus group/forum, large-
/small-group discussion, collaborative learning, self-directed/discovery learning, mentoring, peer
instruction, demonstration, lecture/tutorial, simulation, and practice. These instructional strategies may
involve the use of different kinds of technology as instructional media in a BYOD environment (Nuhoğlu
Kibar et al., 2019; Shea & Stockford, 2015). Teachers would selectively adopt the instructional strategies
to encourage students to become more engaged in science learning.
The study also suggests that teachers’ common instructional activities and strategies appear to closely
relate to teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints. Specifically, teachers’ perceived
affordances of the BYOD environment (access; diversity of devices, programs, and platforms; inquiry;
student agency; and formative assessment) appear to well be reflected in their instructional activities by
taking advantages of technology; teachers generally attempted to address the perceived pedagogical
constraint (students’ use of technology, and the changing role of teachers) by providing learning guidance
and helping students with their use of technology in class. But teachers may not be able to deal with the
perceived technological constraints (access, diversity of devices, and infrastructure and technical support)
in class as these constraints are beyond their control and capabilities, which would need to be addressed
by the MoE and schools as discussed earlier.
Constructing learning environments

In addition to organising the instruction, another important aspect of the creation of instruction is
constructing learning environments. The created instruction occurs in a learning environment that “is
influenced by the attitudes and preferences of those who organise and operate that environment” (Brown
& Green, 2016, p. 118). One of the key aspects of a learning environment is the physical spatial
arrangement, which relates to the ILE initiative in the NZ context. However, current findings show that
participants rarely mentioned how ILE is related to their science teaching or instructional design practices.
One of the possible explanations for this might be that the interviews did not particularly cover the topic of
ILE initiatives. Only two participants mentioned ILE in the interviews, and they felt that some teachers may
find it challenging to manage the class and that some teachers’ instructions may remain traditionally
didactic regardless of the change of space. This implies that only changing the physical space
arrangement may not necessarily have a significant impact on teaching, which accords with findings by
researchers such as Benade (2017), Hattie (2015), and Redmond (2017). The study suggests schools
172
and teachers may need to identify and review the differences in an ILE layout compared to a traditional
classroom setting as well as to explore how to make use of a different spatial arrangement through a
pedagogical perspective. Chapter 1 (see subsection 1.3.2) mentioned that the flexibility of an ILE space
allows teachers to adopt various forms of teaching practice, ranging from whole-class, groupwork, to
individual-student teaching approaches, as well as coteaching strategies, when combining two or three
classes into one. These approaches and strategies have been reflected in teacher participants’ practice as
discussed earlier. Therefore, the study suggests that further research on the implementation of ILE
initiatives across NZ schools, teachers’ perspectives on ILE and their teaching practice, instructional
strategies, and student learning outcomes may be needed.
Additionally, teacher participants seemed to use terms such as student-centred and open to describe their
learning environments as they generally believed that they reflected their educational beliefs about putting
student learning needs first. For example, one participant said that some teachers would hold discussions
with their students to reach a consensus regarding a comfortable BYOD learning environment, such as by
allowing music during learning. This suggests that creating a supportive learning environment may also
require student participation to represent student needs, and provide students with opportunities to
exercise student agency in a BYOD learning environment. In contrast, teacher participants used the terms
such as teacher-centred, didactic, and traditional to describe a learning environment in which teachers
deliver relatively standardised instructions, and where students have limited or little agency or freedom of
choice with respect to their own learning.
However, the implementation of a BYOD environment does not necessarily result in a student-centred
learning environment. For example, the study shows that some teachers were in fact moving towards a
directed approach as their teaching style had a stronger focus on the NCEA digital assessment, especially
those who were teaching senior levels. According to Brown and Green (2016), the two types of learning
environments have their respective strengths and can be created to support student learning. The study
suggests that teachers’ perceptions of technology and perceived BYOD contextual influence could impact
their decisions about how they shape their learning environment and carry out instructional practices. The
study also infers that the creation of a learning environment seems to strongly relate to a teacher’s
experience of instructional practices and individual TPACK development, which may thereby have a
significant influence on their students’ learning experience and performance.
Evaluating the instruction: Evaluation

The third component—evaluating the instruction—relates to assessing learning achievement and
reviewing the quality of the instructional design practices, which reflects the evaluation phase from the
ADDIE framework.
Assessing learning achievement

In general, teachers’ assessment of student learning achievement can be broadly divided into formative
and summative categories. First, formative assessment, such as diagnostic testing, involves a range of
formal and informal assessment procedures. Through performing formative assessments, teachers are
able to discover what their students know or ought to know in order to then inform and modify teaching
and learning activities to improve student learning (Huang et al., 2019). In this regard, formative
173
assessment is process oriented (Seel et al., 2017). The study shows that many teacher participants
believed that feedback can be provided more easily and timely with technology such as Google Docs,
online quizzes and games, and visual presentation. Even though some of them felt that providing constant
online feedback may burden teachers with extra workload, teacher participants generally asserted that
addressing students’ questions without delay would help create a responsive and collaborative learning
environment. In addition, teachers can also use formative assessments to inform and adjust future
instructions.
Second, summative assessments, such as a final examination, are used to formally evaluate student
learning after an instructional intervention has been implemented, and the results are usually compared
against a predetermined standard or benchmark and presented as a formal record (Brown & Green,
2016). In this regard, summative assessment is outcome focused (Seel et al., 2017). In the NZ context,
the NCEA is a typical summative assessment. Teacher participants in Phase 3 interviews did not
specifically talk about how they relate their instructional design practices to the NCEA, but some of them
discussed NCEA digital assessment based on their experience with NCEA digital trials and pilots. Some
also expressed concerns that the digital assessment rather than the NZC may become the prioritised
consideration when teaching in a BYOD environment. The study infers that senior secondary levels and
even junior levels may be affected by this test-oriented approach; however, teachers generally
acknowledged that the idea of integrating technology in assessment practice would be the future and an
increasing trend in education.
Moreover, the results of summative assessments would be difficult to interpret without formative
assessment results, which may not be able to reflect the actual level of learning achievement (Bain &
Weston, 2012; Gagné et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2019). Therefore, the study suggests the design and
implementation of summative assessment practices would need to align with the formative assessment
and reflect how students learn science with the use of technology.
Reviewing the quality of the instructional design practices

In addition to assessing learning achievement, another important aspect of evaluation is about reviewing
the quality of the instructional design practices. Drawing on the Phase 3 findings, teacher participants
generally felt positive about their instructional design practices within a BYOD environment as they were
able to achieve the instructional objectives, enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction, and
improve students’ science-learning experience. However, they also acknowledged the extra workload
brought on by the BYOD initiatives. They concluded that they need to better cater to student needs and
characteristics and revise instructions in order to enhance instructional quality. This implies that the
constant reflection and revision in the instructional design practice represent the iterative and self-
correcting nature of the ADDIE process.
Phases 2 and 3 findings show that most teacher participants chose to use redefinition or modification from
the SAMR model to reflect on the extent of their use of technology in teaching, while a few of them chose
augmentation or substitution. Those who chose redefinition or modification tended to show confidence
about their current practice and positive attitudes towards technology in education. However, the finding
regarding teacher participants’ reflection with the SAMR model is contrary to that of some researchers
174
such as Rae et al. (2017) who found NZ primary teachers’ practices generally reflected substitution and
augmentation rather than modification or redefinition. They believed that teacher confidence, their
technological knowledge, technical issues, and the lack of sufficient time or PLD opportunities may be the
barriers to their technology use in education. Likewise, in the studies situated in the teacher education
context, Cherner and Curry (2017) and Zipke et al. (2019) found that the instructional practices with
technology of most student teachers were more related to substitution and augmentation. Tunjera and
Chigona (2020) reported similar results about teacher educators’ practices. These researchers did not
observe much transformative use of technology in education from many student teachers or teacher
educators.
Regarding the difference of findings between those studies and the present study, there are several
possible explanations. First, those researchers paid close attention to teachers’ actual practices through
methods such as classroom observation and examination of teacher documentation, which allowed them
to analyse teachers’ use of technology using the SAMR model in practice; but the present study relied on
teachers’ perspectives and focused on reporting their self-reflection from the Phase 2 survey and Phase 3
interviews, and their responses could be aspirational rather than representing their actual practices.
Second, as discussed earlier, many participants approached the SAMR as a frame of reference to reflect
their overall practice with technology. Therefore, their identification of modification and redefinition may not
necessarily mean that they are able to use technology to redesign or create learning tasks that were
previously inconceivable; instead, it may be more related to their satisfaction and confidence with their use
of technology in teaching.
Drawing from the findings, even though teacher participants had a basic understanding of the SAMR
model, they may not always follow the original conceptualisation by Puentedura (2006) to approach the
SAMR model, and some of them challenged the model. The original SAMR model established by
Puentedura mainly focuses on how technology can be used to improve and redesign learning tasks and
create new tasks. Similar to the current study’s views on the SAMR presented in Chapter 2 (see
subsection 2.4.3), a few participants suggested that the SAMR model represents four modes of the overall
use of technology in teaching, and teachers can adopt different and multiple modes based on the needs of
their instructional design practice. Additionally, according to Hamilton et al. (2016), the technology-
integration process is simplified within the SAMR model since the goal centres on the products (learning
tasks) rather than the instructional process. In Phase 3, teacher participants’ discussion mainly drew on
their perceptions of the instructional quality and effectiveness, achievement of instructional objectives,
design of new learning tasks, and their personal interests and knowledge of technology. Therefore, the
study infers that teacher participants appeared to focus more on the overall instructional process rather
than the products (learning tasks) when using the SAMR model for reflection. The study also suggests
that not all teachers use the SAMR model to inform their practices and the SAMR model does not reflect
all aspects of teaching or instructional design practices.
In conclusion, the above discussion on the third conceptual strand, instructional design practices,
reviewed three principal components which reflected the ADDIE framework: examination of the situation
(analysis), creation of the instruction (design, development, and implementation), and evaluation of the
instruction. The study shows that teacher participants were able to identify key contextual factors and take
175
them into consideration in their analysis phase. It appeared that they would value and follow the NZC
framework and use it to constantly inform their practices. NCEA as summative assessment may
complicate the NZC implementation, but the introduction of digital assessment could help promote
technology use in education. Additionally, the study suggests that teachers in the analysis phase
recognise student characteristics, and acknowledge students’ need for understanding the instruction and
technology as well as their social and growth needs. Findings of the teachers’ perceived affordances
implies that teaching in the BYOD environments could allow teachers to better facilitate student inquiry
and agency which would in turn help address those student needs. The analysis phase may also involve
analysing teaching practices and instructional objectives. The findings show that teachers’ common
instructional objectives are able to represent the key competencies and the NOS strand outlined in the
NZC.
In terms of creating the instruction, teacher participants’ common instructional activities were able to
reflect most of the instructional events proposed by Gagné et al. (2005); the event of gaining attention was
not reflected in the study but it could have been carried out in practice, for example, through pre-class
learning tasks with technology. The study also suggests that teachers may normally adopt a variety of
instructional strategies in their practice to encourage students to be more engaged in learning science with
technology. Regarding learning environment construction, even though there is little information about the
impact of the ILE initiative on teaching and learning, the study infers that the change of physical space
arrangement may not significantly influence teaching and learning; appropriate teaching approaches and
instructional strategies may also be employed to help teachers and student adapt to the change of spatial
layout. The study also suggests that teachers may generally prefer to create a student-centred and open
learning environment as many of them value student learning needs and student agency.
Regarding the evaluation of instruction, the findings show that teacher participants were generally satisfied
with their current practices with technology as they were able to achieve the instructional objectives,
enhance the quality and effectiveness of instruction, and improve students’ science-learning experience,
even though some teachers were concerned about the increasing workload and their lack of sufficient
TPACK. Additionally, drawing from their reflection on the extent of their use of technology in teaching using
the SAMR model, the study infers that teachers’ reflection using the SAMR model may be based on their
overall instructional process rather than the products (learning tasks) as per the original conceptualisation.
Redefinition and modification were the two modes that most participants used to describe their practices.
However, it should be acknowledged that the participants’ self-reporting may be biased, and teachers’
perceptions of their current practice may have been limited by their understanding and knowledge about
teaching with technology at the time they were interviewed. The study also suggests that the four modes
of SAMR could be adopted flexibly by teachers based on the tasks and the types of technology.
7.2.5 Beyond instructional design practice: Digital divide

