Teaching and Learning in The 21st Century

Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century
Advances in Innovation
Education
Series Editor
Bharath Sriraman (The University of Montana, USA)
International Advisory Board
Don Ambrose (Rider University, USA)

Danah Henriksen (Arizona State University, USA)
Svanborg Rannveig Jónsdóttir (University of Iceland)
Marianna Papastephanou (University of Cyprus)
Andrew Penaluna (University of Wales – Trinity Saint David, UK)
Larisa Shavinina (University of Quebec, Canada)
Renu Singh (Phoenix Union High School District, USA)
Elizabeth Sumida Huaman (University of Minnesota, USA)
Ian Winchester (University of Calgary, Canada)
Volume 6
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/aiie

Teaching and Learning
in the 21st Century
Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Edited by
Jayaluxmi Naidoo
leiden | boston
All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Naidoo, Jayaluxmi, editor.

Title: Teaching and learning in the 21st century : embracing the fourth
industrial revolution / edited by Jayaluxmi Naidoo.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill Sense, [2021] | Series: Advances in
innovation education, 2542-9183 ; volume 6 | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021015536 (print) | LCCN 2021015537 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004460379 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004460355 (paperback) | ISBN
9789004460386 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Education--Effect of technological innovations on. |
Educational technology. | Teaching--Methodology. | Education--Aims and
objectives. | Industry 4.0.
Classification: LCC LB1028.3 .T3745 2021 (print) | LCC LB1028.3 (ebook) |
DDC 371.33--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015536
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021015537
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 2542-9183
isbn 978-90-04-46035-5 (paperback)
isbn 978-90-04-46037-9 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-46038-6 (e-book)
Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be
addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments xii
List of Figures and Tables xiii
Notes on Contributors xiv
1 Exploring Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century 1

Jayaluxmi Naidoo
PART 1
The 21st-Century Curriculum
2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for School Mathematics 13

Ajay Ramful and Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin
3 Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution by Developing a More

Relevant Educational Spectrum: Coding, Robotics, and More 30
Reginald Gerald Govender
PART 2
The 21st-Century Classroom Environment
4 Visualizing as a Means of Understanding in the Fourth Industrial

Revolution Environment 53
Vimolan Mudaly
5 Transforming the Classroom Context: Mathematics Teachers’

Experiences of the Use of Technology-Enabled Pedagogy for Embracing
the Fourth Industrial Revolution 71
Jayaluxmi Naidoo
PART 3
The 21st-Century Teacher
6 Teaching and Assessment Skills Needed by 21st-Century Teachers:

Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution 89
Septimi Kitta and Jaquiline Amani
vi Contents
7 Pre-Service Technology Teachers’ Learning Experiences of Teaching

Methods for Integrating the Use of Technologies for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution 106
Asheena Singh-Pillay
8 Pre-Service Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Using Mobile

Technologies in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics and
Technology Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution 119
Asheena Singh-Pillay and Jayaluxmi Naidoo
PART 4
The 21st-Century Student
9 Teaching and Learning Science in the 21st Century: A Study of Critical

Thinking of Learners and Associated Challenges 139
Yashwantrao Ramma, Ajeevsing Bholoa, Shobha Jawaheer,
Sandhya Gunness, Henri Tin Yan Li Kam Wah, Ajit Kumar Gopee
and Deewarkarsingh Authelsingh
10 Genius-Hour: Student-Led Learning in the Fourth Industrial

Revolution 157
Jennifer M. Schneider and Guy Trainin
Glossary 173
Index 176
Preface
It is exciting to live in the 21st century amidst transformation and adaptation

as we teach and learn in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It is also
daunting as education is in the throes of immense transformation as we try to
negotiate the ‘new normal’ for education within the ambits of the COVID-19
pandemic era. Through the use of technology-enabled pedagogy and online
platforms, education is more available, to members of society, in more places,
and more ways than ever in human history. And, maybe, for this reason, these
are exciting and challenging times for education globally. This edited volume
is a noteworthy contribution to understanding responses to one fundamental
question: In the 21st century, what does it mean to teach and learn within the
era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? It uses the lens of the Fourth Industri-
al Revolution to look at what is happening globally within Basic and Tertiary
Education.
All chapters within this edited volume probe responses to this critical ques-
tion. Probing is done by engaging with issues about teaching and learning in
the 21st century. For example, aspects of the curriculum, classroom environ-
ment, teachers and students are engaged with by authors in this edited volume.
Part 1 focusses on issues concerning the 21st-century curriculum; Part 2 con-
centrates on the 21st-century classroom environment, Part 3 focuses on teach-
ers in the 21st century, and Part 4 concludes the edited volume by engaging
with research and examples focussing on students in the 21st century.
The volume is bold in its scope and yet supported in its focus on actual
global examples. It looks at various developments in teaching and learning but
does so by focusing on international case studies and examples. Most impor-
tantly, it is essentially universal in its position. This global viewpoint, in itself,
is an important inspiration. This is not a book of expectations about the future
of education as much as it is a guide to traversing the many strengths and chal-
lenges we experience as we teach and learn within the Fourth Industrial Rev-
olution. Through emphasizing experiences from around the world, it points
the reader in the direction of good practice. The importance of adopting an in-
terdisciplinary approach is emphasized throughout, as teachers and students
strive to embrace the challenges and strengths of teaching and learning within
the 21st century with imagination, determination and interest.
In this universal community of practice, we can all learn from each other.
The case studies and samples of good practice in this volume offer notable ex-
amples of how educationalists from around the world are working within their
educational contexts to transform their educational environments to embrace
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The educational contexts of the Fourth In-
viii Preface
dustrial Revolution and the challenges and strengths of education are essential
underpinnings for this discussion. The case studies in this edited volume look
at the question of teaching and learning within the 21st century from numer-
ous viewpoints. Still, all are grounded in the notion of embracing the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. In culminating the global thoughts and practices, this
book makes a noteworthy contribution not only to our understanding of what
it means to teach and learn within the 21st century but also to signal practical
steps that readers could take. These practical steps can influence the transfor-
mations that will occur as we embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution as we
teach and learn in the 21st century.
Chapters within this edited volume exemplify authentic case studies situ-
ated within diverse global contexts. Authors have provided discussions and
case studies focusing on the 21st-century curriculum, classroom, teacher and
student. Also, responsive and innovative pedagogies for the 21st-century class-
room are revealed and explored. Thus, this volume draws attention to global
case studies and examples of good practice focusing on 21st-century teaching
and learning in the domains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The findings
of these various researchers within global contexts exhibit that teaching and
learning ought to transform to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution suc-
cessfully. Globally, these findings have relevance when considering the role of
the Fourth Industrial Revolution within educational contexts.
Chapter 1 explains the notions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and ex-
plores issues of teaching and learning in the 21st century. Aspects about the
21st-century curriculum; the 21st-century classroom environment; teachers in
the 21st century, and students in the 21st century are introduced in this chapter.
Thereafter, the volume proceeds with nine chapters. Part 1 encompasses
two chapters that address issues concerning the 21st-century curriculum. In
Chapter 2, Ajay Ramful and Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin focus on the implications
for school mathematics in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).
This chapter focusses on research within the context of Mauritius and revolves
around the extent to which school mathematics prepares students to embrace
technology for their career paths. Two key questions guide this chapter, i.e.
what are the enablers in the teaching and learning of school mathematics that
empower students to embrace the 4IR and how can the school mathematics
curriculum be revamped to be aligned to the demands of the 4IR to prepare
students for the future.
Chapter 3 by Reginald Gerald Govender is located within the South African
context. This chapter focusses on developing a more relevant educational field
concerning coding and robotics. The Fourth Industrial Revolution highlights
the importance of computer programming, robotics, and data coding, which
Preface ix
has prompted educational institutions globally to introduce these fields into

the early years of schooling. This chapter presents an ideal curriculum that
spans two years and motivates students to use their technology-based tools
creatively. The chapter also provides examples of good practice for introducing
abstract concepts, for example, programming and robotics to beginners.
Part 2 concerns the 21st-century classroom environment and comprises of
two chapters. Chapter 4 by Vimolan Mudaly is situated within South Africa
and involves visualization within the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The chapter focused on a qualitative interpretive study with teachers and was
framed within the ambits of the Iterative Visualization Cycle. The Iterative Vi-
sualization Cycle is an adaptation of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. The
chapter highlights the voices of the participating teachers to recognize their
perceptions concerning visualization within the 4IR. Chapter 5 by Jayaluxmi
Naidoo is located within the South African mathematics education context and
provides examples of good practice and perceptions of participants on the use
of technology-enabled pedagogy in mathematics educational environments.
Globally, the findings, as discussed in Chapter 5, have relevance when consid-
ering the role of the Fourth Industrial Revolution within educational contexts.
The next three chapters in Part 3 revolve around teachers in the 21st centu-
ry. In Chapter 6, Septimi Kitta and Jaquiline Amani locate their study within
the context of Tanzania. These authors critically focus on assessment within
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The chapter maintains that the 21st-century
teacher ought to be lifelong learners and need to apply innovative teaching
and assessment approaches that personalize learning while providing students
with practical skills. Chapter 7 by Asheena Singh-Pillay focusses on technolo-
gy education students at a South African Teacher Education institution. This
chapter discusses examples of good practice concerning responsive teaching
methods to equip future technology education teachers to support these par-
ticipants in addressing and solve contextual problems faced by society. These
examples of good practice intend to support students as they develop critical
21st-century skills. This case study research required technology education stu-
dents to use the internet of things, to help them as they teach within the era of
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The chapter goes on to discuss the learning
experiences of participants when using the internet of things as they engaged
with solving local contextual problems. The findings of this qualitative case
study have implications for adding knowledge to the field as we prepare teach-
ers to teach Technology Education within an African context in the era of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The final chapter in Part 3, Chapter 8, focusses on the use of mobile technol-
ogies in mathematics and technology education. In this chapter, the authors,
x Preface
Asheena Singh-Pillay and Jayaluxmi Naidoo reflect on a South African case

study which sought to explore teacher educators’ experiences of using mobile
technologies. This chapter advances the rationale that teacher educators’ ped-
agogical and technological practices cannot be understood without consider-
ing their socio-cultural backgrounds. The findings reveal that teacher educa-
tors use mobile technologies to heighten students’ awareness of mathematics
and technology in everyday life. Thinking is initiated by enabling students to
move from the concrete, observable phenomena to the abstract understanding
of principles and their applications as they design and solve contextualized
problems. The findings of this interpretive case study exhibit that the use of
mobile technologies enhances students’ observations, discussions and presen-
tation skills. Moreover, the findings highlight that teacher educators’ pedagogy
relating to mobile technologies are impacted by early learning experiences and
socio-cultural background. The findings, as discussed in Chapter 8, have impli-
cations for the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model and
calls for an extension of the model.
The book concludes with Part 4 which includes two chapters on students in
the 21st century. Chapter 9 by Yashwantrao Ramma, Ajeevsing Bholoa, Shobha
Jawaheer, Sandhya Gunness, Henri Tin Yan Li Kam Wah, Ajit Kumar Gopee
and Deewarkarsingh Authelsingh looks at the teaching and learning of sci-
ence within the Mauritian context. This chapter highlights a study that was
conducted to investigate the extent to which science students had developed
critical thinking through scientific reasoning at the secondary school level. The
chapter further reflects on the subsequent implications for the tertiary level of
education in Mauritius. One of the key findings of this Mauritian based study
is that science students at secondary and tertiary levels have developed limited
critical thinking. This critical thinking is based on their prior knowledge when
assessing a given contextual situation and eventually make the appropriate
decisions concerning solving problems within the given context. The findings
stemming from this study have implications for the teaching and learning of
science in the Mauritian and global education systems.
The last chapter in Part 4, Chapter 10 by Jennifer M. Schneider and Guy
Trainin, explores the implementation of inquiry-based learning within the am-
bits of Genius-Hour. Genius Hour is a K-12 classroom project-based learning
strategy that was located within an educational context in the United States of
America. For this interpretive case study, Jerome Bruner’s constructivist learn-
ing theory in addition to Daniel Pink and Peter Gray’s theory of structured play
were combined to establish a concrete framework. With a focus on building
a constructivist culture through Dewey’s experiential Learning by Doing, Ge-
nius-Hour originated as a learning design programme. By fostering inquiry,
creativity, research, and collaboration through exploring student-generated
Preface xi
questions, Genius-Hour expands project-based/problem-based learning to