The previous three subsections have discussed the research findings based on the three conceptual
strands: BYOD environments and wider contexts, teacher knowledge, and instructional design practices.
This subsection discusses the topic of the digital divide that emerged from the study. The digital divide
appears to be a sensitive issue of fairness in the field of technology in education, which was occasionally
mentioned by some participants. It is worth noting that this topic is beyond the scope of the present study,
176
but teachers would acknowledge it as part of the contextual influence and take it into account when
designing instruction. Drawing from the findings, the three types of digital divide identified by Starkey et al.
(2017) were reflected in the present study: access to devices and Internet, capability of using the devices,
and engagement in a digitally connected environment.
Specifically, Phase 1 findings suggest that schools with higher decile ratings have a higher BYOD
adoption rate, and there may be a digital divide between schools of different decile ratings. Teacher
participants from Phases 2 and 3 expressed concerns about the access-to-technology divide among
students since not all students have Internet at home or a personal digital device that meets the school’s
required specifications, resulting in them having less exposure to technology than others. Some
participants believed that, ideally, equal access to technology would allow for access to equal learning
opportunities and subject content online. Additionally, the study shows that not all students with access to
technology would use it effectively for learning. Bain and Weston (2012) shared a similar understanding
and suggested that teachers and researchers avoid the faulty assumption that underlies the access-to-
technology agenda. This type of digital divide also exists among teachers due to their TPACK differences.
The third type of digital divide, drawing from the research findings, seems to be more relevant to teachers.
Not all schools and their teachers share the same types or same quality of educational resources and
technical support. For example, some teachers were not provided with access to the BYOD-related PLD
opportunities; some teachers were not aware of the online CoPs and therefore did not engage in peer
support.
However, it should be noted that the MoE and schools have made efforts to minimise the impact of the
digital divide. Chapter 1 introduced NZ education as part of the macro context (see subsection 1.3.1), and
multiple MoE digital initiatives were listed to reflect the fact that government has been supporting schools
in succeeding with the use of technology in education by providing schools and teachers with technical
and professional support, including infrastructure, a digital assessment framework, PLD opportunities, and
online services and platforms for CoPs. Adhikari et al. (2016) reported that access to technology has
improved at a phenomenal rate as a result of BYOD initiatives. Drawing from Phase 3 findings,
participants generally acknowledged and appreciated many of the MoE digital initiatives, especially
government investment in schools’ infrastructure, and some funded online services and platforms such as
Pond and MyPortfolio.
Additionally, in the introduction of SES as part of the meso context (see subsection 1.3.2), the study found
that there have been many cases of schools with lower decile ratings and high access to technology. For
example, low-decile schools and clusters of schools involved in the Manaiakalani Programme have
developed partnership with diverse groups, including government agencies, commercial partners,
individual and corporate donors, academics and consultants, philanthropic organisations, and volunteers.
These schools have been able to support every student to purchase a personal digital device and provide
wireless Internet access at school and home (Manaiakalani Education Trust, n.d.).
Overall, participants in the study observed the possible digital divides that exist in the NZ context, which
may be perceived by teachers as an obstacle to teaching and learning. Meanwhile, the efforts and
supports by the MoE and schools should be recognised: many initiatives and actions have been
implemented and taken to help schools and students to access technology for learning as well as support
177
teachers to develop understanding and knowledge of teaching in a BYOD environment. To continue to

minimise the impact of the digital divide, MoE and schools could learn more about the needs of teachers
and students, expand the reach of support through digital initiatives, and provide teachers with more
information regarding the available resources, such as online services and platforms, and more BYOD-
related PLD opportunities that are pedagogy based and relevant to teachers’ needs and practices,
including mentoring and CoPs peer collaboration.
7.3 Theoretical Implications

This section discusses how the present study contributes to scholarly conversations in relation to BYOD
and instructional design practice.
First, the study has developed a comprehensive conceptual framework which is embedded with three
conceptual strands/components: BYOD environments and wider contexts, teacher knowledge, and
instructional design practices. The developed conceptual framework follows the theoretical perspectives—
analytic, explanatory, and ideology critiques—that draw upon Selwyn’s (2010) and Livingstone’s (2012)
critical approach to the study of educational technology. In this regard, through an analytic critique, the
study holds a realist position through a technological pessimism lens by acknowledging that effective use
of technology, instead of technology per se, could bring potential benefits to education. To do so, the study
investigates science teachers’ instructional design practices and their use of technology. Through an
explanatory critique, the study moves beyond technological determinism and recognises the social and
contextual nature of technology. Therefore, the study presents the macro–meso–micro contexts of the
research problem. Through an ideology critique, the study reflects on the relationship between technology
and education by discussing the contextual influence and digital divide issue. Overall, the present
research brings the contexts, teacher knowledge, teacher perception and practice into a coherent
conceptual framework, and represents a strong focus on the state-of-the-actual issues in the field of
technology and education.
Second, this study has explained a series of contextual factors, which helps to understand the social and
contextual nature of technology and the macro–meso–micro contexts of teaching in a BYOD environment.
Specifically, the macro context is about the promotion and development of BYOD initiatives across NZ,
including ICT industry involvement, political involvement, increasing use of technology, NZ education and
secondary science education, NCEA digital assessment, and MoE digital initiatives. The meso context is
about the BYOD implementation in schools, which is related to schools’ BYOD policy and its deployment,
students’ SES background, the ILE initiatives, and schools’ science education. Drawing from the
discussion on macro and meso contexts, the study infers that technology innovation and support from the
ICT industry and government motivate the development of BYOD and digital initiatives. Digital assessment
deployment could also accelerate schools’ technology adoption. Regarding micro context, teachers’
situated BYOD environments are related to setting, student characteristics, and teachers’ perceived
affordances and perceived constraints. The study focuses on presenting the micro context and
acknowledges that teachers’ instructional design practices and use of technology are highly
contextualised, meaning that their practices could be affected by the surrounding contexts. For example,
ICT corporates’ product promotions and schools’ recommendations influence teachers’ choice of
technology, and schools’ BYOD policy and ILE initiatives could affect teachers’ choice of teaching
178
approaches. Therefore, the study infers that teachers’ technology adoption may rely on their perception of
the technology and its application in education. Teachers’ technology adoption may also be influenced by
the wider contexts, including the global, national, community, school, and classroom environments.
Third, the study has identified science teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints of the
BYOD environment, which could serve as a reference for future studies to understand teachers’
perceptions of technology in education and similar research problems. The study has developed
theoretical perspectives to approach teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints.
Specifically, constraints are complementary to affordances and both are equally necessary for teachers’
potential for action. Affordances and constraints are considered to be perceived differently depending on
the environments and the actions taken (Kennewell, 2001). The same environment may enable different
perceived affordances and constraints for different teachers. Finally, affordances and constraints can be
identified through both technological and pedagogical lenses (Gagné et al., 2005; Gibson, 1979; Webb,
2005; Webb & Cox, 2004), which is helpful to recognise the impacts of technology attributes and
pedagogical possibilities in a BYOD environment. Overall, the identified perceived affordances and
perceived constraints allow for insights into the complex relations of technology, BYOD settings, teacher
knowledge, and use of technology in education.
Drawing from the identified contextual factors as well as teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived
constraints, the study infers that the contextual factors could influence the schools’ adoption and
deployment of BYOD initiatives. The contextual factors also impact teachers’ instructional design practice
and teaching practice with technology. Additionally, the study suggests that the identified affordances and
constraints may be closely associated with the teachers’ attitudes and practice with technology. Overall,
these possible associations are proposed based on the interpretation of qualitative data, which would be
useful for further examination in future research.
Fourth, the study has enriched the understanding of the SAMR model. Specifically, the study applies
media theory as the theoretical support for the SAMR model and thereby regards that learning occurs as a
result of interacting with technology. The study views SAMR as representing four modes of the use of
technology in education so as to describe a teachers’ overall instructional practice with technology. The
study approaches the SAMR model as a task- and technology-focused model in which the four modes can
be adopted flexibly based on the learning tasks and types of technology (Brown & Green, 2016; Hamilton
et al., 2016; Kirkland, 2013; Richey et al., 2011). Moreover, drawing from the findings, the study shows
that teacher participants’ reflections using the SAMR model had a strong focus on their overall
instructional process rather than the products (learning tasks) with the use of technology. Therefore, the
study suggests using the SAMR model as a frame of reference to describe a teacher’s overall instructional
practice regarding the extent of their use of technology in education, instead of simply focusing on
connecting the use of technology with the redesign and creation of learning tasks as per the original idea
of SAMR model.
Fifth, the study has extended the existing understanding and knowledge of BYOD and instructional design
practices. Since BYOD has become a popular topic, there are a number of editorials and commentaries
published in an attempt to present the authors’ opinions that are not based on research or evidence. While
many studies focus on the impact of technology integration on student attitude, learning performance, and
179
teachers’ PLD, little is known about the teachers’ instructional design practices for the BYOD
environments. This study draws on the analysis of schools’ BYOD-related documents as well as science
teachers’ responses to the survey and interviews, and contributes evidence and provides deep insights
into the topics of BYOD and teachers’ instructional design practices in context.
7.4 Practical Implications

This section presents the practical implications of the research findings for three areas: digital initiatives
and BYOD policies, teachers’ PLD, and instructional design practice.
7.4.1 Implications for digital initiatives and BYOD policies

The study has raised important considerations with respect to digital initiatives and BYOD policies. Many
MoE digital initiatives have been introduced and promoted to support schools in succeeding with the use
of technology in education and facilitating the BYOD implementation in schools, involving aspects such as
infrastructure, technology and information access, a digital assessment framework, and PLD for teachers.
However, over the past decades, the discussion of educational technology has often been characterised
by a pattern of hype, hope, and disappointment, meaning that the promises of educational technology are
rarely fully achieved (Cuban, 2001; Gouseti, 2010). Considering the digital initiatives are heavily invested
in and directly impact school education, it is important for the MoE and schools as policymakers to have
sufficient understanding of how teachers’ instructional practices and students’ learning will be affected
(Adhikari et al., 2016). It is also important for policymakers to develop and carry out a comprehensive
evaluation system in order to review policy implementation, improve future BYOD deployment, and
support teachers’ instructional practices. Such evaluation system cannot solely rely on student
achievement data from NCEA assessment; it should be based on multiple areas including technology and
information access, teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practice with technology, learning outcomes,
and availability of technical and PLD support. This means that teachers’ feedback should be taken into
account in the policy development, to avoid leaving teachers feeling disconnected from national and
school leadership.
Drawing from findings on teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived constraints, the study infers that
the BYOD initiatives have brought positive effects on teaching and learning, for example, diverse learning
opportunities, enhanced learning experiences, and improved student agency. However, teachers also
considered the challenges associated with raising concerns about the access to and use of technology. To
further minimise the technology-access divide among schools and students, the study suggests that the
MoE could continue to work with schools, which includes improving technology access for rural and low-
decile schools, expanding the reach of financial support, offering infrastructure and technical support,
having a rental scheme for students to borrow devices if needed, and providing better discounts for
devices by collaborating with retailers. Furthermore, to facilitate teachers’ technology adoption and
address compatibility issues, schools should help teachers identify more web-based programs and
platforms; schools could also employ a reliable online service to give teachers and students access to
school-provided programs and platforms from any device. In this case, regardless of the device
specifications and functionalities, students could still access the necessary programs and platforms.
Regarding the NCEA digital assessment initiative, it moves away from the traditional paper-based test,
180
and would involve a redesign of the assessment practice. According to NZQA (2019b), the initiative has
been piloted since 2014, and will continue to develop from 2021 onwards by introducing more innovation
in NCEA exams. Many teacher participants expected digital assessment to be able to accurately reflect
how students learn science with the use of technology. However, through the digital trials and pilots,
teacher participants observed some issues, for example, the current digital assessment does not seem to
be flexible enough as students have to be sitting in a computer room; in the case of online submission for
internal assessment, academic integrity may become a challenge as students might copy and paste online
information or have someone else sit the test for them. Digital trials and pilots allow teachers to
communicate their feedback, which helps to constantly review and develop the digital assessment.
Additionally, the flexibility of the NCEA framework allows schools and teachers to carry out their internal
assessment practices, which requires their nuanced and sophisticated thinking about how to reflect the
NCEA achievement standards and learning objectives outlined in the NZC (Hipkins et al., 2016). The
BYOD environment could afford rich data and evidence for schools and teachers to be more responsive to
student needs and performance, so they could take advantage of the use of technology to facilitate the
development of school’s curriculum, internal assessment, and instructional practice. Considering the
complexity of assessment and curriculum, stronger connections and communication between teachers,
schools, CoLs, and policymakers would help teachers to learn from successful experience and engage in
innovative practice.
Additionally, MoE digital initiatives and schools’ BYOD policies normally involve collaboration with
technology providers, which could be government-affiliated entities as well as the partnerships formed with
local retailers and ICT companies on a more ad hoc basis by schools. Both are ultimately engaged out of
commercial interests, but they are different in their service focus. Those who are government affiliated
generally provide digital services and products with an attempt to suit the common interests of schools,
which may thereby miss an opportunity to address some schools’ specific needs. Those who are in private
business may be able to provide services and products that fit some schools’ specific needs, but there is a
potential risk that the sales negotiation may compromise schools’ investment and adoption of technology.
Therefore, schools should take partnership impacts into consideration when working with different
technology providers.
7.4.2 Implications for professional learning and development