passion-based learning. The central research question for the study focused
on students’ perceptions of participating in Genius Hour in the classroom. The
themes that were identified from a qualitative analysis of the generated data
were independence, support, motivation, and mentorship. Some examples of
good practice in the form of artifacts from successful Genius-Hour projects
and learning experiences of participants are included in Chapter 10. The au-
thors maintain that through the use of this unique approach to learning and
the use of different technologies, teachers and students will become successful
21st-century citizens as they embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Collectively, the contributions in this book provide not only up-to-date
findings but also illustrate the breadth of research on self-directed learning;
they provide overviews of the history and evolution of our understanding of
this important educational approach; they offer practitioners examples of self-
directed learning in diverse contexts, and they suggest directions for further
research. Notably, the contributing authors also demonstrate the meaningful
changes to student learning that are possible from a collaborative research ef-
fort and evidence-based teaching practices. Researchers and educators alike
stand to gain much inspiration and many insights into self-directed learning
from this book.
Acknowledgments
As the editor of Teaching and Learning for the 21st Century: Embracing the
Fourth Industrial Revolution, I am grateful to the contributions of all authors.
Authors willingly shared their empirical, theoretical research and their philos-
ophies focusing around what it means to teach and learn within the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. I am grateful to the peer reviewers for their constructive
feedback to ensure a rigorous and double-blinded peer-review process. The
international and national peer reviewers gave their time and expertise read-
ily. The idea of initiating this edited volume emanated from research that was
supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa: NRF
Grant Number: TTK170408226284, UID: 113952. I am grateful to the NRF for sup-
porting my research focusing on embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
I am thankful to John Bennett, Henriët Graafland and associates from Brill |
Sense for recognizing the value in publishing this edited volume. I am incredi-
bly grateful to my family for always encouraging me to succeed with everything
that I undertake. Thank you for supporting my endeavours.
Note
Any findings, thoughts or conclusions described in this edited volume is that of

the editor and authors, and no academic or funding institution is answerable
for any of the material in this regard.
Figures and Tables
Figures
3.1 The effects of online technology on teaching and learning (adapted from
Naidoo & Govender, 2014). 34
3.2 First-year overview of the DK curriculum. 36
3.3 Second-year overview of the DK curriculum. 38
3.4 Four common principles of CT (adapted from Anistyasari & Kurniawan,
2018). 40
4.1 The iterative visualization thinking cycle. 57
4.2 Improving understanding in Algebra 1: A deeper understanding of Algebra/
Math (adapted from Chaouki & Hasenbank, 2013). 59
6.1 21st-century teachers’ knowledge base: A conceptual framework (based on
Anangisye, 2010; Binkley et al., 2012; Care, 2018; Chowdhury, 2016; Daisy, 2015;
Kolb, 2014; NIE, 2009; Schleicher, 2012; Rasheed & Wahid, 2018; The American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2008; UNESCO,
2008a). 93
8.1 The TPACK framework (adapted from Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg,
2013, p 3; reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org,
http://tpack.org). 124
9.1 Power cut problem. 144
9.2 Outcome in critical thinking. 147
10.1 Katie’s To Kill a Mockingbird ceiling tile. 165
10.2 Katie’s work in 2019. 166
10.3 Tamara’s “Scout” dress on a model. 167
Tables
3.1 Piaget’s stages of cognitive development integrated with educational robotics

(adapted from Piaget, 1964). 43
7.1 Common elements of the case study for teaching method. 109
9.1 Frequency distribution. 143
9.2 Process of criticality. 145
9.3 Overview of findings from questionnaires 1 & 2. 146
9.4 Average scores of participants in the power cut problem. 147
9.5 Post-hoc analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) for secondary school students. 148
9.6 Post-hoc analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) for tertiary students. 148
9.7 Mann-Whitney U tests. 148
Notes on Contributors
Jaquiline Amani
Senior Lecturer: Education and Psychology: Mkwawa University College of Ed-
ucation: Tanzania. Her publications include a contribution to Papers in Educa-
tion and Development (2019).
Deewakarsingh Authelsingh
Senior Lecturer: Visual Arts Department: Mauritius Institute of Education. His
research interests include the use of educational technology in Arts and De-
sign. His publications include Branding and Identity, a manual published by
Open University, Mauritius (2019).
Ajeevsing Bholoa
Senior Lecturer of Mathematics Education at Mauritius Institute of Education
(MIE). His publications include a chapter contributed to African Virtue Ethics
Traditions for Business and Management (edited by K. Ogunyemi, Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2020).
Ajit Kumar Gopee

Lecturer: University of Technology: Mauritius. His publications include a
chapter contributed to Information Systems Design and Intelligent Applications
(Springer, 2019).

Lecturer: Computer Science Education: University of KwaZulu-Natal, SA. His
website: http://fibonacci.africa/ offers free coding and mathematics content.
His publications include a contribution to International Journal of Business
and Management Studies.
Sandhya Gunness
Senior Lecturer: Open and Online Learning, University of Mauritius (UoM).
She has numerous publications, including a contribution to ICEL 2018 13th In-
ternational Conference on e-Learning.
Shobha Jawaheer
Senior Lecturer: Biosciences and Ocean Studies: University of Mauritius
(UoM). She has published widely, including an article in Biosensors & Bioelec-
tronics.
Notes on Contributors xv
Septimi Kitta
Senior Lecturer: Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies: University of
Dar es Salaam: Tanzania. His publications include a contribution to Advanced
Journal of Social Science.
Vimolan Mudaly
Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa. He has published many articles, including articles in Journal of
Education.
Jayaluxmi Naidoo
Associate Professor: Mathematics Education at the University of KwaZulu-
Natal, South Africa. She has published extensively, including a contribution to
Universal Journal of Educational Research (2020).
Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin

Lecturer: Mathematics: State University of Surabaya, Indonesia and Assistant
Professor: Education: University of Canberra (Australia). Her publications in-
clude contributions to Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.
Ajay Ramful
Mathematics Lecturer: Mauritius Institute of Education. He has published
widely, including contributions to Mathematics Education Research Journal.
Yashwantrao Ramma
Professor of Science Education and Head of Research Unit (Mauritius Institute
of Education: MIE). He has published extensively, including a contribution to
Science Education in Theory and Practice (Springer, 2020).
Jennifer M. Schneider
Learner facilitator in Omaha, Nebraska. She is a PhD student at the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. Her publications are included
in EdSurge News.
Senior Lecturer: Technology Education (University of KwaZulu-Natal), South
Africa. She has published widely including an article in Journal for the Educa-
tion of Gifted Young Scientists.
xvi Notes on Contributors
Guy Trainin
Professor and Chair: Teacher Education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
USA. He is widely published including an article in Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education.
Henri Tin Yan Li Kam Wah

Associate Professor: University of Mauritius. He is widely published, including
a chapter in Flagship Universities in Africa (edited by D. Teferra, Palgrave, 2017).
CHAPTER 1
Exploring Teaching and Learning in the 21st

Century
Jayaluxmi Naidoo
Abstract
Within the Fourth Industrial Revolution, society is transforming rapidly. Technology

is being swiftly integrated into all aspects of our life. As professionals in education,
we need to ascertain whether or not we are adequately prepared for this transforma-
tion. Besides, for quality teaching and learning in the 21st century to be provided, it is
essential to understand important aspects of teaching and learning in the 21st century.
This chapter explores the notions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and provides an
overview of teaching and learning in the 21st century. The chapter goes on to discuss
aspects of the 21st-century curriculum; the 21st-century classroom environment; the
21st-century teacher and the 21st-century student. For this chapter, research situated in
global contexts have been surveyed to provide the reader with discussions focusing on
what it means to teach and learn in the 21st century while incorporating the notions
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Globally, the discussions in this chapter have rel-
evance when considering the role of the Fourth Industrial Revolution within global
educational contexts.
1 Introduction
In recent years novel technologies have led to substantial transformations to

our daily lives. We have entered an innovative stage in the history of technolog-
ical growth and are now in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Globally,
the Fourth Industrial Revolution is envisaged to create new job opportunities
and a better society. Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution within edu-
cation contexts is an important issue being researched globally. Within all
education contexts, coupled with embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution
are issues of what it entails to teach and learn within 21st-century educational
contexts.
© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2021 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004460386_001

2 Naidoo
For professionals involved in education, there is a need to embrace this

transformation. We need to understand that what our jobs are today might
be diverse in the not too distant future. Teaching methods are evolving just
as rapidly as the industries they serve. Hence we need to equip our in-service
and pre-service teachers with the latest innovative and responsive teaching
methods. These methods will assist our teacher educators and teachers in
preparing their students and learners for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, amidst these innovative transformations, as teacher educators and
teachers, we need to discern the role that we will play within the Fourth Indus-
trial Revolution.
2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is explained as the assimilation of the phys-

ical and virtual world, creating a more globally united society which has
changed humanity and the way we live (Schwab, 2016). In the era of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (4IR), the Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, artificial
intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) are widespread (Pyper, 2017) and are
transforming the way we exist. Thus, as we embark on the 4IR, it is evident that
technology will play an important role in nearly all facets of our lives. More-
over, the 4IR involves advanced proficiencies for people and machines and
signifies new means in which technology becomes entrenched within society
(Schwab, 2016). The swift pace of this change is unsettling industry, society and
education in every country since the 4IR has altered the way people subsist.
Thus, our education structures must be adapted to prepare students better to
succeed in these conditions (Butler-Adam, 2018).
In traditional educational environments, students are situated at desks
surrounding one another, however, within the 21st-century educational back-
ground, we envision a transformation and that a global real-time interaction
will be possible through using the internet and technology-based tools. As pro-
fessionals within the education sector, we need to welcome this transformation
and recognize that what our jobs are today may be altered in the future. Our
education systems ought to be reformed to better prepare students for the
critical thinking skills and flexibility they will need to succeed in their careers
in the future (Butler-Adam, 2018). We ought to enhance the student’s ability
to problem-solve. Based on critical and creative thinking, problem-solving is
essential for flexibility, and this is important for succeeding within the 4IR.
Also, to succeed within the 4IR, an essential method for development
would be technology growth (Seck, 2015). To prepare the capacity needed for
Exploring Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century 3
this growth in technology, education ought to adapt as fast as the demand

for Information Communications and Technology (ICT) skills is developing.
Students would need to be exposed to and be stimulated to learn through
technology-enabled pedagogy and technology-based tools to enhance the
development of technology within educational environments. Teachers would
also need to be proficient in using technology-enabled pedagogy and technol-
ogy-based tools. To prepare the required capacity for the 4IR, educational set-
tings ought to adapt quickly since the demand for remote and virtual pedagogy
globally is increasing and progressing. Moving forward, this edited volume pro-
vides examples and case studies of good practice to support teachers, students
and researchers to embrace the 4IR within the 21st-century educational
environment.
3 Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century
Ideas about teaching and learning within the 21st century have required a
transformation in the educational environment and focusses on ‘globaliza-
tion and internationalization’ (Boholano, 2017, p. 22). Teachers and students
are required to possess critical skills to achieve success within the 21st-century
educational environment. These skills include critical thinking, communica-
tion, collaboration, problem-solving and creativity (Fadel, 2008). To gain these
skills, teachers need to use innovative learning models where students are pro-
vided with the opportunity to engage with activities that foster collaboration,
communication, critical thinking, problem solving and creativity. These types
of activities encourage students to flourish as they participate and interact
on a global platform. When using innovative learning models, it is possible to
supplement and enrich traditional pedagogy with multi-media presentations
and technology-enabled pedagogy. This transformation in pedagogy supports,
facilitates and expands the learning processes and empowers sophisticated
levels of student and teacher interaction which scaffolds meaningful teaching
and learning (Leow & Neo, 2014).
Apart from transforming pedagogy, to be successful with teaching and
learning in the 21st century, it is also crucial for educational environments
to be changed accordingly. These transformations need to consider that
including technology-based tools within the educational environment is not
adequate to supplement a transformed pedagogy. Instead, the educational
environment needs to be flexible to inform best practices, and tangible learn-
ing spaces need to restructured to support interactive educational environ-
ments (Boothe & Clark, 2014). Catering and supporting interactive educational
4 Naidoo
environments also requires curriculum reforms. Curriculum material ought to

link content knowledge to real-world applications and problem situations that
enable students to perceive how their learning connects with their lives and
the world around them, learning should be relevant and realistic for students
(Beers, 2011).
3.1 The 21st-Century Curriculum

Education in the 21st century needs to integrate content for various subjects
and disciplines as well as skills for the 21st century. The skills that are required
to teach and learn in the 21st century successfully include critical thinking,
creativity, collaboration, communication, information literacy, media liter-
acy, technology literacy and flexibility (Beers, 2011; Fadel, 2008). Curriculum
developers need to revise curriculum material to incorporate the development
of these key skills and promote an interactive student‐centered educational
context (Boholano, 2017). While the effects of technological transformations
in education are unspecified, improving digital, communication and col-
laboration skills are important to allow students to successfully adapt to the
transforming future work environments (Bone & Ross, 2019). Skills for the 21st
century can support students to flourish in their future careers by scaffolding
21st-century teaching and learning to improve student outcomes (Alismail &
McGuire, 2015). Thus, curriculum revision needs to include content material
that links crucial knowledge and skills for the 21st century to relevant real-
world problems and applications so that students may envision the impor-
tance and relevance of what they are learning with aspects of their lives and
the real world (Beers, 2011).
Besides, revising curriculum so that there is a link with the real world and
authentic situations can enhance student involvement, as well as encourage
and motivate students to learn content material while preparing them for
the future (Alismail & McGuire, 2015). Also, to use revised curriculum mate-
rial effectively in the 21st-century educational contexts, teacher development
needs to be encouraged. The 21st-century teacher needs to be competent with
using innovative technology-based tools and resources since this is an inte-
gral part of successful teaching and learning (Jan, 2017). Technology-based
tools can enhance student’s achievement if used suitably (Sarkar, 2012). Thus,
teacher development is essential to ensure that teachers are aware of curricu-
lum revisions, technology-based tools and resources that support teaching and
learning in the 21st century. Also, to integrate technology-based tools suitably
into teaching and learning in the 21st-century requires that teachers are pro-
fessionally developed and informed of innovative and emerging technology-
based tools and resources (Jan, 2017).
3.2 The 21st-Century Classroom Environment

In the 21st century, the classroom environment needs to be arranged so that
the classroom is student-centered, not teacher-centered. Teachers in the
21st century need to become facilitators and guides of learning. The main
focus of learning in the 21st-century classroom is where students are encour-
aged to learn by doing. While the student is learning by doing, the teacher is
alongside the student as a guide, coaching the students through this interac-
tive learning process. Teachers need to be supported as they make the shift
to become guides and facilitators (Jan, 2017) since they are instrumental in
helping students as they work on tasks and activities so that learning is not
done in isolation. Creating a supportive and safe classroom environment that
encourages respect and collaboration supports problem-posing teaching and
learning (Murphy, 2010). This is an essential aspect of teaching and learning in
the 21st century.
Moreover, the use of ICT in educational contexts supports student-centered
learning environment (Sarkar, 2012). Thus, technology-integrated learning in
the 21st century enriches and sculpts the educational environment (Boholano,
2017). Also, the 21st-century classroom environment favors the flipped or
blended learning approach. The flipped learning approach is a combination
of the traditional teaching approach with the integration of technology-based
tools and resources when teaching (Ramakrishnan & Priya, 2016). The flipped
learning approach entails a transformation in traditional teaching and learn-
ing and is grounded on the idea of exchanging in-class teaching time with out
of class practice time (Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015). Thus, by using the flipped
learning approach, students are exposed to content material through videos
and presentations before the lesson; hence, the use of technology-based tools
are essential in the flipped learning classroom environment.
The blended learning approach combines and promotes both traditional
teaching and the use of technology-based tools and resources within the class-
room environment (Lalima & Dangwal, 2017). The role of the teacher as a guide
or a facilitator is vital within the blended learning environment since this envi-
ronment enhances and encourages the learning of content material by using
both the traditional teaching and learning approach and the integration of
technology-based tools into teaching and learning (Jong, 2016). As is evident,
technology-based tools are integrated into teaching and learning to support
both the student and the teacher and these tools need to be used to help stu-
dents to access, analyze, organize and share what they are learning. Students
need to be provided with the opportunity to select the most suitable technolo-
gy-based tool for these activities independently (Beers, 2011). These are essen-
tial practices to encourage students to develop as they learn within the era of
6 Naidoo
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Moreover, the classroom environment needs

to be transformed to enable students to attain problem-solving, creative think-
ing and collaboration skills that they require to succeed in their future careers
and life (Sural, 2017).
3.3 The 21st-Century Teacher

In the 21st century, society is transforming swiftly. Thus, teachers need to
acknowledge these changes by preparing their students for the world in which
they will live and work in (Larson & Miller, 2011). The skills of critical thinking,
creativity, collaboration, communication, information literacy, media literacy,
technology literacy and flexibility are important skills that are required for
successful teaching and learning in the 21st century (Beers, 2011; Fadel, 2008).
Teachers need to be professionally developed to acquire these skills, and they
need to be developed further to successfully convey these essential skills to
their students (Tican & Deniz, 2018). Technology is an important aspect of
daily life in the 21st century (Figg & Jaipal, 2012), as such, teaching in the 21st
century also necessitates that teachers use technology-based tools and con-
temporary teaching resources to teach content material. This signifies that
teachers need to use all the necessary resources to make teaching and learn-
ing relevant and realistic while incorporating problem-solving and examples
from the real world to support and prepare students for the future. The notion
of problem-based learning is vital to incorporate within 21st-century teach-
ing and learning (Brears, MacIntyre, & O’Sullivan, 2011) as this is an essential
approach for developing independent thinking among students (Bell, 2010).
Moreover, in the 21st century, teachers take on an important role of a facil-
itator or guide in the educational environment. For example, teachers guide
students by using problem-based learning, whereby students attempt prob-
lems situated in a real-world context (Wismath & Orr, 2015). Thus, teachers
need to make teaching relevant and authentic by promoting thinking skills,
encouraging communication, tackling misconceptions, encouraging collabo-
ration and making use of technology to strengthen and promote teaching and
learning (Tican & Deniz, 2018). Teachers need to partake in professional devel-
opment workshops that demonstrate how technology may be integrated into
practical teaching and learning educational environments (Figg & Jaipal, 2012).
Teacher development workshops often take place in official surroundings,
such as teacher training platforms, teaching and research communities, and
formal mentoring courses (Timperley, 2011). Teachers may also be involved in
professional development through informal collaborations that occur during
peer teaching, shared planning, and communications between colleagues (Lit-
tle, 2012). Additionally, teachers can join ongoing professional development
workshops to share 21st-century pedagogic strategies with other teachers and

expand their personal technology skills (Kaufman, 2013).
3.4 The 21st-Century Student

Students in the 21st century are independent thinkers and work in collabo-
ration with their peers, the teacher and technology-based tools (Boholano,
2017). Collaborative communication and authentic problem solving are two of
the key 21st-century skills teachers want students to develop (Wismath & Orr,
2015). Students in the 21st century have grown up in a predominantly technol-
ogy-driven society (Boholano, 2017); hence teachers ought to integrate tech-
nology into teaching and learning in the 21st century for constructing relevant
and realistic educational environments. We need to prepare exciting lessons
that motivate and encourage students to learn to ensure positive learning out-
comes. This implies that teaching and learning in the 21st century need to cater
precisely for the 21st-century student. The diverse educational environments
within which the 21st-century students are located needs to be taken into con-
sideration, to ensure that teaching and learning pedagogy is innovative, engag-
ing, thought-provoking, and relevant for the 21st-century student.
For the 21st-century student, expertise in 21st-century skills and knowledge
should be the outcome of 21st-century teaching and learning so that students
are supported to succeed in their future careers and life (Sural, 2017). Thus,
there is a need for students to be efficient when using technology to examine,
consolidate, appraise, and communicate information (Larson & Miller, 2011).
Also, in the 21st century, students initiate their own learning through prob-
lem-based learning, and they work collaboratively to investigate, examine and
craft projects that reflect their knowledge (Bell, 2010). Thus, students in the 21st
century need to be allowed to explore and foster their own identity (Kaufman,
2013). Promoting student’s independent thinking skills develops their active
citizenship abilities (Murphy, 2010) which will support students as they pre-
pare for careers in the future. We need to ensure that our future generation of
leaders are independent thinkers that can successfully lead society globally.
4 Conclusion
Teaching and learning in the 21st century while acknowledging the notions of
the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) brings about exciting opportunities and
experiences. Based on the discussions in this chapter, it is evident that global
evidence-based research revolving around examples of good practice and
authentic case studies on how we teach and learn in the era of the 4IR provides
8 Naidoo
one with much to think about. Ideas on how to transform the curriculum and
classroom environment for the 21st century, as discussed in this chapter are
important for teachers and curriculum developers to consider. Also, the role
of the 21st-century student and teacher is essential to contemplate to achieve
success with teaching and learning in the 21st century. As teachers, teacher
educators, students, curriculum developers and researchers, we can learn from
the discussions in this chapter by adapting or expanding on them. We are in
the era of the 4IR, and the value of 21st-century skills for teaching and learning
is inexhaustible. The 21st-century teacher ought to be comfortable with the
use of technology-enabled pedagogy within their educational environments,
and teachers need to be proficient at using 21st-century skills and knowledge
within their teaching. The 21st-century teacher needs to be adept at conveying
these critical 21st-century skills and knowledge to their students to better pre-
pare their students for work and life in the future. Globally, these discussions
have relevance when considering the role of the Fourth Industrial Revolution
within 21st-century educational environments.
References
Alismail, H. A., & McGuire, P. (2015). 21st century standards and curriculum: Current
research and practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6), 150–155.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083656.pdf
Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. STEM: Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, 1–6. https://cosee.umaine.edu/files/
coseeos/21st_century_skills.pdf
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The
Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415
Boholano, H. B. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning
skills. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 21–29.
Bone, E. K., & Ross, P. M. (2019). Rational curriculum processes: Revising learning out-
comes is essential yet insufficient for a twenty-first-century science curriculum. Stud-
ies in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/
03075079.2019.1637845?needAccess=true
Boothe, D., & Clark, L. (2014). The 21st century classroom: Creating a culture of inno-
vation in ICT. https://conference.pixel-online.net/ICT4LL/files/ict4ll/ed0007/FP/
0475-ICL733-FP-ICT4LL7.pdf
Brears, L., MacIntyre, B., & O’Sullivan, G. (2011). Preparing teachers for the 21st century
using PBL as an integrating strategy in science and technology education. Design and
Technology Education, 16(1), 36–46. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/date/article/view/1588
Butler-Adam, J. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution and education. South African
Journal of Science, 114(5), 1. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/a0271
Fadel, C. (2008). 21st Century skills: How can you prepare students for the new
Global Economy? In Partnerships for 21st century skills. https://www.oecd.org/site/
educeri21st/40756908.pdf
Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2012). TPACK-in-practice: Developing 21st century teacher knowledge.
Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, Austin, Texas, USA. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/40349/
Hwang, G., Lai, C., & Wang, S. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technolo-
gy-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Com-
puters in Education, 2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0
Jan, H. (2017). Teacher of 21st century: Characteristics and development. Research on
Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(9), 50–54. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Hafsah_Jan/publication/318468323_Teacher_of_21_st_Century_Characteristics_
and_Development/links/5977688ba6fdcc30bdbad40d/Teacher-of-21st-Century-
Characteristics-and-Development.pdf
Jong, J. P. (2016). The effect of a blended collaborative learning environment in a Small
Private Online Course (SPOC): A comparison with a lecture course. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 15(2), 194–203.
Kaufman, K. K. (2013). 21 ways to 21st century skills: Why students need them and ideas
for practical implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78–83. doi:10.1080/
00228958.2013.786594
Lalima, D., & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended learning: An innovative approach. Univer-
sal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 129–136. doi:10.13189/ujer.2017.050116
Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123. doi:10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
Leow, F.-T., & Neo, M. (2014). Interactive multi-media learning: Innovating classroom
education in a Malaysian university. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Tech-
nology (TOJET), 13(2), 99–110.
Little, J. W. (2012). Professional community and professional development in the learn-
ing-centered school. In M. Kooy & K. van Veen (Eds.), Teaching-learning that mat-
ters: International perspectives (pp. 22–46). Routledge.
Maphosa, C., & Mashau, S. T. (2014). Examining the ideal 21st century teacher-education
curriculum. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 319–327.
Murphy, T. (2010). Conversations on engaged pedagogies, independent thinking skills and
active citizenship. Issues in Educational Research, 20(1), 39–46. http://www.iier.org.au/
iier20/murphy.pdf
Pyper, J. S. (2017). Learning about ourselves: A review of the mathematics teacher in
the digital era. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,
17(3), 234–242. doi:10.1080/14926156.2017.1297509
10 Naidoo
Ramakrishnan, N., & Priya, J. J. (2016). Effectiveness of flipped classroom in mathematics

teaching. International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah, 4(10), 57–62. doi:10.5281/
zenodo.192292
Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in
higher education for the 21st century. The Science Probe, 1(1), 30–40.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 172). World Economic Forum.
Seck, A. (2015). Technology production: A challenge for economic growth and develop-
ment in Africa. Journal of African Studies and Development, 7(8), 207–214.
doi:10.5897/JASD2015.0356
Sural, I. (2017). 21st century skills level of teacher candidates. European Journal of Edu-
cation Studies, 3(8), 530–538. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/
949/2731
Tican, C., & Deniz, S. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the use of 21st century
learner and 21st century teacher skills. European Journal of Educational Research,
8(1), 181–197. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1203100.pdf
Timperley, H. (2011). Realising the power of professional learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
Wismath, S. L., & Orr, D. (2015). Collaborative learning in problem-solving: A case study
in metacognitive learning. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 6(3), 1–17. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1084619.pdf
PART 1
The 21st-Century Curriculum
∵
CHAPTER 2
The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for