The study has offered insights into the various aspects of teacher knowledge development and PLD
opportunities related to teaching in BYOD environments. To be able to teach in a BYOD environment,
teachers need substantial knowledge and skills in relation to technology, pedagogy, and subject content.
Drawing from the findings, the study infers that technological knowledge may not be the centre of teaching
knowledge in a BYOD environment; instead, the comprehensive TPACK is desired. However, teacher
participants realised that many BYOD-related PLD sessions normally focus on technical aspects, which
may miss the opportunity to develop their overall TPACK. Through a transformative lens, TPACK
development cannot depend on the separate development of TK, PK, and/or CK. Hence, the study
suggests the future development of PLD sessions should have a strong focus on the holistic TPACK
development, helping teachers to understand how to carry out pedagogical practice and teach science
with effective use of technology. Drawing from the findings, popular PLD programmes could include
181
personalised support such as mentoring and technical assistance, academic qualification programmes in
digital learning, and collaboration with peer teachers and other schools which may also be seen as CoPs.
These popular PLD programmes share common characteristics: they allow teachers to develop based on
their individual learning curves and needs; they are considered to be highly relevant to teachers’ individual
practice; and they allow for holistic TPACK development. Traditional PLD sessions with generic technical
topics are rather limited. Therefore, the study suggests that schools could provide teachers with guidance,
shared goals, adequate resources, and support. Schools and CoLs could design and organise more
personalised and tailored BYOD-related PLD programmes based on an evaluation of teachers’ needs,
such as mentorship and personal technical assistance. Since many teachers desire a flexible schedule for
PLD, schools could allow sufficient time for PLD especially at the early stage of BYOD deployment.
Additionally, given that there is a large and growing body of literature on effective PLD, schools could
examine and use the existing research to inform their future PLD initiatives.
The study also suggests that teachers could take the initiative to seek relevant information, choose the
PLD programmes to participate in that meet personal PLD needs, and identify the CoPs that they could
devote time to. Through PLD programmes, teachers may be exposed to a variety of theoretical models
and practical examples related to BYOD teaching, but they should always maintain a critical mindset and
evaluate how well these models and examples reflect the reality of their situation and inform their
practices. For example, the original idea of the SAMR model has a focus on creating new learning tasks
(instructional products), and some participants were able to acknowledge that it does not necessarily align
strongly with instructional objectives, learning needs, or student performance.
Engaging in CoPs has been an increasingly common and popular PLD approach which is probably due to
its teacher-driven and flexible features. Teachers can draw from their personal situations (such as their
school culture, workload, and PLD needs and preferences) and identify what kinds of CoPs they would
like to be part of and commit to. As discussed earlier, a school’s organisational culture and the
policymakers’ support and involvement could impact the development of CoPs. Therefore, drawing from
teachers’ interests in CoPs and the closure of Pond, the study suggests the MoE review its digital
initiatives such as VLN and Pond platforms, investigate schools’ and teachers’ needs and expectations
regarding CoP support, and explore ways to motivate teachers to engage in CoPs for personal
development and collaboration. Additionally, schools could encourage teachers’ participation in school-
based, local, and/or online CoPs. Specifically, to cultivate school-based CoPs and a supportive culture,
schools could create a friendly workplace, motivate teachers to share ideas and experiences with peers
regarding their successful use of technology in teaching (such as sharing an archive of resources and
circulating newsletters), and encourage teachers to take on leadership (such as mentoring and organising
events). To support local CoPs, schools could collaborate with other schools, such as arranging school
visits, so that the school leaders and teachers can broaden their horizons in terms of schoolwide BYOD
implementation and teaching with technology, which may also facilitate teachers’ engagement in a digitally
connected environment. To support teachers’ engagement in local and online CoPs, schools can help
identify and keep teachers informed of the communication channels and events of those CoPs.
Drawing from Phase 3 findings, the study shows that many teacher participants expected teacher
education to be more relevant to the current practices at schools and in the classroom. The MoE’s digital
182
initiatives and schools’ BYOD policies may take time to embed in a wider education system, and it would
be important for teacher education providers to be responsive to the changing scenario of school
education. Therefore, the study suggests that teacher education providers build closer relationships with
schools so as to understand more about the current practices at schools, the schools’ desired knowledge
and the skillsets of future teachers. A closer relationship can also allow schools to stay better informed of
educational research findings. Schools could align their BYOD policies with these findings and promote
evidence-based practice. Additionally, student teachers’ use of technology in future teaching may be
impacted by technology integration in teacher education programmes and their reflection on teaching
experience (Tunjera & Chigona, 2020). Therefore, it is important for teacher education providers to review
their current pedagogical practice with technology, and introduce more about BYOD-related pedagogy,
collaborative teaching, and working with curriculum, especially for an ILE environment; they could also
present instructional approaches about how to keep students engaged in learning with technology; and
they could advise student teachers about the creative use of technology in teaching and the management
of students’ behaviour issues with technology.
7.4.3 Implications for instructional design practices

The study has provided an in-depth understanding of science teachers’ current perceptions of teaching in
BYOD environments and their instructional design practices. The digital initiatives, including BYOD and
ILE, bring various changes to the classroom: “the spaces in which they work; the tools with which they
work; the ways in which they work; and the ways in which they think about their work” (Benade, 2017, p.
205). Due to considerable teacher autonomy in the NZ educational system, teachers are able to embrace
changes by taking risks in trying different instructional activities and strategies. In a BYOD environment,
the use of technology can afford diverse opportunities. However, using technology does not necessarily
mean that teachers should heavily rely on technology in teaching. Many teacher participants believed that
the purpose of education is about teaching students how to learn and apply knowledge in different
contexts. Therefore, teachers’ teaching practice and instructional strategies are also significant in
engaging students in science learning. Through constantly reviewing and reflecting on their own practices,
teachers can draw from their perceived affordances and perceived constraints of technology, and explore
what is most suitable to their teaching in a BYOD environment.
Given the flexibility of the NZ education system, teachers generally have considerable autonomy in
teaching and designing instruction within the NZC and school curriculum framework. However, according
to Phases 2 and 3 findings and researchers such as Haque (2014) and Hipkins et al. (2016), the NCEA
assessment will inevitably influence their instructional focus and student learning especially at senior
levels. Even though the assessment has become a priority at senior levels, it does not mean that teachers
have to take a traditional didactic teaching style and only use technology as substitution or augmentation
as per the SAMR model. Some participants reported that they and their schools have experimented to
develop internal assessment with technology, such as having students collaboratively create a digital
booklet. With the ongoing development of NCEA digital assessment, schools and teachers need to be
more responsive and resilient so as to explore innovative ways to balance NCEA assessment, the NZC
framework, instructional practices, student learning, and technology use.
According to the findings, student agency was identified as a perceived pedagogical affordance since
183
teachers believed that students could take more responsibility for their learning and become more
independent and self-directed in a BYOD environment. Many participants’ instructional practices involved
multiple learning contexts/topics and activities so students could have the freedom of choice. However,
exercising agency would also require students to be well aware of their learning ability, progress, and
performance, and some students may find it challenging and struggle to identify what they want to learn or
how well they have been doing. Therefore, teachers need to develop a good understanding about their
students’ characteristics and needs, and spend more time in catering to individual students’ needs when
required. As advised by Adhikari et al. (2016), within BYOD environments, teaching and learning practices
should focus more on critical thinking, which is also needed when students exercise agency. Hence, the
study also suggests teachers to set up guidance and support students to use technology effectively and
responsibly, including how to deal with online information with a critical-thinking mindset, which could be
embedded in the daily teaching and learning.
Finally, through BYOD initiatives, schools and teachers need to prepare students for becoming digitally
capable individuals in the technology-rich world in which they will live, learn, and work. Technology is not
just used for facilitating students’ learning. It has been an increasingly important and integral part of
everyday life, both professionally and personally. Therefore, science teachers’ instructional design
practices should focus on and help students understand how technology can be used in science.
Likewise, teachers from different subjects should also demonstrate how technology can be used in
different areas. Using technology in such a way could help students develop understandings of the
affordances and limitations of technology in the practice and advancement of science and other areas, so
that these generations of students can challenge, negotiate, and push the way technology is used in the
professional world when they arrive there.
7.5 Limitations
This section presents the limitations of the study. First, Phase 1 provided an analysis of online documents
related to BYOD initiatives; thus, it was unable to include all schools with BYOD implementation; the
archived online documents may also not fully cover a school’s BYOD policy if the information is not
updated or uploaded completely; and the BYOD policy documents, as high-level statements of intent, do
not necessarily reflect the actual practices of teaching and learning per se or address implementation at
practice level.
Second, in Phases 2 and 3, participants were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy to ensure that
a sufficient sample size from the target population could be reached, that is, secondary science teachers
who had been teaching in a BYOD environment in NZ for at least two terms. Consequently, the
participants who volunteered may already have a biased interest in the topics related to technology and
education.
Third, self-reported data were collected from the Phase 2 open-ended survey and Phase 3 semi-
structured interviews in which participants were invited to report their own perspectives and responses to
the proposed questions. Given that self-reporting by the participants may be biased (Cohen et al., 2007),
some of the responses may be aspirational rather than entirely reflecting their actual practices.
Fourth, given the small scope of Phases 2 and 3, the resultant findings represent only an exploration and
184
a snapshot at a point in time of the state of science teachers’ instructional design practices for BYOD
environments in NZ secondary schools.
Fifth, Phases 2 and 3 findings reported the number of participants who commented on a particular issue,
but the remaining participants cannot simply be assumed to hold different positions or be unaware of a
specific issue. Rather, it is more likely that those remaining participants did not raise a particular issue or
have the chance to discuss one; therefore, the reported frequencies cannot be used directly to extrapolate
any pattern or gauge the extent of the significance of the issue.
Sixth, there may a limitation in the technologies and practices being discussed in the study. Drawing from
the findings, teacher participants and their students mostly interact with personal devices including
laptops, tablets, and phones, as well as the programs and platforms that can be operated on those
devices. However, with the ongoing development of technology, schools may adopt different kinds of
technology, such as smart watches, and VR and AR devices. The present study may not have covered the
ongoing changes in technology adoption in education.
Considering the above six limitations, the current research findings are likely to be indicative only and
cannot be generalised to all schools or teachers or to different educational contexts within other
populations. Given the rapid speed of technological change, the findings are likely to change over time.
Lastly, although the study reflects a context-rich analysis, my personal experience with technology and a
cultural lens—as an outsider researcher with mixed feelings about technology—may influence my
understanding of the research contexts, which may differ from the viewpoints of participants.
7.6 Recommendations for Future Research

In response to the research findings and limitations, this section provides the following recommendations
for future research.
First, the theoretical perspectives and findings from the present research may be useful in future studies.
Specifically, this study has established a theoretical foundation for perceived affordances and perceived
constraints and use of the SAMR model. Future studies in this field could adopt these theoretical
perspectives to approach conceptual constructs. Additionally, since the present study was able to identify
a series of macro–meso–micro contextual factors and teachers’ perceived affordances and perceived
constraints, future studies could provide further empirical evidence by exploring the impact of these
contextual factors and/or perceived affordances and perceived constraints on teachers’ TPACK
development and/or their instructional design practice.
Second, when exploring and deconstructing teachers’ instructional design practice, it may be
recommended for future studies to consider the impact of teacher knowledge. The ADDIE framework
normally begins by identifying a performance gap and the possible reasons behind this, and then carrying
out needs, tasks, and learner analyses (Branch, 2009; Brown & Green, 2016). However, these analyses
should also involve a designer’s/teacher’s analysis with a focus on their knowledge and skillset relevant to
designing an instruction. In this case, the TPACK model may be a useful frame of reference in researching
the context of teaching with technology.
185
Third, the present study shows that CoPs emerged as a preferred choice of PLD by teachers. But the
closure of Pond indicated that it may be difficult to maintain the sustainability of CoPs. Hence, it may be
useful for future studies to investigate the current situation and challenges of local and online CoPs, and
teachers’ experience with CoPs. Further studies could also explore how to maintain teachers’ enthusiasm
and long-term engagement in CoPs.
Fourth, future studies in the context of NZ teacher education would help to explain how the current teacher
education programmes and educators in NZ prepare student teachers for teaching with technology. Some
researchers, such as Tunjera and Chigona (2020) and Zipke et al. (2019), found that many teacher
educators employed traditional teacher-centred teaching strategies and mostly used technology as
substitution or augmentation. Additionally, teacher participants in this study had mixed opinions towards
NZ teacher education. Therefore, an investigation into the NZ teacher education context would provide
further evidence and extend knowledge related to educational use of technology in higher education and
teacher education programmes.
Fifth, future studies could conduct comparative research in three ways: firstly, comparative studies on
teachers’ instructional design practices could compare teachers who are teaching junior secondary levels
with those teaching senior levels given that seniors usually have priority in NCEA assessments. Secondly,
the findings in this study did not report a significant difference between novice teachers and
experienced/expert teachers. The possible explanations for this might be that the sample size in this study
was small, and a significant difference between the two groups was not observed. Conducting
comparative studies between the two groups in the same or similar research context may also help to
clarify if any significant difference exists, and if so, to determine what the differences are. Thirdly, cross-
contextual or cross-cultural comparative studies could be conducted to compare teachers’ instructional
design practices in a BYOD environment with that in a non-BYOD environment, or in an ILE layout with
that in a traditional classroom setting, or between different countries.
Sixth, similar to the research conducted by Selwyn et al. (2018), future studies could consider employing
an observation method to investigate instructional design practice for a BYOD environment. Researchers,
as nonparticipant observers, could analyse teachers’ generated materials for instruction and create
fieldnotes and/or make recordings (Creswell, 2012), which would allow for observing and understanding
how teachers actually design and deliver instructions at their schools.
7.7 Concluding Remarks