School Mathematics
Ajay Ramful and Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin
Abstract
In this reflective chapter, we undertake a mapping exercise from the anticipated

demands arising from the Fourth Industrial Revolution to the foreseeable mathemati-
cal readiness and disposition incumbent on our secondary school students. Industry
4.0 is categorized by the increasing automaticity and interoperability of production
systems which are becoming extensively data-driven. As technologies are developed
within Industry 4.0, they also become available as by-products for the field of educa-
tion, changing the rules and norms of learning. An immediate concern is an extent to
which school mathematics is preparing our youngsters to develop a mindset that can
embrace these technologies and be ready for new jobs that we may not have considered.
We attempt to provide anticipative answers to the following two questions: (i) What are
the enablers that can nurture the appropriation of the affordances of Industry 4.0 in the
teaching and learning of school mathematics? (ii) How should the school mathemat-
ics curriculum be revamped to align it to the demands of Industry 4.0 and develop the
incumbent dispositions in preparation for future vocational and functional obligations?
To answer the two questions, firstly, we review steps that have already been initiated to
accommodate the tools of Industry 4.0 in the domain of mathematics education. Sec-
ondly, as a didactic exercise, we map out the mathematical skills that new technological
frontiers may require in light of projected developments. We also pre-empt some of the
challenges that this new revolution may engender such as resistance to changes from
influential stakeholders and changes in teachers’ mindset and preparation. We use the
knowledge gathered in mathematics education as a backdrop to chart a trajectory that
can potentially embody the new technologies from Industry 4.0 into our discipline.
1 Introduction
What is taught and learnt at schools, is to a considerable extent dictated by the

needs of the individuals, the society and the needs of industries as economic
drivers of the society. These needs change as the society evolves and new

14 Ramful and Patahuddin
artifacts and ways of operating add to the fabric of humankind. In particular,

mathematics education as a discipline has grown noticeably in terms of the
content and processes taught in schools. For instance, arithmetic was a major
focus of school mathematics at the beginning of the 20th Century and empha-
sized drilling and rote learning (Kilpatrick, 1992). Similarly, logarithm tables
were an integral part of the mathematics curriculum. Today, arithmetic is
taught in ways that are focused more on sense-making with the support of
technology. Calculators have replaced the Logarithm tables.
Similarly, in the past students had to know a range of theorems and their
proofs in geometry, especially for examination purposes. Today, geometry, as
a practical domain, is much more valued through exploration, especially with
the availability of geometrical software. Moreover, Computer Algebra Systems
(CAS) and Graphical software are opening new possibilities for learning math-
ematics through dynamic exploration in visually-rich environments (Birgin &
Acar, 2020; Thomas, Monaghan, & Pierce, 2004).
Over the last two decades, the content of the school mathematics curricu-
lum has remained focused on those elements that are considered fundamen-
tals, i.e., Numbers, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, Probability and Statistics,
staggered progressively from elementary through to secondary school. What
has changed, are the resources and tools available to learn mathematics as
well the teacher is not the main source of knowledge. As teacher educators,
researchers working with school children, and curriculum developers, we are
in a privileged position to sense the evolution of mathematics teaching and
learning. The body of knowledge accumulated in the field of mathematics
education over the years (e.g., English, 2008; Grouws, 1992) has emanated from
research and practical wisdom concerning teaching and learning, assessment
practices, curriculum challenges, and the penetration of technology in the
discipline.
Undeniably, technology is engendering a turning point in the field of math-
ematics education. Mathematics may no longer be a paper-and-pencil activity
for many students as the digital learning environment overwhelms them with
learning resources and opportunities. It is a fact of life that students are heav-
ily dependent on smartphones and can readily access the wide repertoire of
resources at their own choice and pace, beyond the confinement of the teach-
er-controlled environment (Nayak, 2018). The teaching-learning paradigm has
changed where the teacher is not the sole authority of knowledge, but where
students also are involved in knowledge production, altering the way we teach
and learn. New technologies are expanding the boundaries of the classroom
beyond space and time, and there is deeper symbiotic interaction between
The Fourth Industrial Revolution 15
man and machines (Demartini & Benussi, 2017). The technological transfor-
mations are bringing new job markets, calling for a new set of skills for today’s
youth. What are the implications of these technological changes with regards
to school mathematics?
2 Industry 4.0 and Related Work in Mathematics Education
We first circumscribe a workable boundary around the essential constituents

of Industry 4.0 to be able to develop our arguments for the implications that
such technologies may have for the mathematics teacher, curriculum devel-
oper and the learner. Even before the arrival of the Industry 4.0 era, the array
of technological concepts was already overwhelming with ideas such as vir-
tual mathematics learning (Moyer, Salkind, & Bolyard, 2008), mobile learning
(Motiwalla, 2007), and ubiquitous learning (Hwang, Tsai, & Yang, 2008).
Now with the arrival of Industry 4.0, it is becoming even more daunting to
determine the possibilities that such new waves of development may engender.
Essentially, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is characterized by Cyber-Physi-
cal Systems (CPS) and the Internet of Things (IoT), Cloud technologies, Robot-
ics, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR),
3D printing, and Computational Thinking (CT) as a critical skill necessary to
handle the tools of Industry 4.0 (Baygin, Yetis, Karakose, & Akin, 2016). Next,
we briefly explain each key element of Industry 4.0, comment on its relation to
mathematics education and highlight the benefits it can provide for the new
generation of learners.
3 Cyber-Physical Systems and the Internet of Things
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are integrations of computational systems with

physical world processes, where computer algorithms control physical objects,
processes or systems. As pointed out by Gleason (2018): “CPSs are comput-
er-based algorithms that work with physical processes in which embed-
ded computers and networks monitor and control the physical processes
of machines and artificial intelligence (AI) in a feedback loop whereby one
informs the other” (p. 146).
A related concept is the Internet of Things (IoT) which refers to the net-
working of physical devices or systems including wireless connections, cloud
technologies, embedded sensors and actuators that allow gadgets to collect
and send real-time data (Aheleroff et al., 2020). IoT enables the integration of
STEM disciplines as students collect physical, chemical, or physiological data
from their environment through sensors and actuators (e.g., via a school-based
weather station). This information is directly connected to students’ digital
footprints which allow them to process authentic data for investigation.
Thus, the IoT provides opportunities for immersing students in mathemat-
ically-meaningful situations so that they find value in learning. Importantly,
students can see the connection between mathematics and the sciences. As
highlighted by Kusmin (2019), in ‘Smart Schoolhouse by means of IoT’, the
Internet of Things offers many prospects that encourage inquiry-based learn-
ing to engage students with real-life situations. However, the full potential of
IoT is yet to be explored in investigative and analytic activities among school
students.
It is expected that there will be growing connection between computational
objects and physical systems, and this will change the workplace, where work-
ers will be more involved in developing and managing automated systems
(Waschull, Bokhorst, Molleman, & Wortmann, 2020). We foresee two catego-
ries of future workers: frontline users who will embark on professional jobs
directly related to Industry 4.0 and end-users, who will use the products of
Industry 4.0 and by extension need some form of mathematical knowledge.
Experience shows that only an insignificant minority of students undertake
advanced studies in Mathematics while the majority tend to be consumers of
mathematics.
Undeniably, the frontline users of Technology 4.0 will require robust prob-
lem-solving skills, computer programming, data processing skills and opti-
mization knowledge. Together with the technical knowledge and skills, the
frontline users will have to display an inquisitive frame of mind and character
of audacity to engage in solving novel problems collaboratively as they tackle
unpredictable problems in quest of innovation and increasing automation.
Whatever the configuration and complexity of new manufacturing produc-
tion systems, the human operator of these systems need a set of essential skills
that can be sourced back to school mathematics. The knowledge and skills
that one acquires in school mathematics constitute the foundation on which
the talented worker will construct his/her mathematical toolkit for operating
the technologies of Industry 4.0. Therefore, at best, the mathematics school
curriculum must ensure that workers have a problem-solving attitude beyond
mastering concepts and procedures. Each worker must develop confidence in
handling mathematical information and appreciate the relevance of the disci-
pline as a service subject in the workplace.
4 Artificial Intelligence
Essentially, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is regarded as systems which are intelli-

gent agents that can perceive external data and use the ensuing information to
perform particular tasks intelligently. AI provides multiple possibilities for the
creation of intelligent artefacts for the teaching and learning of mathematics
(Gadanidis, 2017). These interactive platforms do not only provide explana-
tions of mathematical concepts and principles or help in problem-solving, but
they interact responsively to students’ needs.
5 Robotics
Robotics (e.g., VEX robots, LEGO Mindstorms) as an activity is already being

used in schooling systems to support students understanding of the connec-
tion between Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) (Sis-
man, Kucuk, & Yaman, 2020). Robots as automated motorized learning devices
provide students opportunities to understand scientific and engineering prin-
ciples in action and to enact mathematical concepts (Leoste & Heidmets, 2019;
Samuels & Haapasalo, 2012). In their review of literature on the potential of
educational robotics in mathematics education, Zhong and Xia (2020) found
that although the research evidence shows that Robotics engages students in
interactive and hands-on activities, results are quite inconclusive regarding the
benefits for mathematics learning.
6 Augmented Reality
Augmented Reality (AR) adds virtual elements to our real environment and
allows us to superimpose different pieces of information, enabling enhanced
visualization. It permits the interaction of the physical and virtual world,
allowing previously intangible concepts to be integrated into the visual learn-
ing environment. AR is gaining research attention in mathematics education
at both elementary and secondary school level (e.g., Fernández-Enríquez &
Delgado-Martín, 2020; Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019).
AR has potential applications in the teaching of abstract concepts both in pure
and applied mathematics and provides affordances to ‘give life’ to concepts and
processes, thus potentially helping students to make sense of mathematics. By
combining virtual reality with real-world elements, AR offers many possibilities
for mathematics educators to create contextual situations without having to

leave the class. Indeed, it will require much creativity and imagination to harness
the possibilities that AR offers for the teaching and learning of school mathe-
matics, especially with enhanced visualization affordances (Conley, Atkinson,
Nguyen, & Nelson, 2020; Fernández-Enríquez & Delgado-Martín, 2020).
With advances in technology, it is predicted that AR software will become
more user-friendly and accessible to teachers. AR remains an object of interest
to Mathematics educators as it offers possibilities for students’ engagement in
an attempt to increase learning gains and interest in mathematics.
7 Three Dimensional Printing
Mathematics educators have recognized the potential of three dimensional

(3D) printing, where students create 3D objects from geometrical designs rather
than start with physically-build 3D objects. The 3D printing activities involve
the creation of solid objects that require the integration of knowledge and skills
from different areas (e.g., design, the science of materials, computer science and
mathematics) (Budinski et al., 2019). They provide a rich medium for enhancing
visualization skills as students design objects using 3D modelling programs and
observe the result of their creation in the finished solid material object.
The usefulness of 3D printing in enhancing spatial reasoning in non-ge-
ometry-based areas such as Calculus is yet to be fully explored. 3D printing
also enlarges the teachers’ toolkit by creating opportunities to integrate proj-
ect-based learning in the teaching of mathematics. Importantly, 3D printing
allows students to experience the integration of Science, Technology, Engi-
neering and Mathematics (Ng, 2017). In their study involving hand-held 3D
printing technology, Ng and Ferrara (2020) assert that the learner mobilizes
artefacts to perform mathematically thus, affording students opportunities to
produce knowledge rather than merely consuming knowledge. The job market
is already calling for talents in additive manufacturing and reverse engineering,
using computer-aided design and 3D scanners for the production of objects.
Thus, giving students some early experiences through school mathematics may
create much inspiration for this relatively novel area of human creation.
8 Computational Thinking: A Critical Skill for Industry 4.0
Computational Thinking (CT) is regarded as a set of problem-solving skills

encompassing screen-based coding, digital tangibles such as programming
of robots and off-screen algorithms (Gadanidis, 2017). It is a skill-set that is
required in almost all the sectors of Industry 4.0. It entails elements such as
algorithmic thinking, programming, models and simulations, data analysis and
system thinking. Mathematics provides the context to develop CT skills, giving
students the opportunity to formulate problems amenable to computer-based
solutions. CT enriched experiences were found to impact mathematics prob-
lem-solving performance among 15-year olds (Costa, Campos, & Guerrero,
2017). According to Costa et al. (2017), the intervention provided some start-
ing points for the integration of CT in the mathematics curriculum. They illus-
trate how conventional school mathematics problems can be reformulated so
that they align with CT. Another concept related to CT is Big Data analytics,
especially with the colossal amount of data available through online sources
and mobile technologies. Big Data analysis requires a thorough grounding in
statistics and computing and is becoming increasingly important in business,
marketing and communication industry, creating new career opportunities.
The key to embedding CT in the mathematics curricula is through prob-
lem-solving, which is one of the fundamental process standards of school
mathematics. In their attempt to promote open-ended problems, curriculum
developers may include CT-oriented exploratory activities as an integral part
of textbooks. At the same time, mathematics educators may be motivated to
consider this form of activities in their teacher preparation programs. Further,
a new research agenda should be opened for the study of CT in mathematics
education in the era of Industry 4.0 to create interest and give traction to this
form of mathematical modelling and analytical thinking (English, 2018).
What are the common denominators from the different components of
Industry 4.0 that are appealing to the field of mathematics education? These
are exploratory possibilities which offer spaces for experiential learning and
enhanced visualization features for making mathematical concepts more
accessible to students. The integration of knowledge from different areas
which enable the applicability of mathematics to be visible and opportuni-
ties for creativity and innovation also provides problem-solving pathways in
authentic contexts. The qualities brought to the fore by Industry 4.0 supports
what mathematics educators have been advocating for a long time, that school
mathematics should have a project-based element and prioritize authentic
learning experiences. Industry 4.0 provides a medium to change the face of
school mathematics from a mere accumulation of facts, conventions and prin-
ciples, as is often the case, to applications and creative endeavors.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is upon us and challenging curriculum
developers, teachers, and policymakers to adapt to the flow of teaching and
learning possibilities sourcing from CPS and IoT, Artificial Intelligence, Robot-
ics, Augmented Reality and 3D printing. From a technological point of view,
what is foreseen in this revolution is higher gigabit exchange capabilities,
enhanced cyber-physical systems, enhanced interactivity, a higher level of vir-

tual elements, and more extended and automated functionalities from AI so
that machines second human activities. It is also suggested that there will be “a
fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between physical, digital, and
biological spheres” (Schwab, 2016, p. 1).
Despite the fast-changing progress in technological advances, their integra-
tion in teaching and learning have followed a quite subdued pace. Such dis-
parities can be explained by several factors ranging from cost considerations
to their acceptance in the educational milieu. It may not be an exaggeration to
say that the tools in Industry 3.0 are yet to be exploited to enhance the teach-
ing and learning of mathematics, although Industry 4.0 is already here. These
observations are the rationale for the first question that we address in this
chapter.
9 Results and Discussion
9.1 Enablers That Nurture the Appropriation of the Affordances of

Industry 4.0 in the Teaching and Learning of School Mathematics
We make the argument for three critical enablers with regards to the processes
that can facilitate the integration of the tools of Industry 4.0 in the teaching and
learning of mathematics. Enabler 1 focuses on policymaking, Enabler 2 spot-
lights teachers and teaching, while Enabler 3 considers learners and learning.
9.1.1 Enabler 1: Mandatory or Statutory Integration of New Tools in the

Mathematics Curriculum
We are already in the presence of multiple tools from Industry 3.0 that we are
yet to harness for the teaching and learning of mathematics. As a case in point,
Microsoft Excel is a highly valuable tool for the teaching and learning of sta-
tistics at the secondary school level and is readily available (Bernard, Minarti,
& Hutajulu, 2018). However, only a handful of teachers tend to use it, although
it is user-friendly, and is aligned to conventional school syllabus pertaining to
descriptive and inferential statistics.
What may explain the reluctance of teachers to use exploratory investiga-
tions through Excel in their statistics classes? How do logistic, administrative
or accountability constraints limit the use of technological tools? We contend
that as long as these tools are not officially written in curriculum documents to
get a mandatory or statutory status and are associated with assessment, their
use may be in jeopardy. We substantiate this view from the fact that the calcu-
lator has become an integral part of the curriculum as its use is an attribute of
assessment procedures.
In a centralized and exam-oriented education system, the mathematics cur-

riculum is quite loaded, and there is much emphasis on performance, leading
teachers and students to prioritize practice exercises in the form of test papers.
Teachers are thus working in some form of survival mode where they have to
complete many topics within a prescribed time. Thus, the system of educa-
tion and its underlying accountability mechanisms may condition the state of
mind of teachers.
9.1.2 Enabler 2: Addressing Teachers’ Disposition and Readiness to

Explore the New Products of Industry 4.0 and Their Fit for Purpose
Building the state of mind of teachers is as important as the content knowl-
edge for teaching. In our teacher education programs, we come across partic-
ipants with different predispositions, some inclined to experiment with new
ideas. In contrast, others are fixed on their approaches, especially those who
have already had several years of teaching experience. How do we cope with
a mindset to enable the experimentation and the adoption of new tools for
Industry 4.0?
Our small-scale, school-based projects have led us to conclude that teachers
tend to implement initiatives if they fit their values and the practical require-
ments of their jobs. Technological tools in education may have only a honey-
moon effect and may not be sustained over time. The products of innovation
are sustainable not only if they are fit for purpose, but also if teachers are will-
ing to invest time and resources in their adoption. For schools to adopt the
products of Industry 4.0, they must be willing to give curricular time to such
activities and get the sponsorship of the school administration that espouses a
liberal view and values innovation.
As mathematics educators, we are on a continuous lookout for ways of
improving the teaching and learning of mathematics. We attempt to keep up
with technological innovations. Although technology is an integral part of our
teacher education programs, we admit that more needs to be done at our level
to embrace the opportunities from the tools of Industry 4.0. Universities and
teacher education institutions need to deploy more leadership and innova-
tive capabilities to bridge the affordances of Industry 4.0 in teacher education
programs. As teachers build their teaching philosophies during their train-
ing programs, they should be exposed to rich experiences from technological
affordances such as AR, Robotics, 3D printing, and the IoT. This may assist in
appreciating the inherent virtues and potentially shape their values and teach-
ing practices. Our experiences show that once teachers develop their bedrock
conceptions of mathematics, it is quite challenging to effect teacher change.
Hence, it is critical to tune teachers to technological affordances early when
they are in their training programs.
9.1.3 Enabler 3: Fostering Appropriate Habits of Mind: Problem-Solving

Attitude, Perseverance, Resilience, and Independent Learning
Besides policy, curriculum and teaching, it is also important to focus attention
towards students who are the final recipients of the new modes of learning.
Schooling experiences are pivotal in shaping students’ preparedness, inter-
est and passion for the choices that they make with regards to their careers.
To what extent are school mathematics experiences preparing students to
embark, adapt and thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)? Are
the content and processes used to teach mathematics, enabling students to
develop an exploratory mindset and problem-solving attitude?
Project-Based Learning (PBL) has continuously been considered as a rich
pathway to encourage students to problem solve in authentic situations. For
instance, 3D printing, as a STEM-oriented Industry 4.0 technology, offers many
affordances for engaging students in authentic problem-solving situations (Ng,
2017). Also, 3D printing enables students to develop their creativity as they use
their knowledge of Geometry and Calculus in action. By playing with equa-
tions, they can generate solids that can be printed and hence appreciate sol-
ids of revolution, for instance. They can generate a paraboloid by rotating the
curve y = x2 along the y-axis and print the resulting 3D solid with these tools.
Children can see the concrete embodiment of mathematical concepts and the
application of mathematics in the resolution of authentic problems. The pos-
sibilities that 3D printing offers as a learning tool is only starting to unfold.
Initiating students to the tools early enough not only exposes them to the
inherent affordances but also have inspirational values. At a later point, when
students join the job market with their background school experience, they
may not be confronted by a new, unfamiliar world. As researchers in math-
ematics education, our experience suggests that children can be very cre-
ative; it’s just a question of providing the appropriate tools and the necessary
enabling environment.
Another feature of a problem solver that is highly advocated in mathemat-
ics education is perseverance or resilience (Williams, 2014). It is important to
engage students in challenging or non-routine problems so that they get the
experience to explore novel situations and develop persistence. As they work
through problem situations and look for viable pathways to overcome obsta-
cles, they are prompted to undertake some form of deep thinking. We fore-
see that the type of novel problems that future employees will be handling in
Industry 4.0 will be complex and multifaceted. Schooling should provide stu-
dents with some insight into challenging situations and help them to develop
perseverance with underlying self-concept and self-esteem as problem solvers.
The pace with which Industry 4.0 is evolving requires every individual to be a
lifelong learner. Another requisite skill in the Industry 4.0 era is self-regulation,
that is individual competencies to set goals and tasks, plan approaches to the
tasks, monitor the process, evaluate the outcomes, and reflect on the process
and solutions (Zimmerman, 1990).
Furthermore, exposing students to what current developers of Industry 4.0
are doing may also bring some stimulus to show what they can achieve with
their mathematical knowledge. The secondary school and world-of-work alli-
ance are important to create the impetus for students to see the prospects in
future jobs and also the necessity for ‘thinking big’. Exposure to the job pros-
pects may motivate students to develop particular inclinations for mathemat-
ics as they may appreciate that it offers the toolbox to thrive in Industry 4.0 and
is associated with more than a decent salary.
9.2 Revamping the School Mathematics Curriculum to Align with the

Demands of Industry 4.0 and Prepare for Future Vocational and
Functional Obligations
Our first question addressed the processes and system capabilities that may
facilitate the appropriation of the tools of Industry 4.0 in mathematics teach-
ing and learning. In the second question, we reflect on the content of school
mathematics and address the issue of the adequacy of the current curriculum.
Contemporary school mathematics, across several education systems, tend to
focus on Numbers, Algebra, Measurement, Geometry, Probability and Statis-
tics and to some extent, aspects of Calculus. In our role as curriculum develop-
ers, often we have to decide what to include or exclude in school mathematics,
taking into consideration what we want learners to achieve at the end of the
school cycle.
As we make space for Industry 4.0 in the mathematics curriculum, we are
faced with several critical questions: (i) What weight are we willing to attribute
to Industry 4.0 in the mathematics curriculum?; (ii) What additional elements
to include in the curriculum and at the expense of what content due to an
already overloaded curriculum?; (iii) How should we streamline the new con-
tent across the elementary and secondary school level?; (iv) What content do
we assume to be accessible to elementary and secondary school students and
what is more appropriate for university?; (v) Is there a different way of reorga-
nizing the mathematics curriculum to enable the integration of Industry 4.0?
The answers to these questions vary across cultures as a function of value sys-
tems. The economy (depending on whether a country has the money to invest
in industry 4.0 technologies) and economic orientations (depending on the
directions in which the economy of a country is being steered) of a country is
of importance.
We attempt to provide some pointers to the above questions by looking at

the type of mathematical knowledge that is required in Industry 4.0. A diverse
set of technical mathematical knowledge is necessary to handle the tools of
Industry 4.0: Mathematical Modelling, Game Theory, Number Theory, Cryp-
tography, Numerical Analysis, Differential Equation, Numerical/Scientific
Computing, Linear Algebra, Matrix Theory, Networks, Operations Research
and Optimization, Statistics, Probability, Simulation and Logic, among others
(Formaggia, 2017). It would be too demanding and unproductive to systemati-
cally work backwards from the mathematical knowledge required for Industry
4.0 and extract elements that can be staggered over the school mathematics
curriculum. Rather it may be more practical to isolate core content that pro-
vides the foundational skills across domains and is related to the current math-
ematics curriculum. To that end, computational thinking is the first element
that may provide some pointers to develop skills consonant to the exigencies
of Industry 4.0. Traditionally, school mathematics curricula tend to provide
students with primarily computational and problem-solving experiences. It is
also important to proactively introduce students to algorithmic thinking as a
first step to automation. Engaging students in coding experiences will set the
first step to programming and simulation.
The second aspect is data analysis which has already received extensive con-
sideration in mathematics education (Gal, 2002; Watson, 2013). However, more
traction is necessary to elevate the teaching of statistics in the school mathe-
matics curriculum. Students should be given practical experiences to process
real data, especially with the new possibilities offered by the IoT. They should
be given adequate experiences to develop the competence to handle data,
small as well as large data sets, as they build their repertoire and confidence.
The third aspect that can open a viable pathway to build Industry 4.0 read-
iness is mathematical modelling which has been theoretically and practically
debated in mathematics education (Li, 2013). In school mathematics, students
do get some experiences with mathematical modelling in domains such as
algebra, functions (e.g., exponential growth) and differential equations (e.g.,
rate of change). Mathematical modeling involves a broad range of areas, and it
may be wise to choose some pertinent ones (e.g., optimization) that are more
directly relevant to Industry 4.0. It should be noted that the intention is not to
fragment skills in the learning process but to identify some starting points for
encouraging students to develop a mathematical mindset commensurate with
Industry 4.0 requirements.
We have suggested three-pointers that may serve as orientations to make
the school mathematics curriculum more responsive to the call from Industry
4.0. The idea is not to bring every piece of requisite mathematical competency
from Industry 4.0 to secondary school but to expose students to experiences

that may highlight the potential of mathematics in solving an array of prob-
lems, using the knowledge and skills that they develop at school. The inten-
tion is also to create a learning environment that enables the enculturation of
work habits, dispositions, and the confidence to meet the requirements of the
world of work. An ancillary aim is to inspire students to develop affinities for
career trajectories other than the traditional ones associated with medicine,
engineering, law, science, agriculture, humanities and similar areas. Secondary
schools may be the privileged space where students are shaping their career
orientations.
If the school mathematics curriculum cannot accommodate the changes
that are being proposed to enable the integration of the tools of Industry 4.0,
we suggest a new secondary school subject is introduced with the intent of pro-
moting ‘STEM Practices’ (Lowrie, Leonard, & Fitzgerald, 2018). The concept of
STEM Practices emerged as a way to highlight the underlying idea, methods and
values common across STEM domains (such as creativity, teamwork, and prob-
lem-solving) that will be vital in transitioning to the world of Industry 4.0. It is
anticipated that this subject will create more space for dedicated work in terms
of Project-Based Learning. An industry-school alliance may be initiated so that
people who are already in the technical professions share their practices with
secondary school students. It is important to take aggressive steps at the second-
ary school level itself to increase the likelihood for observable results in terms of
participation and engagement in CPS, Robotics, AR, 3D printing and new areas
such as digital twin technologies. Implementing school-based initiatives may
avoid scarcity of knowledge and skills to fuel Industry 4.0 in the long run.
10 Conclusion
The modern world is constantly being challenged by global competitiveness,