This research set out to explore and understand how science teachers carry out instructional design
practices for BYOD environments in NZ secondary schools. In approaching this research topic, this study
has enriched the theoretical perspectives of constructs including BYOD, affordances and constraints, the
TPACK framework, the ADDIE framework, and the SAMR model; it connects these constructs with the
macro–meso–micro contextual structure, and maps them onto a comprehensive conceptual framework.
The three-phase findings have provided rich evidence and offered insights into various aspects of the
research topic: schools’ BYOD policies, teachers’ perceived BYOD environments, PLD opportunities and
teacher development, and their instructional design practices. Moving forward, future research into
instructional design practice in this changing context could bring significant theoretical and practical
186
benefits to the field of education.
To this end, many changes are currently occurring in the NZ educational context, especially the BYOD and
ILE initiatives, and digital assessment. I was fortunate to conduct this study while witnessing ongoing
technological innovation and rapid change in the education system. Many countries have gradually
introduced BYOD initiatives, and as the history of educational technology shows, technology adoption has
brought education a new layer of complexity, but it does not generally lead to a fundamental change to
teachers’ instructional design practice or student learning. Regardless of interests or doubts over the idea
of BYOD, policymakers, schools, and teachers should ensure that their BYOD-related practices are not
compromised by assumptions about technology affordance, teacher knowledge, student characteristics,
and learning. In the process of adapting the education system for the digital age, it would be significant to
develop a broad understanding of the contexts, the use of technology, and teachers’ knowledge and
practice.
187
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A.
Phase 2 Online Survey Questions
Section 1: Demographic and Background Information
1. What is your gender?

A. Female
B. Male
C. Prefer not to answer
2. Please indicate the age range you fall into:
A. 25 and under
B. 26-30
C. 31-35
D. 36-60
E. 41-45
F. 46-50
G. 51 and over
H. Prefer not to answer
3. What is your highest level of education completed?
4. What specific subjects are you teaching now?
5. How long have you been a teacher?
6. How long have you been teaching in a BYOD environment?
Section 2: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
7. What types of digital devices do you use for teaching?

8. What types of digital devices do your students use for learning?
9. What affordances of those devices help you to teach and your students to learn?
10. Does the use of those devices hinder you and/or students from achieving the learning goals? If yes,
what are the constraints? If no, please put “N/A” here.
Section 3: Instructional Design Practices
11. Have you changed the way you teach in a BYOD environment? If yes, what have you changed? If no,
please put “N/A” here.
12. Which mode of the SAMR model most closely reflects your teaching in a BYOD environment?
A. Substitution: Technology is a substitute with no functional change, e.g., using Google Earth
instead of an Atlas to locate a place
188
Appendices
B. Augmentation: Technology is a substitute with functional improvement, e.g., using Google Earth
rulers to measure the distance between two places
C. Modification: Technology affords significant task redesign, e.g., using Google Earth layers such as
panoramio and 360 cities to research locations
D. Redefinition: Technology allows the creation of new tasks that were previously not possible, e.g.,
creating a narrated Google Earth guided-tour and share this online
13. Do you think it has been possible to use technology to its best advantage for teaching and learning in
your class? Please explain your answer.
Section 4: Professional Learning and Development
14. Have you been provided with any professional development opportunities for teaching in a BYOD
environment? If yes, what are those opportunities? If no, please put “N/A” here.
15. Have you engaged in self-study or independent development for teaching in a BYOD environment? If
yes, how did you engage? If no, please put “N/A” here.
Ending
16. Would you like to access the research findings?

A. Yes
B. No
17. Are you interested in participating in a follow-up one-on-one interview? It will take approximately 60
minutes. Further information about the study will be sent to you. To minimise your time, you can
choose the interview location, which can be carried out online, such as through Skype, or at an
appropriate site of your choosing, such as your office.
A. Yes
B. No
18. (Optional) Please provide your contact details if you would like to access the research findings and/or
you would like to participate in a follow-up interview. Your provided identity information and contact
details will not be disclosed or shared.
A. Name:
B. Email address:
C. Phone number:
19. (Optional) Please provide any additional comments on this topic.
20. How did you hear about the survey?
Thank you for your time.
189
Appendices
Appendix B.
Phase 3 Indicative Questions for Interview with Science Teachers
Section 1: Visual Elicitation and Instructional Design
1. When was the last time that you designed instruction for a BYOD environment?
2. What was that instruction (class/unit) about?
3. How long did you work on that instructional design practice (class/unit)?
4. What were the key knowledge points that you wanted your students to learn in that class/unit?
5. Do you think those learning goals have been well achieved, and why?
6. Could you please review that instructional design process in your mind, and then use these paper and
pens to present it? You can use drawings, texts, diagrams, such as charts and maps, to demonstrate
your instructional design practice visually.
7. (Participants finish drawing/writing.) Could you please explain your instructional design process based
on your visual work?
8. What is different because it is designed for a BYOD environment?
9. What was the most important procedure/part in your instructional design practice?
10. If you were to design the same instruction over again, would you do it differently? Please explain why
“yes/no.”
Section 2: Response to the Phase 2 Survey
11. (Show the printed participant’s response to the Phase 2 online survey.) Can you please confirm
whether this is your response to the previous questionnaire survey?
12. (Relate to their responses.) Can you tell me more about the technology affordances and constraints
and why you consider them to be so?
13. How do the technology constraints influence your instructional design practice?
Section 3: Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
14. (Relate to the participants’ earlier visual work.) What kinds of technology, including devices and
software, did you adopt in that instruction (class/unit)?
15. How did you learn to use the technology involved in that instruction (class/unit)? Can you tell me
about your experience of learning to use the devices and software?
16. Did you encounter any difficulties when using the technology that you adopted? (If yes, ask them to
give an example and to explain how they overcame the technical problems; if no, move on to the next
question.)
17. In your opinion, does students’ learning in a BYOD environment differ from learning in a non-BYOD
environment? (If yes, ask them about how students learn in class and after class; if no, ask them to
explain.)
190
Appendices
18. Do you believe that the technology you adopted helped achieve your teaching objectives? Please
explain why “yes/no.”
19. Do you believe that the technology you adopted enhanced your teaching effectiveness? Please
explain why “yes/no.”
20. Did teaching in a BYOD environment have any effects on your own content knowledge (knowledge of
science)? Please explain why “yes/no.”
Section 4: Professional Learning and Development
21. (Relate to their responses to the Phase 2 online survey.) Are the current professional development
opportunities enough, and why /why not?
22. In order to improve your instructional design practice for a BYOD environment, what kinds of the
professional development supports are the most important, and why?
23. Do you have any plans or ideas to further develop your instructional design practice for a BYOD
environment?
Section 5: Self-identification of the Substitution/Augmentation/Modification/Redefinition (SAMR

Model) Type of Technology Integration in Education
24. (Relate to their responses to the Phase 2 online survey. Explain the SAMR model again.) You chose
this aspect (their answer to the survey) of the SAMR model of technology integration relates most
closely to your instructional design practice. Can you explain your answer, and tell me if you have any
plans or ideas to shift to a different aspect of the model?
25. What would be an ideal scenario, and how would you get there from the current situation?
I have finished my questions. Do you want to talk more about this topic? (If yes, ask them to tell more; if
no, move on to the end of the interview.)
Thank you so much for your participation!
191
Appendices
Appendix C.
Phase 3 Indicative Questions for Interview with Science Education Experts
Note to participant: You can feel free to choose and talk more on any topic from sections C, D, E, and/or
F based on your specific filed of expertise.
Section A: Introduction
The researcher will first introduce himself and the research project.
1. Could you please briefly introduce yourself, and tell me about your background and experience in
New Zealand secondary science education?
2. Were you involved in training secondary science teachers?
A. If so, what kinds of training programmes were offered and what was your role?
Section B: New Zealand secondary science education
NZ primary teachers teach all or most subjects to their students. NZ secondary teachers usually teach one
subject.
3. In general, do science teachers teach all five strands of New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) science area,
or, do they tend to teach one or a few particular subjects or content strands?
4. Are teachers encouraged to adequately explain Nature of Science (NOS) during teaching and inquiry?
5. From your experience, do teachers have any general concerns or frustrations in teaching science
(related to e.g., NOS, NCEA)?
NZC identifies NOS as an overarching strand of the science-learning area. Meanwhile, it seems that
NCEA doesn't list NOS as an isolated assessment.
6. Is it fair to say that the learning outcomes of NOS are assessed throughout the other content
strands/subjects, such as the physical world (physics)?
A. If so, how can the learning outcomes of NOS be reflected in those subject assessment? Could
you give an example?
B. If not, could you explain your view on this?
NZC states that Y1-Y10 students should learn all four context strands, and Y11-Y13 can choose to
specialise in one or more science disciplines.
7. Does it mean that, in secondary science education, Y9-Y10 and Y11-Y13 are two different science
teaching and learning contexts/cultures?
192
Appendices
A. If so, is it fair to say science education in Y1-Y10 address citizen-focus needs, and that Y11-Y13
address pre-professional needs?
NOS and secondary science education in New Zealand
8. In your opinion, is secondary science education in NZ different from that in other countries (e.g.,
Australia, UK, USA)?
A. Does NOS in NZ have its own specialities/characteristics (e.g., theoretical background)?
9. From your experience, are there any outstanding issues or problems in connection with NZ secondary
science education?
Section C: Bring your own device (BYOD)
An increasing number of secondary schools are adopting BYOD initiatives.
10. What do you think about the current BYOD initiatives in NZ secondary science education?
11. Do you think there are particular ways that BYOD can support science teaching and learning?
12. Do you believe the use of technology may possibly hinder teachers and students from achieving the
learning goals? Why do you believe this?
NZQA is undertaking a digital transformation journey, and it launched NCEA Digital Trials and Pilots in
2017.
13. Do you have any comments to make about the NCEA digital assessment initiatives?
Section D: Instructional design
14. Do you think there is any difference in teachers’ instructional design practice because it is designed
for a BYOD environment? Please explain.
15. Is there anything you would recommend that science teachers do in order to better integrate
technology into the classroom?
Section E: Teacher knowledge
16. What do you think science teachers need to know to be able to teach effectively in a BYOD
environment?
17. From your experience, do you find teachers are reluctant or resilient to change and willing to adapt to
a different environment for teaching and learning? Why?
18. Do you believe tertiary education providers have equipped pre-service teachers with adequate
knowledge and skills to teach in a BYOD environment? Please explain.
193
Appendices
Section F: Professional learning and development (PLD)
19. To help teachers design and deliver high quality instructions for a BYOD environment, what kinds of
PLD opportunities (i.e. methods and content) do you think would be important?
20. Could you describe an ideal scenario for teaching in a BYOD environment?
A. How could we get there from the current state?
I have finished my questions. Do you have any other comments to offer on this topic?
Thank you so much for your participation!
194
Appendices
Appendix D.
Phase 2 Survey Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form for Principal and
Board of Trustees (School Access)39
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