the massification of activities, fast-cycling of human operations and climate
change. Also, modern society is characterized by an increasing materialistic
form of living. As a result, industries are responding to emerging challenges
for economic sustainability. It is thus becoming more than necessary to make
optimal use of resources, develop resource-saving strategies and importantly
automate manufacturing processes. Thus, new technologies are being created
to sustain the society, with technological innovations being one of the most
viable and efficient options.
In consequence, the nature of the labor force is changing and requires new
skills. In this wave of changes, schools are being pressured to reinvent themselves
to better respond to the needs of individuals and society. Mathematics

education, as a discipline, has started to respond to these challenges, although
much more remains to be done.
In this chapter, we have brought to the fore the enablers that tentatively may
help to overcome the barriers to allow the optimal use of the tools of Industry
4.0. By no means is the transformation of school mathematics linear, as we
decide which elements of technology to incorporate into existing curriculum
and how they should be implemented to bring added value to school mathe-
matics in preparation of Industry 4.0.
It is important to keep pace with the innovations taking place in Industry
4.0 so that we can elevate the field of mathematics education. Industrialists are
finding ways to work collaboratively in the appropriation of Industry 4.0 (Stan-
dards Australia, 2017). Similarly, educators need to be engaged in more collec-
tive debates in terms of an agenda for actions. Also, more empirical research is
required to validate the learning gains from applications such as IoT, Robotics
and 3D printers. At this stage, answers to questions of the robustness of con-
cept acquisition through these technologies are quite tentative.
Likewise, another key question is whether these new ways of engaging with
mathematics through the latest tools and resources lead to better learning of
mathematics. Many key questions remain open: Who decides what to include
in the mathematics curriculum in response to technological innovations? How
to sensitize policymakers on the issue? At what stage should the new tools
of Industry 4.0 be included in the curriculum? What could be some feasible
bridging mechanisms? How to reconfigure the school mathematics curriculum
to give space to the tools of Industry 4.0 with much fidelity? Are examination
boards ready to consider alternative forms of assessment provided that the
demonstration of learning may be quite different from the tools of Industry 4.0?
Technology may take time to gain acceptance among educators, especially if
it does not squarely fit the expectations of educators. Teachers have established
routines of work, and shifting out of that comfort zone may not be straightfor-
ward. Understandably, designers of technology are market-oriented, and their
tools may not always be designed for ready use by educators. For instance,
many educators are fascinated by 3D printing, yet it has several imperfections
that need to be addressed. To that end, designers and mathematics educators
must work cooperatively so that they better serve each other in their innova-
tive and practical endeavors. The level of sophistication of the tools of Indus-
try 4.0 may be intimidating for educators, and some works may be necessary
to get teachers on board. A new era is unfolding, and mathematics educators
should give full attention to the affordances of Industry 4.0, as this may be an
opportunity to innovate and make a turn in the culture and practice of school
mathematics.
References
Aheleroff, S., Xu, X., Lu, Y., Aristizabal, M., Velásquez, J. P., Joa, B., & Valencia, Y. (2020).
IoT-enabled smart appliances under industry 4.0: A case study. Advanced Engineer-
ing Informatics, 43, 101043.
Baygin, M., Yetis, H., Karakose, M., & Akin, E. (2016, September 8–10). An effect analysis
of industry 4.0 to higher education. In 2016 15th International Conference on Informa-
tion Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET). IEEE. https//doi.org/
10.1109/ITHET.2016.7760744
Bernard, M., Minarti, E. D., & Hutajulu, M. (2018). Constructing student’s mathematical
understanding skills and self-confidence: Math game with visual basic application
for Microsoft Excel in learning Pythagoras at junior high school. International Jour-
nal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.2), 732–736.
Birgin, O., & Acar, H. (2020). The effect of computer-supported collaborative learn-
ing using GeoGebra software on 11th grade students’ mathematics achievement in
exponential and logarithmic functions. International Journal of Mathematical Edu-
cation in Science and Technology, 1–18. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2020.1788186
Budinski, N., Lavicza, Z., Vukić, N., Teofilović, V., Kojić, D., Erceg, T., & Budinski-Simendić,
J. (2019). Interconnection of materials science, 3d printing and mathematic in inter-
disciplinary education. STED Journal, 1(2), 21–30.
Conley, Q., Atkinson, R. K., Nguyen, F., & Nelson, B. C. (2020). Mantaray AR: Leveraging
augmented reality to teach probability and sampling. Computers & Education, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103895
Costa, E. J. F., Campos, L. M. R. S., & Guerrero, D. D. S. (2017). Computational thinking in
mathematics education: A joint approach to encourage problem-solving ability. Paper
presented at the 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).
Demartini, C., & Benussi, L. (2017). Do Web 4.0 and industry 4.0 imply education X.0?
IT Professional, 19(3), 4–7.
English, L. D. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of international research in mathematics educa-
tion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
English, L. D. (2018). On MTL’s second milestone: Exploring computational thinking
and mathematics learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 1–2.
Fernández-Enríquez, R., & Delgado-Martín, L. (2020). Augmented reality as a didactic
resource for teaching mathematics. Applied Sciences, 10(7), 1–19.
Formaggia, L. (2017). Mathematics and Industry 4.0. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321155366
Gadanidis, G. (2017). Artificial intelligence, computational thinking, and mathematics
education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2),
133–139.
Gal, I. (2002). Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. Inter-
national Statistical Review, 70(1), 1–25.
Gleason, N. W. (2018). Singapore’s higher education systems in the era of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution: Preparing lifelong learners. In N. W. Gleason (Ed.), Higher
education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 147–148). Springer Nature.
Grouws, D. A. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learn-
ing. Macmillan Publishing Co.
Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., & Yang, S. J. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues
of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
11(2), 81–91.
Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). Macmillan.
Kusmin, M. (2019). Inquiry-based learning and trialogical knowledge-creation approach
in smart schoolhouse supported by IoT devices. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
Leoste, J., & Heidmets, M. (2019). The impact of educational robots as learning tools
on mathematics learning outcomes in basic education. In Digital turn in schools –
Research, policy, practice (pp. 203–217). Springer.
Li, T. (2013). Mathematical modeling education is the most important educational
interface between mathematics and industry. In A. Damlamian, J. Rodrigues, & R.
Sträßer (Eds.), Educational interfaces between mathematics and industry (Vol. 16, pp.
51–58). Springer.
Lowrie, T., Leonard, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). STEM practices: A translational frame-
work for large-scale STEM education design. EdeR. Educational Design Research, 2(1),
1–20.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers &
Education, 49(3), 581–596.
Moyer, P. S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K-8 teach-
ers for mathematics instruction: The influence of mathematical, cognitive, and
pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3),
202–218.
Nayak, J. K. (2018). Relationship among smartphone usage, addiction, academic perfor-
mance and the moderating role of gender: A study of higher education students in
India. Computers & Education, 123, 164–173.
Ng, O.-L. (2017). Exploring the use of 3D computer-aided design and 3D printing for
STEAM learning in mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education,
3(3), 257–263.
Ng, O.-L., & Ferrara, F. (2020). Towards a materialist vision of ‘learning as making’: The
case of 3D printing pens in school mathematics. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 18, 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10000-9
Samuels, P., & Haapasalo, L. (2012). Real and virtual robotics in mathematics education
at the school–university transition. International Journal of Mathematical Educa-
tion in Science and Technology, 43(3), 285–301.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business.
Sisman, B., Kucuk, S., & Yaman, Y. (2020). The effects of robotics training on children’s
spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. International Journal of Social Robotics,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00646-9
Standards Australia. (2017). Industry 4.0: An Australian perspective – Recommenda-
tions report to the Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation
and Science.
Thomas, M. O., Monaghan, J., & Pierce, R. (2004). Computer algebra systems and alge-
bra: Curriculum, assessment, teaching, and learning. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Ken-
dal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra, the 12th ICMI study (Vol.
8, pp. 153–186). Springer.
Tomaschko, M., & Hohenwarter, M. (2019). Augmented reality in mathematics educa-
tion: The case of GeoGebra AR. In T. Prodromou (Ed.), Augmented reality in educa-
tional settings (pp. 325–346). Brill Sense.
Waschull, S., Bokhorst, J., Molleman, E., & Wortmann, J. (2020). Work design in future
industrial production: Transforming towards cyber-physical systems. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 139, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.053
Watson, J. M. (2013). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. Routledge.
Williams, G. (2014). Optimistic problem-solving activity: Enacting confidence, per-
sistence, and perseverance. ZDM, 46(3), 407–422.
Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A Systematic review on exploring the potential of edu-
cational robotics in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 18(1), 79–101.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An over-
view. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
CHAPTER 3
Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution by

Developing a More Relevant Educational Spectrum:
Coding, Robotics, and More
Abstract
The dawn of industrial revolution 4.0 requires the creation of a new educational
spectrum that includes teaching and learning content, as well as educational theo-
ries that are responsive and relevant to the post-Digital Age. This calls for a modi-
fication to seminal theories to enable a successful 21st-century era of teaching and
learning. Using Information and Communication Technology devices such as digital
projectors, slides, clickers; and smartboards are fairly outdated in the current educa-
tion sector. The introduction of tablet personal computers and apps, together with
learning and classroom management systems, has become a favored pedagogical tool.
We have witnessed a global movement towards apps that has resulted in educators
being encouraged to use tablets in innovative ways, to enhance the learning experi-
ence. The advantages of such innovation can only be realized when students are adept
at using digital tools, and when educators integrate the tools meaningfully into their
pedagogy.
Industrial Revolution 4.0 is emphasizing the significance of computer program-
ming, robotics, and data coding, which has prompted many education departments
globally to introduce these fields into the early years of schooling. These fields pro-
duce skills that are not only relevant to the time that we live in but influence the
future and economic growth of countries. It is crucial that these skills are devel-
oped and nurtured at the primary level. This chapter presents an ideal curriculum
that spans two years and ignites a desire in students to use their tablet innovatively.
It also explores some innovative pedagogic tools and techniques based on literature
and personal experience, as well as provides ways to introduce abstract concepts
like programming and robotics to novices. The approaches probed herein are from
a South African context, with the focus on content characteristics, impact, and
importance.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2021 | doi: 10.1163/9789004460386_003

1 Introduction
1.1 Educational Robotics and Coding

Effective learning is a result of active teaching and largely depends on the
teachers’ effective practices (Furner & Kumar, 2007). The fascination with
robotics and coding in education started with the work of South African born
mathematician and computer scientist Seymour Papert (Papert, 1980). His
curiosity about gears at an early age, together with the educational influence of
working with Jean Piaget in later years, led him to be a pioneer in educational
robotics and coding. Robotics, coupled with intelligent systems in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0), has shone new light onto this work.
Embedded Artificial Intelligent (AI) systems, together with Machine Learn-
ing (ML), allow for real-time decision making. This plays a pivotal role in the
advancement and neural activities of humankind. AIs have the potential to
direct you with precise turns to and from work or provide suggestions for eat-
ing out in an unfamiliar area based on past visits to restaurants. Search engines
are becoming more powerful and accurate in analyzing millions of data points
that you enter, in turn making personal suggestions that offer an artificial sense
of caring and attention, all thanks to Big Data. The possibility of quantum com-
puting, moving away from bits to quantum bits,1 provides quantum mechanics
functionality such as superposition or entanglement to perform computation
(Heaney, 2019). The possibilities of complex digital systems in education have
the potential to be fruitful (Luckin et al., 2016), but can also pose pitfalls (Pierce
& Hathaway, 2018). However, this chapter focuses on the positive attributes of
innovative pedagogies that involve technologies of the 4IR2 era, and how they
respond to current educational needs.
1.2 Global Change in Education

Education has become a global priority to meet the demands of the post-Digital
Age,3 thus leading to the focus on robotics and coding, which has resulted in
swift curriculum changes in the early schooling years. Along similar lines, the
South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, stated during the State of Nation
Address (SONA) that, “with our Framework for Skills for a Changing World, we
are expanding the training of both educators and students to respond to emerg-
ing technologies including the internet of things, robotics and artificial intelli-
gence” (SONA, 2019, p. 25). Countries for example, the United States of America,
the United Kingdom, and Australia are further ahead in the implementation
process (Kim, 2016), while countries such as Japan and South Africa are still in
the planning and implementation phase (Sano, 2019; SONA, 2019).
32 Govender
This global educational transformation towards coding and robotics is

referred to as the Digital Education Revolution (Kim, 2016), which feeds into
countries’ workforces, digital economies, and futures. Teaching and learning
activities at schools are changing with the use of Personal Computer (PC) tab-
lets, which offers e-books over hardcopy textbooks and the use of the Internet
over physical libraries (Reynolds, 2011). Technology has influenced a global
shift in how education is enacted and how the current generation adapts to
and views life.
1.3 The Time Line