For Principal and Board of Trustees (School Access)
PROJECT TITLE: Science Teachers’ Instructional Design Practices for a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD)
Environment in New Zealand Secondary Schools
RESEARCHER: Jiansheng Cui
SUPERVISORS: Associate Professor Cathy Gunn and Dr Rena Heap
RESEARCHER INTRODUCTION
I am Jiansheng Cui, a student at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, currently pursuing a
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROCEDURES
This study aims to understand science teachers' instructional design practice for BYOD environments in
New Zealand secondary schools. Therefore, I would like to invite your science teachers who have been
teaching in a BYOD environment for at least two terms to participate in my research.
This study has two phases. In Phase One, participants will take approximately 25 minutes to complete an
anonymous open-ended questionnaire on SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/byodresearch).
In Phase Two, participants will be invited to a one-on-one interview that will take approximately 60 minutes.
They can choose to participate in only Phase One (25 minutes), or both phases (85 minutes in total). To
minimise time for interview, participants can choose the interview location, which can be online, such as
through Skype, or at their chosen site, such as their office. It is anticipated that in total there will be at least
50 participants in Phase One, and up to 10 participants in Phase Two. The number of participants at your
school is expected to be part of the total sample size.
DATA STORAGE/RETENTION/FUTURE USE/DESTRUCTION
All data will be stored in the researcher’s office at the university for six years in locked storage cabinets.
Signed Consent Forms will be stored separately from all other hard copies of data (such as interview
notes, printed transcripts and summary reports of recordings) which will be stored in another secure
locker. All digital data (such as the list of email address, digital transcripts and summary reports of
recordings) will be stored in a password protected computer folder. The recordings from the recording
39
In Appendices D, E, F and G, the ethics documents stated that the study has two phases where participants would
be involved: Phase One survey and Phase Two interviews. These two phases refer to Phase 2 survey and Phase 3
interviews in the research design of the study.
195
Appendices
devices will be moved to a password protected computer folder.
The Phase Two interviews will be audio-taped using a digital voice recorder and an iPod. The use of two
recording devices is to avoid accidental loss of data during the interviews. After the interview, participants
can choose whether to receive the transcript or a summary report of the recordings for data verification
and editing.
All data will be used for the researcher’s doctoral research, as well as the future academic publications,
presentations and other forms of research dissemination. The collected data will be also used to support
further research in this area. After six years, all hard copies of data will be shredded, and all digital data
will be permanently deleted from all devices.
RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM PARTICIPATION
You have right to decline permission to approach your staff, and to withdraw the school from participating
in the research at any time. Participants can withdraw from online survey before submission. Additionally,
interview participants have the right to withdraw from participation at any time without explanation, and to
withdraw data attributed to them within one month after the interview. They can also request that the
recording is stopped at any time without explanation.
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION, ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
If you have given consent for the researcher to approach teachers at your school, it remains each
teacher’s right to decide whether they do so or not. No information in regard to their participation will be
shared with you. All participants will need to give their own free and informed content at each phase. You
will give assurance that teachers’ participation or non-participation will not affect their employment or
standing in the school.
All responses and identity information, including your list of email addresses and participants’ provided
identity information, will be kept confidential. In Phase One, participants will complete the questionnaire
anonymously. All SurveyMonkey’s track functions will be disabled, so no IP or email addresses will be
automatically recorded. However, some participants will voluntarily provide contact details if they would
like to take part in Phase Two. In Phase Two, participants will be asked to use pseudonyms for
identification. Participants’ provided identity information, such as contact details, will not be disclosed or
shared. In all publication of results, schools will not be named, and pseudonyms will be used for all
participants.
BENEFITS AND RISKS
Participation should be an interesting and thought-provoking process for participants. The benefit in this
study is that participants and your school are able to access the research findings. After the research is
completed, the results will be compiled as an anonymised summary report and sent to your school and the
participants who have provided contact details. In addition, the researcher can provide an oral
presentation about the research results at your school. The researcher’s dissertation will also be available
on the digital library system. Participants and your school can request to access a digital copy. The
research findings could help your teachers gain a better understanding of instructional design practices for
196
Appendices
a BYOD environment and that can inform their future practices as well as your schools’ professional
development programme.
Participation in this study does not involve any real risk to your school or individual participants.
Participants have the freedom to choose to participate or not, which will not be disclosed or shared to your
school or a third party. You will also give assurance that teachers’ participation, or non-participation, will
not affect their employment status. In addition, this research will only gather information about their
instructional design experience instead of evaluating teachers’ individual performance or your school’s
performance. No disclosed information is of sensitive nature.
CONTACT DETAILS
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance in making this study possible. For more information
about this research, you are welcome to email the researcher or either of the supervisors.
Researcher Main Supervisor Co-supervisor The Head of School

Jiansheng Cui Associate Professor Dr Rena Heap Associate Professor
Cathy Gunn Helen Hedges
School of Curriculum & Centre for Learning and School of Curriculum & School of Curriculum &
Pedagogy Research in Higher Pedagogy Pedagogy
Education
The University of Auckland The University of Auckland The University of Auckland The University of Auckland
j.cui@auckland.ac.nz ca.gunn@auckland.ac.nz r.heap@auckland.ac.nz h.hedges@auckland.ac.nz
+64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 923 8354 +64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 373 7599 extn.
48779 48636 48606
For any queries regarding ethical concerns you may contact the Chair, The University of Auckland Human
Participants Ethics Committee, The University of Auckland, Research Office, Private Bag 92019, Auckland
1142. Telephone: 09 373-7599 extn. 83711. Email: humanethics@auckland.ac.nz
APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE ON

07 April 2015 FOR 3 YEARS, REFERENCE NUMBER 013436
197
Appendices
CONSENT FORM
For Principal and Board of Trustees (School Access)
THIS FORM WILL BE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS
Please carefully read the following statements and sign this Consent Form if appropriate.
1. I/We have read the Participant Information Sheet, and have understood the nature of the research and
why I/we have been asked to give consent for the science teachers at this school to be invited to
participate.
2. I/We have had the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered to my/our satisfaction.
3. I/We agree to provide a list of email addresses of the science teachers at this school.
4. I/We agree to the science teachers of the school being invited to take part in this research.
5. The Board of Trustees gives assurance that teachers’ participation, or non-participation, will not affect
their employment status.
6. Teachers’ participation is voluntary. Teachers will contact the researcher if they have any questions
about the research and/or they are willing to participate in the second phase of the research.
7. I/We understand that:
• the list of teachers email addresses provided by me/us will be stored in a password protected
computer folder,
• I/we have right to decline permission to approach the staff at this school,
• participants will sign the Consent Forms which include a confidentiality statement,
• while I/we have given consent for the researcher to invite the staff at this school to participate, it
remains each individual teacher’s right to decide whether they do so or not, so no information in
regard to their participation will be shared with me/us, and
• the data will be stored in a secure manner for six years, after which they will be destroyed.
8. I/We wish / do not wish to receive the summary of research findings.
Name: …………………………………… Organisation: …………………………………...…
Email: ………………………………………………
Signature: …………………………………… Date: …………………………………….…………

198
Appendices
Appendix E.
Phase 2 Survey Invitation Letter to Online Newsgroups and Participant
Information Sheet for Science Teachers
INVITATION LETTER TO ONLINE NEWSGROUPS

For Survey Participants
This invitation letter will be sent by the researcher
To whom it may concern,
I am Jiansheng Cui, a PhD student at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. I am writing to
invite you to participate in my research project. My research topic is: Science Teachers’ Instructional
Design Practices for a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Environment in New Zealand Secondary Schools.
My supervisors are Associate Professor Cathy Gunn and Dr Rena Heap.
This study aims to understand science teachers' instructional design practice for BYOD environments in
New Zealand secondary schools. It has two phases. Phase One is an anonymous online survey. In Phase
Two, a one-on-one interview will be carried out. You can choose to participate in only Phase One, or both
phases.
To be an eligible participant, you should be a science teacher who has been teaching for a BYOD
environment for at least two terms in a New Zealand secondary school. I would really appreciate it if you
could consider participating in this research project. Your participation is voluntary. If you would like to start
the Phase One survey now, please click the following website
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/byodresearch. A Participant Information Sheet is contained in the
website. The survey will take approximately 25 minutes to complete.
For more information, please feel free to contact me or either of my supervisors. Contact details are
provided in the Participant Information Sheet on the survey website.
Many thanks for your time in considering my request.
Best regards,
Jiansheng Cui
Doctoral Candidate
Office A238, Epsom Campus
School of Curriculum and Pedagogy
Faculty of Education
The University of Auckland
199
Appendices
j.cui@auckland.ac.nz
+64 9 373 7599 extn. 48779

200
Appendices
INVITATION LETTER TO ONLINE NEWSGROUPS (TWITTER)

This invitation letter (Twitter Post) will be sent by the researcher
Sample One
Interested in a survey on instructional design & BYOD? Pls click

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/byodresearch EthicsRef013436 #edchatnz #cenz14
Sample Two
NZ secondary science teachers, r u teaching in a BYOD class? Whats yr views?

Sample Three
For NZ secondary science teachers, survey on instructional design & BYOD

201
Appendices
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET40

Dear teacher,
Thank you for considering participating in this research project. My study aims to understand science
teachers' instructional design practice for BYOD environments in New Zealand secondary schools. To be
an eligible participant, you should be a science teacher who has been teaching for a BYOD environment
for at least two terms in a New Zealand secondary school. This project is part of my doctoral studies at the
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.
This anonymous survey will take approximately 25 minutes to complete. You will be asked to fill in two
sections, including your background information, as well as your perceptions on BYOD and instructional
design practice. If you are interested in taking part in a follow-up one-on-one interview, please indicate this
at the end of the survey.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and you can withdraw consent at any time by not completing the
survey, but once submitted, it will not be possible to withdraw the survey because of its anonymous
nature. However, if you choose to also take part in Phase Two of the study, your response will no longer
be anonymous because I will ask for your name and contact details. I would like to discuss your survey
response with you during the interview. You or your school’s name will not be identified in any research
report. All track functions on SurveyMonkey will be disabled, so no IP addresses or email addresses will
be recorded automatically. Furthermore, your Principal and the Board of Trustees will not know of your
decision to participate in this research, and thus your decision to participate (or not to do so) will have no
bearing on your relationships with them.
The data that you provide will be kept secure in a password protected computer in the researcher’s office
at the university for the duration of the research, and will be destroyed after six years. The data will be
used for the researcher’s doctoral studies, as well as the future academic publications, presentations and
other forms of research dissemination. It will be also used to support further research in this area.
Your participation will be very useful in helping us to understand instructional design practice for BYOD
environments. You are able to access the research findings, which could help inform you future practices.
After the research is completed, the findings will be compiled as an anonymised summary report and sent
to you if you are willing to provide contact details. The researcher will provide an oral presentation of the
study outcome at the schools that have given permissions for school access. In addition, the researcher’s
40
This Participant Information Sheet was shown on the survey website.
202
Appendices
doctoral dissertation will be available on the digital library system. You can request to access a digital
copy.
Should any questions as a result of reading this Participant Information Sheet arise, you are welcome to
email the researcher before the survey begins. I will be glad to answer your questions any time.

Education
+64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 923 8354 +64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 373 7599 extn.
48779 48636 48606

Please click 'CONTINUE' to indicate your consent to participate in the study and to start
the survey.
203
Appendices
Appendix F.
Phase 3 Interview Participant Information Sheet, and Consent Form for Science
Teachers

For interview with teacher participants
I am Jiansheng Cui, a student at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. I am currently studying
towards a degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education. My research interests include instructional design
for BYOD environments, mobile learning, and professional learning and development. This research
project is part of my doctoral studies.
The purpose of the study is to understand science teachers' instructional design practice for BYOD
environments in New Zealand secondary schools. This study has two phases. You have completed the
Phase One survey. Thank you! You are now invited to participate in the Phase Two one-on-one interview,
which may take you about 60 minutes. In this interview, you will be asked to discuss your instructional
design practice for a BYOD environment. We will also discuss your prior responses to questionnaire
items, teacher knowledge, and your professional development. Your participation should be voluntary. To
minimise your time for the interview, you can choose the interview location, which can be online, such as
through Skype, or at an appropriate site of your choosing, such as your office, in Auckland.
The interview will be audio-taped using a digital voice recorder and an iPod. The use of two recording
devices is to avoid accidental loss of data during the interview. After the interview, you can choose
whether to receive the transcript or a summary report of the recordings for data verification and editing. If
you agree with the editing, please return your revision within two weeks of receipt of the transcripts.
DATA STORAGE/RETENTION/DESTRUCTION/FUTURE USE
All data will be stored in the researcher’s office at the university for a period of six years. All the hard
copies of data (such as interview notes, printed transcripts and summary reports of recordings) will be
stored in a secure locker. Your Consent Form will be separately locked in another storage cabinet. The
recordings from the digital voice recorder and iPod will be transferred to a password protected computer
folder. The recordings stored in the digital voice recorder and iPod will be deleted after transferring to that
folder. Other digital data (such as digital transcripts and summary reports of recordings) will be stored in
204
Appendices
another password protected computer folder.
After six years, all digital data will be permanently deleted from the researcher’s computer, mobile devices,
and recording devices. All the hard copies of data will be shredded. All data will be used for the
researcher’s doctoral research, as well as the future academic publications, presentations and other forms
of research dissemination. The collected data will be also used to support further research in this area.
During the interview, you can stop the recording and/or withdraw from the interview at any time without
explanation. You can also withdraw your data from the research within one month after participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All information gathered in the interview and your contact details will be kept confidential to the researcher,
and will not be disclosed or shared. You will be asked to use pseudonyms for identification. Only the
researcher can access this data. In all publication of results, schools will not be named, and pseudonyms
will be used for all participants.
BENEFITS AND RISKS
Participation should be an interesting and thought-provoking process for you. The benefit of participation
in this study is that you are able to access the research findings. After the research is completed, the
research results will be compiled as an anonymised summary report and sent to you if you are willing to
provide contact details. The researcher will provide an oral presentation of the study outcome at the
schools that have given permissions for school access. In addition, the researcher’s doctoral dissertation
will be available on the digital library system. You can request to access a digital copy. The access to the
research findings could help you gain a better understanding of instructional design for a BYOD
environment and that can inform you future practices.
Participation in this study does not involve any real risk to you. Your Principal and the Board of Trustees
have given assurance that your decision to participate or not in this research will not affect your
employment or relationship with the school. This research will only gather information about your
instructional design experience instead of evaluating your performance. Your disclosed information is not
of sensitive nature.
CONTACT DETAILS
Should any questions as a result of reading this Participant Information Sheet arise, you are welcome to
email the researcher before the interview begins. I will be glad to answer your questions any time.

Education
205
Appendices

+64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 923 8354 +64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 373 7599 extn.
48779 48636 48606

206
Appendices
CONSENT FORM
For interview with teacher participants
• I have read the Participant Information Sheet, and have understood the nature of the research.
• I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered to my satisfaction.
• I agree to take part in this phase of the research, which will take about 60 minutes.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary. I understand that I can stop the recording and/or
withdraw from the interview at any time without explanation. I understand that I can withdraw my
data from the research within one month after participation.
• I understand that my Principal and the Board of Trustees have given assurance that
participation/non-participation will not affect my employment or relationships with the school.
• I understand that that I will be audio-recorded during the interview.
• I understand that the recordings will be transcribed and/or complied as a summary report of
recordings by the researcher as long as I agree with the audio recordings.
• I understand that my provided pseudonym will be used for identification.
• I understand that the data can only be accessed by the researcher and his supervisors.
• I understand that the data will be used for the researcher’s doctoral research, as well as the future
academic publications, presentations and other forms of research dissemination.
• I understand that the data will be stored in a secure manner for six years, after which they will be
destroyed.
• I wish / do not wish to receive the transcript or a summary report of the recordings for verification
and editing. If I agree with the editing, I will return the revision within two weeks of receipt of the
transcripts.
• I wish / do not wish to receive the summary of research findings.
Pseudonym: ………………………………. Email: …………………………………..
Signature: …………………………………. Date: ……………………………………

207
Appendices
Appendix G.
Phase 3 Interview Participant Information Sheet, and Consent Form for Science
Education Experts

For interview with science education experts
I am Jiansheng Cui, a student at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. I am studying for a
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education. My research interests include instructional design for BYOD
environments, mobile learning, and professional learning and development. This research project is part of
my doctoral studies.
This study aims to understand science teachers’ instructional design practice for BYOD environments in
New Zealand secondary schools. It has two phases. Phase One was an anonymous online survey. In
Phase Two, one-on-one interviews have been carried out. For both phases, participants were secondary
science teachers, and data collection has been completed.
At this stage of the study, I would really appreciate the opportunity to discuss the research and interview
with you due to your extensive expertise in the field of New Zealand secondary science education. It
would be a significant benefit to my understanding of the research context and interpretation of the data.
Your participation is voluntary. A Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form have been attached.
This one-on-one interview will take approximately 60 minutes. To minimise your time for the interview, you
can choose the interview location, which can be online, such as through Skype, or at an appropriate site of
your choosing, such as your office, in Auckland.
Subject to your agreement, I would like to audiotape the interview using a digital voice recorder and an
iPod. The use of two recording devices is to avoid any accidental loss of data. After the interview, you can
choose whether to receive the transcript or a summary report of the recordings for data verification and
editing. I would appreciate if you can return your approval or any revisions within two weeks of receipt of
the transcripts.
DATA STORAGE/RETENTION/DESTRUCTION/FUTURE USE
All data will be stored in the researcher’s office at the university for a period of six years. All hard copies of
208
Appendices
the data (such as interview notes, printed transcripts and summary reports of recordings) will be stored in
a secure locker. Your Consent Form will be separately stored in another secure cabinet. The recordings
from the digital voice recorder and iPod will be transferred to a password protected computer folder. The
recordings stored in the digital voice recorder and iPod will be deleted after transfer to that folder. Other
digital data (such as digital transcripts and summary reports of recordings) will be stored in a separate,
password protected computer folder.
After six years, all digital data will be permanently deleted from the researcher’s computer, mobile devices,
and recording devices. All hard copies of the data will be shredded. The data will be used for the
researcher’s doctoral thesis, academic publications, presentations and other forms of research
dissemination. The data may also be used to support further research in this area.
During the interview, you can stop the recording and/or withdraw from the interview at any time without
explanation. You can also withdraw your data from the research within one month after participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your contact details and all information gathered in the interview will be kept confidential to the researcher
and supervisors, and will not be otherwise disclosed or shared. Pseudonyms will be used in all
publications, and all reasonable effort made to preserve your anonymity.
BENEFITS AND RISKS
Participation may be an interesting and thought-provoking experience for you. As a participant in this
study, you will be able to access the research findings. After the research is completed, the results will be
compiled as an anonymised summary report and sent to you. In addition, the researcher’s doctoral
dissertation will be available to you through the university’s digital library system.
Participation in this study does not involve any real risk to you. This research will only gather information
about your own perspective and expertise in New Zealand secondary science education.
CONTACT DETAILS
Should any questions arise as a result of reading this Participant Information Sheet, you are welcome to
contact the researcher before the interview begins. I will be happy to answer your questions any time.

Education
+64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 923 8354 +64 9 373 7599 extn. +64 9 373 7599 extn.
48779 48636 48606
For any queries regarding ethical issues you may contact the Chair, The University of Auckland Human
209
Appendices

210
Appendices
CONSENT FORM
For interview with science education experts
• I have read the Participant Information Sheet, and have understood the nature of the research.
• I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered to my satisfaction.
• I agree to take part in an interview, which will take about 60 minutes.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary. I understand that I can stop the recording and/or
withdraw from the interview at any time without explanation. I understand that I can withdraw my
data from the research within one month after participation.
• I understand that that I will be audio-recorded during the interview.
• I understand that the recordings will be transcribed and/or complied as a summary report by the
researcher after I approve the content of the audio recordings.
• I understand that a pseudonym will be used for identification and anonymity will be maintained.
• I understand that the data can only be accessed by the researcher and his supervisors.
• I understand that the data will be used for the researcher’s doctoral research, academic publications,
presentations and other forms of research dissemination.
• I understand that the data will be stored in a secure manner for six years, after which they will be
destroyed.
• I wish / do not wish to receive the transcript or a summary report of the recordings for verification
and editing. If I agree with the editing, I will return the revision within two weeks of receipt of the
transcripts.
• I wish / do not wish to receive the summary of research findings.
Pseudonym: ………………………………. Email: …..………………………………
Signature: …………………………………. Date: ……………………………………

211
References
References
Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN
horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Adhikari, J., Mathrani, A., & Scogings, C. (2016). Bring Your Own Devices classroom: Exploring the issue
of digital divide in the teaching and learning contexts. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 13(4), 323–343. doi:10.1108/ITSE-04-2016-0007
Alberta Education. (2012). Bring your own device: A guide for schools. Retrieved from Alberta Education
website: http://education.alberta.ca/media/6749210/byod%20guide%20revised%202012-09-
05.pdf
Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaption to open learning space. Inssues in Educational
Research, 23(3), 315–330. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier23/alterator.pdf
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication
technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Christodoulou, A. (2016). Theoretical considerations of technological
pedagogical content knowledge. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 11–32).
doi:10.4324/9781315771328
Apple, M. (2010). Len Barton, critical education and the problem of “decentred unities”. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(2), 93–107. doi:10.1080/09620214.2010.503057
Arnold, G. (2016). Innovative learning environments and teachers pedagogies that support these:
Sabbatical report. Retrieved from Ministry of Education website:
http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/78131/640944/file/Gail%20Arnold%20-%
20innovative%20learning%20environments%20-%20sabbatical%20report%202016.pdf
Bain, A., & Weston, M. E. (2012). The learning edge: What technology can do to educate all children. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bayne, S. (2015). What's the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and
Technology, 40(1), 5–20. doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The ‘digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’: A dangerous opposition. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE),
Brighton, England.
Benade, L. (2017). Being a teacher in the 21st century: A critical New Zealand research study.
doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3782-5
Berger, R. (2013). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. doi:10.1177/1468794112468475
Bita, N. (2016). Computers in class ‘a scandalous waste’: Sydney Grammar head. The Australian.
Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/education/computers-in-class-a-
scandalous-waste-sydney-grammar-head/news-story/b6de07e63157c98db9974cedd6daa503
212
References
Bolstad, R., & Buntting, C. (2013). Digital technologies and future-oriented science education: A
discussion document for schools. Retrieved from New Zealand Council for Educational Research
website:
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Digital%20technologies%20and%20future%20science%20ed
ucation.pdf
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum
design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416.
doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networded teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Boyle, T., & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: A commentary on
Conole and Dyke. Research in Learning Technology, 12(3), 295–299.
doi:10.1080/0968776042000259591
Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., Cleveland, B., Thomas, K., & Imms, W. (2017). The “state of play”
concerning New Zealand’s transition to innovative learning environments: Preliminary results from
phase one of the ILETC project. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1),
22–38. doi:10.21307/jelpp-2017-003
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design models (5th ed.). Bloomington, IN:
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Branch, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J.
V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 8–16).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London,
England: Sage.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2016). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental
principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Buntting, C., with MacIntyre, B., Falloon, G., Cosslett, G., & Forret, M. (2012). Science in the New Zealand
Curriculum e-in-science: Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. Retrieved from University
of Waikato website: https://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/155688/e-in-
science_December-2012-1.pdf
Burns-Sardone, N. (2014). Making the case for BYOD instruction in teacher education. Issues in Informing
Science and Information Technology, 11, 191–201. Retrieved from
http://iisit.org/Vol11/IISITv11p191-201Sardone0505.pdf
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2016). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Page, A. (2018). Spatialised practices in ILEs: Pedagogical transformations
and learner agency. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education: Design &
governance in global contexts (pp. 19–32). doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_2
213
References
Cherner, T., & Curry, K. (2017). Enhancement or transformation? A case study of preservice teachers' use
of instructional technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2),
268–290. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/d/173575
Chuang, Y.-H., & Tsao, C.-W. (2013). Enhancing nursing students' medication knowledge: The effect of
learning materials delivered by short message service. Computers & Education, 61, 168–175.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.013
Cleveland, B., Soccio, P., & Love, P. (2016). Learning environment evaluation and the development of
school facility design guidelines. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education (AARE) Conference 2016, Melbourne, Australia.
https://www.aare.edu.au/data/2016_Conference/Full_papers/596_Benjamin_Cleveland.pdf
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a
framework for creative pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22.
doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.24637
Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis
(pp. 367–379). London, England: SAGE.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Oxon, England:
Routledge.
Cooper, B. S., Fusarelli, L. D., & Randall, E. V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and
applications. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Costa, J. P. (2012). Digital learning for all, now: A school leader's guide for 1:1 on a budget. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Couch, D. (2018). From progressivism to instrumentalism: Innovative learning environments according to

New Zealand’s Ministry of Education. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education:
Design & governance in global contexts (pp. 121–133). doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_8
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the
TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60–69.
doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Crothers, C., Smith, P., Urale, P. W., & Bell, A. (2016). The Internet in New Zealand 2015. Retrieved from
Auckland University of Technology website:
https://workresearch.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/71328/WIPNZ-Report-060515.pdf
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson Education.
Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for
synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121.
doi:10.1080/01587910303047
Dinsmore, B. (2019). Contested affordances: Teachers and students negotiating the classroom integration
of mobile technology. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5), 664–677.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1568518
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The
Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63. doi:10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
214
References
Eder, J. (2018). 'My child is not a guinea pig': Parents want proof 'experimental' classrooms work. Stuff.
Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/101994384/my-child-is-not-a-guinea-
pig-parents-want-proof-experimental-classrooms-work
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required
by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–
182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
Ertmer, P. A., Parisio, M. L., & Wardak, D. (2013). The practice of educational instructional design. In R.
Luckin, S. Punrambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.),
Handbook of design in educational technology (pp. 5–19). New York, NY: Routledge.
Erturk, E., & Fail, D. (2013). Information technology in New Zealand: Review of emerging social trends,
current issues, and policies. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences,
4(1), 46–52. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b07b/243b560aa14f7afdb31fc364a7b6cbfc73bf.pdf
Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2013). Towards a sociology of edcuation and technology. In R. Brooks, M.
McCormack, & K. Bhopal (Eds.), Contemporary debates in the sociology of education (pp. 218–
235). doi:10.1057/9781137269881
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Feenberg, A. (2003). Modernity theory and technology studies: reflections on bridging the gap. In T. J.
Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology (pp. 73–104). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach
of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5(1), 80–92. doi:10.1177/160940690600500107
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.),