During this transitional period into IR 4.0, it is important to reflect on the
sequence of events that led us to this time. The first industrial revolution took
place around 1765 with the introduction of steam power (Musson & Robinson,
1959). The second followed in 1870 with electricity and assembly line produc-
tion, while the third revolution heralded electronics and computers in 1969
(Philbeck & Davis, 2019). Each revolution took place over a significant number
of years and was marked by extraordinary achievements by humankind. Also,
humanity’s cognitive ability and innovative skills were pushed to higher lim-
its. Klaus Schwab first announced IR 4.0 at the World Economic Forum (WEF)
meeting in 2015 (Schwab, 2016), which resulted in people’s growing awareness
of the current revolution. 4IR intends to emphasize and develop uncharted
and exciting technological phenomena, among them AI, Big data, Internet of
Things (IoT), and Robotics. So what does this mean for education, specifically
teaching and learning?
Education 4.0, a manifestation of Industry 4.0, references a period of new
educational paradigms and technologies. Educational technologies are always
improving, and it is inevitable that the technologies discussed in this chap-
ter will be upgraded with advanced tools that promise a better teaching and
learning experience. Take for example, the wooden pointer and blackboard
around the 1850s (Muttappallymyalil et al., 2016), with the promise of gauging
students’ attention in following what the teacher says on this writing surface.
The pencil in the 1900s (Coles, 1999) allowed each student to write without
the worry of messy and drying up ink. The teaching machine entered the edu-
cation market in the 1940s (Skinner, 1958), an invention by psychologist and
behaviorist, Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Skinner’s teaching machine prompted
the user to complete sentences and brought about the programmed instruc-
tion movement. Then televisions entered the market with the promise of no
teacher required as students watched the lessons onscreen (Bates, 1988). The
World Wide Web (WWW),4 invented in 1893 by Tim Berners-Lee (Albertazzi &
Cobley, 2013), paved the way to Silicon Valley,5 with the rise of social media and
tech giants like Facebook, Instagram, and Google. They are constantly develop-
ing advanced tools6 for the educational sector.
1.4 Making Education Relevant

The appropriate integration of new technologies into education plays a pivotal
role in keeping education systems relevant relative to global benchmarks. The
embracing of IR 4.0 in education will yield knowledge and skills aligned with
changing industrial needs. A closer introspection on the appropriate meth-
ods of integration raises concerns surrounding students’ engagement in the
learning process, the achievement of better grades in school, and the volume
of enrollment at higher education institutions.
In this post-Digital Age, students need to pursue knowledge which they
construct as opposed to memorizing it.7 This is what I refer to as attendance
for tests, meaning the student attends the academic intuition to rote learn
and write tests. This is similar to what Paulo Freire terms the banking concept,
where the teacher deposits knowledge into the students’ heads as one might
deposit money into a bank account (Hilty, 2018). Students in this scenario tend
to take on a spectator role in their education process, thus withholding their
full cognitive ability. Therefore, the teacher needs to create opportunities for
students to become active participants in their knowledge-building process.
This would result in dialogue that is necessary to counteract the predominance
of attendance for tests.
2 Methodology
This is a descriptive chapter based on a literature review, to reveal the current

situation of IR 4.0 on education, focusing on coding and robotics together with
personal experiences. Data obtained were evaluated by the researcher and
interpreted based on a descriptive approach (Buyukozturk et al., 2010). Freire’s
educational principle underpinned the theoretical considerations that edu-
cation should lead to transformative action, which serves to liberate humans
(Freire, 2018; Shor & Freire, 1987). Thus, the role of education is not limited to
the accumulation of knowledge but also the ability to change an individual’s
life. Aligned to the Freire’s educational principle, the work of Piaget and Papert
is significant. As Piaget mainly focused on the development of how knowledge
systems evolve (Brainerd, 2003) while Papert advocated the use of physical
manipulatives in building understanding (Ackermann, 2004). Together with
knowledge systems and building understanding need to co-exist to unleash
the full potential of the human mind.
34 Govender
2.1 The Use of Online Technologies

Real-time communication and collaboration enabled by the Internet of Things
(IoT) offer convenient on-the-go services to users whereby different devices
are connected via the Internet. Examples of such devices are surveillance
systems, geysers, washing machines, smart motor cars and traffic lights. It is
anticipated that IoT together with the development of 5G networks,8 will drive
the Internet future to the edge (Li et al., 2018). Fifth-generation (5G) networks
promise to deliver data at extremely high speeds with low to zero latency offer-
ing real-time computing; thus, for example, delicate medical surgeries can be
conducted where the patient and surgeon are on different continents (Gatouil-
lat et al., 2018). Access to and development of the Internet has changed the way
we work, learn, and play.9 To utilize the Internet to the fullest, learning content
must enable self-reflection, with or without the presence of the teacher.
Educational online technologies, when designed and implemented effec-
tively, can lead to self-regulation, which in turn leads to learner-centered10
education (Naidoo & Govender, 2014). Learner-centered education is consid-
ered a powerful experience as the student is in charge of their learning path
(Hannafin & Hannafin, 2010), resulting in the formation of rich knowledge
through a liberal learning process.11 Many countries, such as South Africa have
adopted the philosophical underpinnings of a learner-centered education
curriculum. Research conducted by Naidoo and Govender (2014) established
a three-way relationship between online technologies, self-regulation and learn-
er-centered education. Although this research was based on Mathematics,12
the core goal of any online activity should ultimately mimic the relationship
shown in Figure 3.1.
figure 3.1 The effects of online technology on teaching and learning (adapted from
Naidoo & Govender, 2014)
In Figure 3.1, the teacher adopts the facilitative approach so that learning can
still occur in their absence. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt
promotes the use of hints or embedded data13 to serve as support in the absence
of the facilitator (Naidoo & Govender, 2019). Hints offer guidance to the stu-
dent when they reach a mental roadblock. Thus, the learning process becomes
increasingly autonomous, giving individual students attention when requested.
The advancements presented by 4IR are centered on only Science, Technol-
ogy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. However, in understand-
ing the effects on STEM, a harmonious relationship should exist between the
STEM subjects and subjects in the Humanities whereby psychological factors
and development of cognitive skills related to STEM subjects call upon the
knowledge of Humanities for interpretation and understanding.
2.2 Digital Kingship: A PC Tablet Curriculum

The availability of educational apps on mobile devices is useful in the learning
environment. However, students must be well skilled in using the device. Here,
I present an ideal PC tablet curriculum that was successfully implemented in
Grade 8 and Grade 9 at a school in Durban, South Africa. Digital Kinship14 is an
eight pillar, two-year curriculum. The lesson comprised of a single 45-minute
period allocated once in a seven-day cycle.15 BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)
was applied, where parents selected a device based on their affordability. The
use of tablets16 is an appropriate educational tool for high school students and
is also a stationery requirement. The rolling out the curriculum in Grades 8
and 9 benefited students when they reached Grades 10, 11 and 12, as they were
able to concentrate on their specialized subjects.17 In later grades, they would
have gained mastery of the device and have the ability to use discipline-spe-
cific apps to complete assignments, classwork, homework etc.
Modules were divided into one module per school term or two modules
per semester, in a year. First-year modules selected were ICT policy, Classroom
Management System (CMS), Getting to know your device; and Basic office pro-
cessing (Figure 3.2).
Explaining the rules of using the PC tablet at school is important, and
includes students and teachers. All stakeholders of the institution must play
a part in drafting an ICT policy that applies best to the level of usage of the
device. The existing school code of conduct would be an ideal starting point
when drafting this policy. The policy must include repercussions for cyber-
bullying,18 internet trolling, identity theft, etc. The final document must be
submitted for approval to the Education department. This policy forms part of
the first module of Digital Kingship, ICT Policy.
The second module is a show and do19 module, whereby the teacher facil-
itates guided exercises through the Content Management System (CMS) or
36 Govender
figure 3.2 First-year overview of the DK curriculum
Learning Management System (LMS).20 The criteria for a successful manage-

ment system is a good network setup (Roy et al., 2018). Students should be on
a separate secure network from staff, for security reasons.
Choosing the ideal CMS can be a challenge, as there are many compa-
nies competing in the education technology industry. Moodle, BlackBoard,
Chamillo, Canvas and Google classroom21 are a few systems, amongst others,
that can be implemented. Criteria to be considered when selecting a system:
– Cost of the system (monthly and yearly fees),
– Support structure/availability,
– Security,
– Maintenance,
– The technicality of the system – Creating, Reading, Updating and Deleting
(CRUD),
– GUI and friendliness of the system; and
– Features and options.
2.3 Getting to Know Your Device

This is the third module, which can be done earlier. The fourth module covered in
the first year is Basic office processing. This module is crucial as the students need a
wide variety of applications that offer notes, highlighting, bookmarks, etc., as well
as the basics of typing, creating a presentation and performing simple calculations.
2.4 Content Covered in Each First-Year Pillar

2.4.1 ICT Policy
– Look at global ICT policies,
– Acceptable User Policy (AUP),
– End-User Licence Agreement (EULA),

– Draw focus to the policy do’s and don’ts,
– Debit system and consequences if policy not followed; and
– Bring Your Own Device (BYOD).
2.4.2 CMS
– What is the CMS/LMS?
– Login and profile setup; and
– Explore features (uploading, downloading, etc.).
2.4.3 Getting to Knowing Your Device (PC-Tablet)

– Taking care of your device (battery charging, screen protectors, finding
device apps, lock/pin protections, etc.),
– Buttons on the device (shortcuts, re-booting device, etc.),
– The five touch screen gestures (Swipe, Pinch, Expand, Tap, Drag and drop),
– Android/iOS versions (history, compatible, etc.),
– Camera (video audio recording),
– Serial numbers, what is International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI)
and Mobile Equipment Identifier (MEID) numbers? Why are they import-
ant? How do I find these numbers?; and
– Features common to all devices (connecting the WI-FI, silent mode, adjusting
systems settings, and know-how to execute CRUD – Create, Read, Update and
Delete).
2.4.4 Basic Office Processing

– How to type documents/memos/PowerPoint etc. on device,
– MS Office vs Polaris vs Kingssoft and other relevant apps,
– Creating, saving, editing, deleting; and
– Software applications associated to formats: .docx, .pdf, .pptx etc.
On completion of the first year, activities can be given to the students, such as
video stories, interviews, presentations or typing an assignment. Teachers must
be able to create such learning opportunities for students on the PC-tablets.22
The second-year starts with e-Communication, after which the teacher and
students can communicate in a non-face-to-face manner.23 The sixth module
is Google play, to aid the downloading of subject-specific apps. The module
Cybercrime creates awareness among students about online criminal opera-
tions. The last module is Getting certified, which summarizes the important
concepts covered during the two years. Additional concepts, such as future
developments,24 can be included in this module.
38 Govender
figure 3.3 Second-year overview of the DK curriculum
On completion of Digital Kinship, the student should be able to use their PC

tablet to its full potential, without interruptions, to enhance their knowledge
building process.
2.5 Content Covered in Each Second-Year Pillar

2.5.1 e-Communication
– Explore different methods of communication,
– Internet vs Intranet,
– Setting up an email,
– Netiquette,
– Pros and cons of e-communication,
– Do’s and don’ts; and
– Social networking – dos and don’ts of Twitter, Facebook, etc.
2.5.2 Google Play/App Store

– Explore useful Apps,
– Apps that must be on the device (a prerequisite for each subject at school),
– Installing and uninstalling apps,
– Storage capacity, RAM requirements and other system requirements; and
– Backing up apps (Android application packages).
2.5.3 Cybercrime
– Hackers vs crackers,
– Illegal uses of a tablet that leads to a criminal act,
– Examine national and international law on computer crimes,
– Cyberbullying (Who to contact? What to do?),

– Identity theft-spyware; and
– Trolls, malware, phishing, rootkits, spam, Trojans.
2.5.4 Getting Certified

– What does it mean to be a digital citizen?
– My digital footprint,
– Cover anything new and relevant; and
– Recap.
2.6 Hour of Code

Introducing students to computer science through computer programming25
is currently at the forefront of educational reformation. Some countries have
developed content-specific courses, while others include coding in gen-
eral technology subjects or courses (Falloon, 2016; Moreno-León, Robles, &
Román-González, 2016). Government-driven initiatives such as Computer Sci-
ence for All in the United States of America, Computing at School in the United
Kingdom, and Digital Technologies in Australia, have one common goal: to pro-
mote coding and technologies to students. South Africa will introduce a new
subject that will include coding and robotics. The President of South Africa, in
his annual State of the Nation Address in 2019, stated that “at the center of all
our efforts to achieve higher and more equitable growth, to draw young people
into employment and to prepare our country for the digital age, must be the
prioritization of education and the development of skills” (SONA, 2019, p. 23).
Alongside the curriculum reform by educational departments towards IR
4.0 fields, several movements are promoting coding and robotics,26 such as the
Hour of Code campaign.27 This campaign started in 2014 and promoted the
creation of one hour of code every day. Hour of Code is an online program
which develops one’s interest in coding at any age, reaching millions of users
who engage in code learning at anytime, anywhere in the world.
2.7 Computational Thinking