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79–84).
doi:10.1145/108844.108856
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gkamas, V., Paraskevas, M., & Varvarigos, E. (2016). Design of a secure BYOD policy for the Greek
School Network: A case study. In Proceedings of 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Computational Science and Engineering, IEEE International Conference on Embedded and
Ubiquitous Computing, and International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications
to Business, Engineering and Science (pp. 557–560). doi:10.1109/CSE-EUC-DCABES.2016.241
Gkamas, V., Paraskevas, M., & Varvarigos, E. (2019). BYOD for learning and teaching in Greek schools:
Challenges and constraints according to teachers' point of view. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (pp. 499–502).
doi:10.1109/IISA.2019.8900780
Gluckman, P. (2011). Looking ahead: Science education for the twenty-first century. In Looking ahead:
Science education for the twenty-first century: A report from the Primer Minister’s Chief Science
Advisor (pp. 1–8). Retrieved from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Looking-ahead-
Science-education-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf
215
References
Gouseti, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and education: not just another case of hype, hope and disappointment?
Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 351–356. doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.509353
Green, L. S. (2014). Through the looking glass: Examining technology integration in school librarianship.
Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 36–43.
Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research: A guide for the bewildered. London, England: SAGE.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–
26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification
redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–
441. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Haque, B. (2014). Changing our secondary schools. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
Harmandaoğlu Baz, E., Balçıkanlı, C., & Cephe, P. T. (2018). Introducing an innovative technology
integration model: Echoes from EFL pre-service teachers. Education and Information
Technologies, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9711-9
Harris, J. B. (2016). In-service teachers’ TPACK development: Trends, models, and trajectories. In M. C.
Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 191–205). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Retrieved from
Pearson website: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson-dot-
com/files/hattie/150526_ExpertiseWEB_V1.pdf
Heron, M. (2017). School decile system to be scrapped by govt. Radio New Zealand. Retrieved from
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/336178/school-decile-system-to-be-scrapped-by-govt
Herrera, L. (2011). In Florida, virtual classrooms with no teachers. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/education/18classrooms.html
Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D., & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet Research Methods: A Practical Guide for
the Social and Behavioural Sciences. London: SAGE.
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology
integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.
doi:10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Hipkins, R. (2012). Building a science curriculum with an effective nature of science component. Retrieved
from New Zealand Council for Educational Research website:
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Building%20a%20science%20curriculum%20with%20an%20
effective.pdf
Hipkins, R., Johnston, M., & Sheehan, M. (2016). NCEA in context. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER
Press.
Hockly, N. (2012). Tech-savvy teaching: BYOD. Modern English Teacher, 21(4), 44–45. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/2065524/Tech-savvy_teaching_BYOD
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Huang, R., Spector, J. M., & Yang, J. (2019). Educational technology: A primer for the 21st century.
doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6643-7
216
References
Hunter, J. (2015). High Possibility Classrooms as a pedagogical framework for technology integration in
classrooms: an inquiry in two Australian secondary schools. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 26(5), 559–571. doi:10.1080/1475939x.2017.1359663
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

doi:10.1177/S0038038501000219
Jacob-Israel, M., & Moorefield-Lang, H. (2013). Redefining technology in libraries and schools: AASL best
apps, best websites, and the SAMR model. Teacher Librarian, 41(2), 16–19.
Janssen, K. C., & Phillipson, S. (2015). Are we ready for BYOD? A systematic review of the
implementation and communication of BYOD pograms in Australian schools. Australian
Educational Computing, 30(2), 1–14. Retrieved from
http://journal.acce.edu.au/index.php/AEC/article/view/54/pdf
Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science

knowledge framework for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education,
55(3), 1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022
John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical implications of ICT.
Educational Review, 57(4), 405–413. doi:10.1080/00131910500278256
Johnson, M., Maguire, J., & Wood, A. (2017). Digital technologies in schools 2016–17. Retrieved from
20/20 Trust website: https://2020.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Digital-Technologies-in-
Schools-2016-17-04-05-2017-FINAL.pdf
Johnson, M., Wood, A., & Sutton, P. (2014). Digital technologies in New Zealand schools: 2014 report.
Retrieved from 20/20 Trust website: http://2020.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Digital-
Technologies-in-School-2014-FINAL.pdf
Johnson, N. F. (2015). Digital natives and other myths. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and
digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 11–21). Melbourne, Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
Joyce, C. (2014). Nature of science and science capabilities. Retrieved from New Zealand Council for
Educational Research website: https://arbs.nzcer.org.nz/printpdf/10205
Kearney, K. S., & Hyle, A. E. (2004). Drawing out emotions: the use of participant-produced drawings in
qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 4(3), 361–382. doi:10.1177/1468794104047234
Kellner, D. (2003). Toward a critical theory of education. Democracy & Nature, 9(1), 51–64.
doi:10.1080/1085566032000074940
Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and
communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Techology for
Teacher Education, 10(1-2), 101–116. doi:10.1080/14759390100200105
Kirkham, S., & May, S. (2016). PISA 2015: The science context for PISA. Retrieved from New Zealand
Ministry of Education website:
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/180611/PISA-2015-Science-
Context_v2.pdf
Kirkland, A. B. (2013). Models for technology integration in the learning commons. School libraries in
Canada, 32(1), 14–18. Retrieved from http://journal.canadianschoollibraries.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/SLiCv32n1.pdf
Kobus, M. B. W., Rietveld, P., & van Ommeren, J. N. (2013). Ownership versus on-campus use of mobile
IT devices by university students. Computers & Education, 68, 29–41.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.003
217
References
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 131–152. doi:10.2190/0ew7-01wb-bkhl-qdyv
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and
Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for
educators (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. doi:10.1177/002205741319300303
Krumsvik, R. J. (2012). Teacher educators' digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 58(3), 269–280. doi:10.1080/00313831.2012.726273
Lai, C.-Y., & Liou, W.-C. (2007). Rapid ADDIE curriculums design model based on the heterogeneous
multimedia information integration. In Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia
Workshops (ISMW 2007) (pp. 485–490). doi:10.1109/ISM.Workshops.2007.87
LaMaster, J., & Frerries-Rowe, J. D. (2013). So we had this idea: Bring your own technology at Brebeuf
Jesuit. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 395–404). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Le Gallais, T. (2008). Wherever I go there I am: reflections on reflexivity and the research stance.
Reflective Practice, 9(2), 145–155. doi:10.1080/14623940802005475
Lee, C. S. (2010). Managing perceived communication failures with affordances of ICTs. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(4), 572–580. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.009
Lee, M., & Levins, M. (2012). Bring your own technology: The BYOT guide for school and families.
Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.
Li, M. (2008). “ ” [Criticism of the “instrumental rationality” of educational

technology]. /Educational Research, 5, 56–61.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Linderoth, J. (2013). Open letter to Dr. Ruben Puentedura [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://spelvetenskap.blogspot.com/2013/10/open-letter-to-dr-ruben-puentedura.html
Livingstone, S. (2010). Interactive, engaging but unequal: Critical conclusions from internet studies. In J.
Curran (Ed.), Media and society (pp. 122–142). London, England: Bloomsbury.
Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education,
38(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577938
Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2013). Technology affordances and constraints in management
information systems (MIS). In E. H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 832–
835). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manaiakalani Education Trust. (n.d.). Manaiakalani outreach. Manaiakalani. Retrieved from

https://sites.google.com/a/manaiakalani.org/manaiakalani-outreach/home
Martin, B. L. (2004). ISD: The ’S’ is for systems! Educational Technology, 44(2), 13–19.
218
References
Martin, D. (2014). To investigate best practice strategies with regards to the implementation and use of
BYOD in the classroom: Sabbatical report. Retrieved from New Zealand Ministry of Education
website:
http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/64736/534216/file/David%20Martin%20S
abbatical%20Report%202014%20-%20Best%20Practice%20Strategies%20for%20Implementing
%20BYOD.pdf
McLean, K. J. (2016). The implementation of bring your own device (BYOD) in primary [elementary]
schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01739
McPhail, G., & Lourie, M. (2017). Getting real: Is realism a blind spot in research methodology? New
Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(2), 285–299. doi:10.1007/s40841-017-0087-y
Melanson, M., Javier, G., Canane, C., & Shaheen, M. (2018). Roundtable: Redefining science learning
with a platform for sharing experimental data. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1941–
1947). Retrieved from https://www-learntechlib-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/primary/p/182794/
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ministry of Education. (2007a). The New Zealand curriculum: Achievement objectives by learning area.
Retrieved from Te Kete Ipurangi website:
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1109/11992/file/Charts2.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2007b). The New Zealand curriculum: For English-medium teaching and learning in
years 1–13. Retrieved from Te Kete Ipurangi webstie:
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/content/download/1108/11989/file/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2010). Technology curriculum support. Retrieved from Te Kete Ipurangi website:
https://technology.tki.org.nz/content/download/11407/36592/file/technology-curriculum-support-
oct-10.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2015a). Decile change 2014 to 2015 for state & state integrated schools [Data file].
Retrieved from: https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/School/Running-a-
school/Resourcing/DecileChanges18June2015Review.xls
Ministry of Education. (2015b). Digital technologies for teaching and learning. Retrieved from
http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specific-initiatives/digital-technologies-for-
teaching-and-learning/
Ministry of Education. (2015c). School deciles. Retrieved from

https://www.education.govt.nz/school/funding-and-financials/resourcing/operational-
funding/school-decile-ratings/
Ministry of Education. (2015d). School directory. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/data-

services/directories/list-of-nz-schools
Ministry of Education. (2016). Reference designs for standard classroom ugrade: Avalon block. Retrieved
from Ministry of Education website: https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-
Secondary/Property/Design/Flexible-learning-spaces/0-0-Briefing-Document-Avalon-block-.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2017). Science achievement: What we know from New Zealand's participation in
TIMSS 2014/15 and PISA 2015. Retrieved from Ministry of Education website:
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/181581/Science-achievement-
What-we-know-from-NZs-participation-in-TIMSS-2014-15-and-PISA-2015.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2018). Education in New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/our-role-and-our-people/education-in-nz/
219
References
Ministry of Education. (2019a). Designing learning environments. Retrieved from

https://www.education.govt.nz/school/property-and-transport/projects-and-
design/design/designing-learning-environments/
Ministry of Education. (2019b). Understanding pedagogy as integral to innovative learning environments.

Retrieved from https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/planning-innovative-learning-environments-
iles/understanding-innovative-learning-environments/
Ministry of Education. (2020). Professional learning and development. Retrieved from

https://www.education.govt.nz/communities-of-learning/teaching-and-learning/professional-
learning-and-development/
Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2015). The end of the beginning: An epilogue. In Y.-S. Hsu (Ed.),
Development of science teachers’ TPACK: East Asian practices (pp. 133–142). doi:10.1007/978-
981-287-441-2_8
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–36.
doi:10.1002/pfi.4930420508
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Netsafe. (2018). The kit. Retrieved from https://www.netsafe.org.nz/the-kit/
Network for Learning. (2019). Opportunities & challenges facing schools using technology for learning:
N4L touchpoint survey 2018. Retrieved from N4L website: http://www.n4l.co.nz/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/2018-Touchpoint-Customer-Insights-Report.pdf
Niess, M. L. (2012). Teacher knowledge for teaching with technology: A TPACK lens. In R. N. Ronau, C. R.
Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact:
A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 1–15). doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-750-
0.ch001
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so
complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

doi:10.1145/301153.301168
Nuhoğlu Kibar, P., Gündüz, A. Y., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2019). Implementing bring your own device (BYOD)
model in flipped learning: Advantages and challenges. Technology, Knowledge and Learning.
doi:10.1007/s10758-019-09427-4
NZQA. (2013). NZQA future state: 2012-2022 strategic plan. Retrieved from New Zealand Qualifications
Authority website: http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Publications/Strategic-
publications/Future-State-Plan-summary.pdf
NZQA. (2015). Digital Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Our-

role/innovation/DA-Factsheet-May15.pdf
NZQA. (2019a). NCEA online: Supporting digital transformation in schools. Retrieved from New Zealand
Qualifications Authority website: https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Future-State/NCEA-
Online/NZQA-NCEA-Online-April-2019.pdf
NZQA. (2019b). NZQA online: Infographic. Retrieved from New Zealand Qualifications Authority website:
https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Future-State/NCEA-Online/3982-NZQA-NCEA-Online-
infographic-FINAL.pdf
220
References
OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. doi:10.1787/9789264239555-
en
Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. (2011). Annex B: Engaging young New
Zealanders with science: Priorities for action in school science education. In Looking ahead:
Science education for the twenty-first century: A report from the Primer Minister’s Chief Science
Advisor (pp. 55–68). Retrieved from http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Looking-ahead-
Science-education-for-the-twenty-first-century.pdf
Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways
of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27, 373–384. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x
Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(1), 31–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01283.x
Orr, G. (2010). A review of literature in mobile learning: Affordances and constraints. In U. Hoppe, R. Pea,
& C.-C. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile,
and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (pp. 107–111). doi:10.1109/wmute.2010.20
Parsons, D. (2013). Jam today – Embedding BYOD into classroom practice. In QScience Proceedings of
12th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2013).
doi:10.5339/qproc.2013.mlearn.25
Parsons, D., & Adhikari, J. (2015). The ups and downs of BYOD: A sociocultural perspective. In A.
Jefferies & M. Cubric (Eds.), Proceedings of 14th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL
2015) (pp. 478–486). Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/download/41023187/Ups_and_Downs_of_BYOD.pdf
Phillips, M. (2016). Digital technology, schools and teachers’ workplace learning: Policy, practice and
identity. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52462-1
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 413–430. doi:10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325
Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of

context and the use of teacher's narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 223–244. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.f
PPTA. (2014). Submission to the Ministry of Education’s review: Technology provision for year 7 and 8
students in greater christchurch: Vision and proposals. Retrieved from Post Primary Teachers'
Association website: https://www.ppta.org.nz/dmsdocument/255
PPTA. (2017). Flexible learning spaces: An experiment on our education system? Retrieved from Post
Primary Teachers' Association website: https://www.ppta.org.nz/dmsdocument/547
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Prosser, J. (2011). Visual methodology: Toward a more seeing research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 479–496). London, England:
SAGE.
Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from

http://www.hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Rackley, R., & Viruru, R. (2014). Preparing teachers for the BYOD classroom. In M. Searson & M. N.
Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 2601–2613). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/131181/
221
References
Rae, G., Dabner, N., & Mackey, J. (2017). Bring your own device (BYOD) and teacher pedagogy in a New
Zealand primary school. Waikato Journal of Education, 17(2), 53–60.
doi:10.15663/tandc.v17i2.160
Redmond, A. (2017). Teachers struggle with modern learning environments. Stuff. Retrieved from
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/90983510/Teachers-struggle-with-modern-learning-
environments
Reiser, R. A. (2012). A histoty of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey
(Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 17–34). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Introduction. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1–7). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory,
research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Robinson, R. (2017). An exploration of the use of technology to enhance the presentation skills of
international students with reference to Puentedura’s SAMR model. The Language Scholar
Journal(1), 34–46. Retrieved from https://languagescholar.leeds.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/Issue1_Summer2017_.pdf
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied
settings (3rd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 18(2), 1–15. Retrieved from
https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/download/435/105
Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
Royal Society of New Zealand. (2012). The future of science education in New Zealand. Retrieved from
Royal Society of New Zealand website: https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Future-
Science-Education-Oct-2012.pdf
Saltinski, R. (2014). Ethics and technology: The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Los Angeles USD iPad
project. In National Social Science Proceedings of National Technology and Social Science
Conference 2014 (Vol. 57, pp. 108–112). Retrieved from
https://www.nssa.us/journals/pdf/NSSA_Proceedings_2014_San_Francisco.pdf
Sarten, T. (2018). Terry Sarten: Bill to change school decile system missing the point. The New Zealand
Herald. Retrieved from
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12024356
Savin-Baden, M. (2015). Rethinking learning in an age of digital fluency: Is being digitally tethered a new
learning nexus? Oxon, England: Routledge.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston, MA: Basic
Books.
Seel, N. M., Lehmann, T., Blumschein, P., & Podolskiy, O. A. (2017). Instructional design for learning:
Theoretical foundations. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x
222
References
Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01215.x
Selwyn, N. (2012). Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: The role of
sociological theory. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 81–96.
doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577949
Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2015). Technology and education: Why it’s crucial to be critical. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, &
C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on technology and education (pp. 245–256).
doi:10.1057/9781137385451
Selwyn, N. (2016). Minding our language: Why education and technology is full of bullshit … and what
might be done about it. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(3), 437–443.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1012523
Selwyn, N. (2017). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). London, England:
Bloomsbury.
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2014). The sociology of education and digital technology: Past, present and
future. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 482–496. doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.933005
Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2018). Everyday schooling in the digital age: High
school, high tech? doi:10.4324/9781315115764
Senior, D. (2015). Investigating the pedagogical approaches required to maximise the use of devices in a
BYOD or 1:1 environment: Sabbatical report. Retrieved from Ministry of Education website:
http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/75223/617734/file/Deidre%20Senior%20
Sabbatical%20%20Report%202015%20-%20Maximising%20Devices%20in%20a%20BYOD%20
Environment.pdf
Shea, J., & Stockford, A. (2015). Inspiring the secondary curriculum with technology: Let the students do
the work! New York, NY: Routledge.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education
for Information, 22(2), 63–75. doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational
technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429817
Smith, M. L. (1994). Recourse of empire: Landscapes of progress in technological America. In M. R. Smith

& L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp.
37–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smith, P., Bell, A., Miller, M., & Crothers, C. (2016). Internet trends in New Zealand 2007–2015. Retrieved
from Auckland University of Technology website:
https://icdc.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/73441/WIPNZtrends-07-15.pdf
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
223
References
Sobh, R., & Perry, C. (2006). Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(11/12), 1194–1209. doi:10.1108/03090560610702777
Song, Y. (2014). “Bring your own device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school.
Computers & Education, 74, 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.005
Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2015). What are the affordances of BYOD (bring your own device) for learning
from teachers’ perspectives in higher education? In H. Ogata, W. Chen, S. C. Kong, & F. Qiu
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education ICCE 2015:
Main Conference Proceedings (pp. 745–749). Retrieved from
https://apsce.net/download_data.php?filename=upfile/pdf/proceedings-of-icce2015-01.pdf
Soto, V. J. (2013). Which instructional design models are educators using to design virtual world
instruction? Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(3), 364–375. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/soto_0913.pdf
Spector, J. M. (2016). Foundations of educational tchnology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary

perspectives (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Spiller, L., & Hipkins, R. (2013). Reflecting on purposes for learning science: Two case studies of support
for changing teaching practice. Retrieved from New Zealand Council for Educational Research
website:
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Reflecting%20on%20purposes%20for%20learning%20scienc
e%20final.pdf
Spring, J. (2012). Eduaction networks: Power, wealth, cyberspace, and the digital mind. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Starkey, L., Sylvester, A., & Johnstone, D. (2017). Negotiating digital divides: Perspectives from the New
Zealand schooling system. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(1–2), 31–42.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2017.1292161
Stavert, B. (2013). Bring your own device (BYOD) in Schools: 2013 literature review. Retrieved from NSW
Department of Education and Communities website: https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-
library/related-documents/BYOD_2013_Literature_Review.pdf
Sweeney, J. (2012). BYOD in education: A report for Australia and New Zealand. Retrieved from Dell
website:
https://marketing.dell.com/Global/FileLib/BYOD_REPORT/Nine_Conversations_On_BYOD_-
_IBRS_report_-_Dell.pdf
Tay, L. Y., Nair, S. S., & Lim, C. P. (2018). Old wine in new bottle? How technologies are being used in an
elementary school in Singapore. In R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Spaces of teaching and
learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice (pp. 173–194). doi:10.1007/978-981-
10-7155-3_10
Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2018a). Practising teacher criteria. Retrieved from
https://teachingcouncil.nz/sites/default/files/Practising%20teacher%20criteria%20English.pdf
Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2018b). Renewing a full practising certificate. Retrieved from
https://teachingcouncil.nz/content/renewing-full-practising-certificate
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64. doi:10.1080/10402454.2007.10784583
Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, desingers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson & A.
Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the
design studio (pp. 1–14). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_1
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating
impact. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
224
References
Trust, T., & Horrocks, B. (2016). ‘I never feel alone in my classroom’: Teacher professional growth within a
blended community of practice. Professional Development in Education,, 43(4), 645–665.
doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1233507
Tschumi, B. (1996). Architecture and disjunction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tunjera, N., & Chigona, A. (2020). Teacher educators’ appropriation of TPACK-SAMR models for 21st
century pre-service teacher preparation. International journal of information and communication
technology education, 16(3), 1–15. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2020070110
UNESCO. (2018). Digital skills critical for jobs and social inclusion. Retrieved from
https://en.unesco.org/news/digital-skills-critical-jobs-and-social-inclusion
University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee. (2013). Guiding principles for conducting
research with human participants. Retrieved from University of Auckland website:
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/central/shared/documents/2011/Guiding%20Principles%20
for%20Research%2024%20Feb%2010-%20Bookmark.pdf
Vannier, D. M. (2012). Primary and secondary school science education in New Zealand (Aotearoa):
Policies and practices for a better future. Retrieved from Fulbright New Zealand website:
https://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/axford2012_vannier.pdf
Varghese, M. M., Vate-U-Lan, P., & John, V. K. (2019). Students’ perception of technology factors and its
impact on BYOD-based learning in private secondary schools in Dubai, UAE. Social Science Asia,
5(1), 35–46. Retrieved from https://socialscienceasia.nrct.go.th/index.php/SSAsia/article/view/150
Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and
training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.
doi:10.1007/BF02504840
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 109–121.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735. doi:10.1080/09500690500038520
Webb, M. E., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications
technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286.
doi:10.1080/14759390400200183
Wells, A., Jackson, M., & Benade, L. (2018). Modern learning environments: Embodiment of a disjunctive
encounter. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education: Design & governance in
global contexts (pp. 3–18). doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9_1
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Williams, C. (2012). Managing BYOD effectively. District Administration, 48(9), 84–85.
Williams, M. K., Westzel, K., & Foulger, T. S. (2010). Aspiring to reach 21st century ideals: Teacher
educators’ experiences in developing their TPACK. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings
of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
(pp. 3960–3967). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33997/
Wilson, M. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of modern learning environments on improving student
learning and achievement: Sabbatial report. Retrieved from Ministry of Education website:
http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/content/download/73181/601474/file/Mark%20Wilson%20S
abbatical%20Report%202015%20-%20Investigating%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Modern
%20Learning%20Environments%20.pdf
225
References
Wright, N. (2010). e-Learning and implications for New Zealand schools: A literature review. Retrieved
from Ministry of Education website:
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/77667/948_ELearnLitReview.pdf
Wylie, C., & Bonne, L. (2016). Secondary schools in 2015: Findings from the NZCER national survey.
Retrieved from New Zealand Council for Educational Research website:
http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/NZCER%20Secondary%20Survey%202015_%20Full%20rep
ort_0.pdf
Yu, Y., Bu, J., & Zhang, H. (2014). TPACK [Challenges facing TPACK theoretical
research]. China Educational Technology/ , 5(1), 20–25.
Zagami, J. (2015). Digital technologies in the curriculum: National and international. In M. Henderson & G.
Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 169–181).
Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. doi:10.3102/00028312040004807
Zipke, M., Ingle, J. C., & Moorehead, T. (2019). The effects of modeling the use of technology with pre-
service teachers. Computers in the Schools, 36(3), 205–221.
doi:10.1080/07380569.2019.1640038
226

Science Teachers' Instructional Design Practices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Teachers' Instructional Design Practices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Teachers’ Instructional Design Practices for

a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) Environment in

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

To my whānau (extended family) and friends, I am so lucky to have you in my life.

To my lovely nieces, your smiles always melt my heart.

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix

1.1 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Positioning the Researcher ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Research Context ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Research Aims and Questions .................................................................................................. 17

1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................... 18

1.6 Thesis Structure ......................................................................................................................... 18

2 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 20

2.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) ................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Teacher Knowledge .................................................................................................................... 25

2.4 Instructional Design Practice..................................................................................................... 30

2.5 Conceptual Framework Overview.............................................................................................. 36

2.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 42

3.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 43

3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 43

3.3 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 47

3.4 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 51

3.5 Analytic Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 52

3.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 56

4 Findings from Study Phase 1 ........................................................................................................... 57

4.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 57

4.2 BYOD Adoption by NZ Secondary Schools............................................................................... 57

4.3 Device Preference by NZ Secondary Schools........................................................................... 59

4.4 BYOD-Related Documents of NZ Secondary School ................................................................ 59

4.5 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 67

5 Findings from Study Phase 2 ........................................................................................................... 68

5.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 68

5.2 Participants’ Backgrounds......................................................................................................... 68

5.4 Professional Learning and Development .................................................................................. 78

5.5 Instructional Design Practice..................................................................................................... 82

5.6 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................................... 91

6 Findings from Study Phase 3 ........................................................................................................... 93

6.1 Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 93

6.2 Participants’ Backgrounds......................................................................................................... 93

6.3 Contextualising the BYOD Environment ................................................................................... 97

6.5 Instructional Design Practice................................................................................................... 121

6.6 Chapter Summary..................................................................................................................... 149

7 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 151

7.1 Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 151

7.2 On Reflection ............................................................................................................................ 151

7.4 Practical Implications............................................................................................................... 180

7.5 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 184

7.6 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................. 185

7.7 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................ 186

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 188

Appendix A. Phase 2 Online Survey Questions ............................................................................ 188

References ......................................................................................................................................... 212

Figure 1. A schematic view of NZC........................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. ILE spatial design example. ..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. The TPACK framework and its knowledge constructs. ............................................................. 26

Figure 6. The ADDIE framework............................................................................................................. 31

Figure 7. The SAMR model. ................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 8. Conceptual framework of the study. ......................................................................................... 41

Figure 9. Stages of coding and theme development. .............................................................................. 55

Table 1 Learning Area of Science............................................................................................................. 7