The technologically driven era we are living in demands that individuals har-
ness their cognitive skills, such as logic and problem-solving. Computational
Thinking (CT) provides the essential knowledge, skills and attitude for solving
problems encountered in our daily lives (Curzon, 2015). Computational Think-
ing was first cited by Papert and later made famous by Jeannette Wing, who
defined it to apply to multiple disciplines and not only to Computer Science
(Kalelioglu et al., 2016). CT can be described as a set of thinking processes that
40 Govender
helps individuals to formulate solutions to problems and can be used in dif-

ferent disciplines (Liu & He, 2014; Wing, 2006). Papert (1980, p. 3) states that
“contact with the computer has not, as far as we are allowed to see in these
episodes, changed how these people think about themselves or how they
approach problems”. CT is considered a method for understanding human
behavior through problem-solving, designing systems, and developing the
basic concepts of computer science (Korkmaz et al., 2016), thus making it a key
skill for 21st-century education. Computer programming and other STEM-re-
lated subjects can be regarded as subsets of Computational Thinking and not
the other way around.
There is no clear-cut definition for CT (Denning, 2017; Voogt et al., 2015).
Presented in Figure 3.4 are the four common principles associated with com-
putational thinking.
figure 3.4 Four common principles of CT (adapted from Anistyasari & Kurniawan, 2018)
Attention is drawn to algorithmic design,28 which is an important prob-

lem-solving skill for understanding, applying, and producing algorithms. Algo-
rithmic design or thinking is a process of attaining a solution through defined
steps. Important to note is that algorithmic thinking is related to mathematics.
However, it is not limited to mathematics (Romero et al., 2017).
A thinking skill like CT is crucial with the increasing global requirement of
data analytics and Big Data, which will aid the future workforce. Alike Jacob et
al. (2018) assert that the future successful workforce requires multiple levels of
abstract thinking, and dynamic solutions for difficult problems, thus computa-
tional thinking is a necessity.
2.8 Humanoids
A set of relationship rules, termed by Issac Asimov the ‘laws of robotics’, is
applied to the interaction between robots and humans:
– Law Zero: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity
to come to harm,29
– Law one: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow
a human being to come to harm,
– Law two: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where
such orders would conflict with the First Law, and
– Law three: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law (Abrahm & Kenter, 1978).
Although these laws were introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround, it
can be ascertained that they are quite relevant in the 21st century. Humanoids
are robots that resemble human beings with high interactive bodily auton-
omy. In 2014, Softbank mobile from Japan collaborated with a French com-
pany, Aldebaran Robotics, to create the first humanoid named Pepper, who
could assist humans by reading and responding to human emotions. Sophia
was developed in 2016 by Hansen Technologies and was the first robotic arti-
ficial intelligence system to gain citizenship of a country30 (Kalra & Chadha,
2018; Weller, 2017). This was a grand achievement where humans were able to
converse with autonomous robots, and allowed deep learning or deep neural
networks31 to be attested to.
India was the first country to endorse a humanoid robot named Eagle 2.032
to replace a teacher in one of their schools, allowing for two-way interaction
between human students and a robot teacher (Ullas, 2019). The teacher would
readily respond to student’s questions, as it possessed a bank of knowledge. Drone
technology has advanced from basic toy drones to sophisticated flying machines.
Tech and e-commerce company, Amazon,33 are planning to implement drone
delivery systems for online orders (D’Onfro, 2019). This delivery system will have
positive impacts, such as reduced carbon emissions,34 reduced waiting times,
24/7 delivery, and the company is likely to no delivery costs because gas is not
required; thus resulting in happier customers. This is just one of the many cases
where the technologies of IR 4.0 is changing the way we do things.
2.9 Robots and Education

Teachers and practitioners of education have access to a wide variety of educa-
tional robotics they can use. An exceptional robotic kit to have in class is the Lego
Mindstorm series. Based on my own experience, it is difficult to source funds
to purchase robotic equipment, since it is generally expensive. Arduino and
Raspberry Pi are cheaper alternatives to costly kits like Mindstorm or Tinker-
Bots. Simulation software is a cost-effective solution if there are no funds at
42 Govender
all.35 Educational robotics are learning tools that adopt a hands-on learning
experience,36 thus proving ideal for project-based learning, as they incorporate
coding, computational thinking and engineering skills or the integration of all
these.
There is no definitive guide to integrating robotics into lessons. However,
the teacher must find meaningful ways to include the robot, together with its
electronic components like sensors and actuators in the existing subject mat-
ter. Transdisciplinary STEM education is widely understood as an educational
approach that integrates Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(Gerlach, 2014). Although educational robotics may seem more pertinent to
STEM-related subjects, there are opportunities to integrate these tools with
non-STEM subjects such as social studies, literacy, music and art. Technology
allows the students to express themselves, promotes problem-solving and
enhances critical thinking.
2.10 The DNA of a Robotics Curriculum

Papert’s research focused on how students engage using tools and media,
which results in self-directed learning (Ackermann, 2004). In contrast, Piaget
was less interested in the use of tools and media and focused on how knowl-
edge systems evolve (Brainerd, 2003). Piaget’s stages of cognitive development
consist of four fundamental stages (Piaget, 1972). These stages are meaning-
fully mapped against the use of available educational robotic technologies in
Table 3.1. Piagetian theory best suits the introduction of these technologies to
younger students. It is worthy to point out that Jean Piaget and Seymour Pap-
ert worked together, and the work of these prestigious educationalists is inte-
grated here (Table 3.1).
2.11 Some Educational Robotic Curriculums and Competitions

– WaterBotics (http://waterbotics.org/) is an underwater robotics curriculum
for middle and high school students developed by the Stevens Center for
Innovation in Engineering & Science Education;
– RoboParty (http://www.roboparty.org/en/) is a robotics camp organized at
Universidade do Minho in Guimarães Portugal by Professor A. Fernando
Ribeiro, his students, and staff;
– RoboCupJunior (RCJ) (robocupjunior.org) is an educational robotics ini-
tiative that promotes STEM learning, coding, computational thinking, and
engineering skills with hands-on, project-based and goal-oriented learning
through an educational robotics competition;
– First Lego League (FLL) (http://www.firstlegoleague.org/) is an interna-
tional competition where teams are introduced to scientific and real-world
challenges and are required to solve them using Lego robotics; and
table 3.1 Piaget’s stages of cognitive development integrated with educational robotics

(adapted from Piaget, 1964)
Piaget’s stages Level Skill Softwarea Hardwareb

of cognitive
development
Sensorimotor Pre-primary Matching, order, –c Lego blocks

(0–2 years) rearranging
Preoperational Early years of Adding order codeSpark Sphero, Lego
(2–7 years) primary school to programs, Academy, We Do, Kibo,
following steps, Scratch Jr, BeeBots
block-based Kodabled
programming
Concreate Late years Implementing Scratch, App Lego
operational primary school various orders Inventor, Bits Mindstorm,
(7–11 years) to advanced box, Kodu Cubelets,
programs, Game Lab, Bioloid,
block-based Alice OzoBot
programming
Formal High school and Text-based Delphi Arduino,
operationale beyond programming, Embarcadero, Rasberry Pi,
(11 years (some might programming for Netbeans, Vex iQ
and older) have been real-life scenarios JGrasp,
exploited earlier) PyCharm
a Software is program or programs controlling the operation of a computer or micro

processes.
b Hardware: Physical component that can be connected to a computer system.
c At this age it would not be ideal to introduce the use of software.
d The use of software should be introduced in later years of say 5.
e The formal operation stage is key to abstract thought and metacognition.
– World Robotic League (WRL) (https://worldroboticsleague.com/) is a rob-

otics competition for students of all ages to participate using a variety of
Robotics Kits.
3 Conclusion
This chapter has presented an overview of some of the innovative tech-

nologies of the 21st century that can be incorporated into one’s pedagogic
44 Govender
practice. This stemmed from theoretical research mainly informed by the

works of Freire (2018), Papert (1980) and Piaget (1972). Attention is given to
coding and robotics, as these fields are central to IR 4.0. The world is chang-
ing rapidly, influenced by technological advancements. The dawn of IR 4.0 is
creating a ripple effect on education. Thus it is essential to highlight topics
like coding and robotics, which are paramount skills to ensure students’ future
success.37
It would seem that the processing power available in the 4IR era will acceler-
ate the entry of 5IR, as humanity has accessed quantum computing power, and
has created autonomous humanoids that react to human emotions. With this
surge of technology, it is crucial to prepare future generations to be highly ana-
lytically minded. Computational Thinking will, therefore, be beneficial to stu-
dents and teachers alike, as it encompasses algorithmic design, problem-solving
and logical skills that can be adapted to many disciplines. This thinking is an all-
in-one cognitive ability that promotes the future success of our students from
an early age and should be integrated into the school curriculum.
A tabulated overview of recommended software and hardware tools based
on Piaget’s theory (Piaget, 1972) gives the teacher an idea of possibilities, con-
cerning the core focus taught at each grade when introducing robotics and
coding. The teacher should seize every opportunity possible to integrate educa-
tional robotics into the subject matter. The online platform is making learning
(e-learning) convenient, with higher speeds and a variety of content to meet
students’ learning requirements. Together with a PC tablet, the latter provides
an e-learning environment that is portable and easily accessible. However, stu-
dents must familiarize themselves with the tablet. Digital Kingship’s two-year
curriculum creates an ideal introduction to motivate students to learn while
gaining mastery of this educational tool.
It is observed that many initiatives are driving the importance of coding and
robotic applications in schools globally. South Africa is aligning itself with the
4IR era. Recent government interests are piloting ways to integrate coding and
robotics into the primary school curriculum. South Africa has started initiating
digital education revolution processes; however, time will reveal the success of
these initiatives.
Notes
1 Also known as qubits. A bit can be 0 or 1, but qubits can take on an infinite number of values.
Read about Holevo’s theorem, for further understanding.
2 Fourth industrial revolution (IR 4.0).
3 The Digital Age or Information Age started around the 1970s with the introduction of the per-
sonal computer. Read more: https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/23/the-three-ages-of-digital/
4 The first website built was at CERN, France, and was live on the August 1991. It is still operat-
ing and can be visited at http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html
5 An area in San Francisco that is a hub for high technology, innovation, and social media.
6 Both Facebook and Google have created Augmented reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR)
headsets.
7 Rote learning.
8 Some countries like Japan and Switzerland have acquired active 5G networks since mid-2019.
9 Internet user live statistics: https://www.internetlivestats.com/
10 In this chapter the word learner is reference to student and vice-versa.
11 Not a one size fit all stance.
12 Visit http://fibonacci.africa/ to experience interactive applets base on math and computer
concepts.
13 The hints are crucial when planning an online activity and can take the form of text, video,
voice notes, etc.
14 The name Digital Kingship refers to the rank a person who is digitally/ICT competent. One
who completes the course, has completed the rite of passage to e-learning and is deemed ICT
literate.
15 Time tabling system.
16 Tablet is a portable PC whose primary interface is a touch screen.
17 Focus of specific knowledge.
18 Cyberbullying is an electronic form of online bullying or harassment and teenagers are com-
mon victims of such crime.
19 Students will follow the teachers actions step by step.
20 Difference between CMS and LMS: CMS is a more passive application, which is mostly used
to view documents. CMS is sometimes referred to Classroom Management System. Whereas
LMS (Learning Management System) is an application where students are motivated to be
interactive with the system for example taking a quiz. Creators are able to create a quiz and
track progress of students.
21 Google classroom is free: https://classroom.google.com
22 During planning, teachers should complete this curriculum, so they have experienced this
learning. process, and this ensures that the digital gap among staff is closed.
23 Teachers and students must have separate accounts for online communication.
24 Being a technology-based curriculum, rapid development and advances should be unpacked.
25 There generally two broad styles of programming block and text based coding.
26 Africa code week takes place on the African continent spear headed by business applica-
tions company, SAP. This initiative boasts African youth empowerment and is aligned to the
United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals.
27 https://hourofcode.com/
28 Algorithms were invented by Ebu Abdullah Muhammed Ibn Musa el Harezmi who is a
Muslim mathematician.
29 Originally three laws were mentioned and years later the fourth law was added.
30 Citizenship was granted by Saudi Arabia: https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-
citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856
31 Deep learning is a subset of machine learning (ML) that is associated with artificial intelli-
gence (AI). Deep learning or deep neural network, consists of networks that are capable of
learning unsupervised and unstructured data.
46 Govender
32 Read more at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/as-teachers-watch-robots-impart-

lessons-in-this-school/articleshow/70867286.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_
medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
33 Online shopping website.
34 Promotes a greener environment and happy polar bears. Read more at:
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/polar-bears-and-climate-change
35 These software programs can be available on Windows or Mac, and generates a virtual envi-
ronment that simulates the movement of a robot.
36 Promoting kinesthetic learning environments.
37 The liberality of Freire’s educational principle.
References
Abrahm, P. M., & Kenter, S. (1978). Tik-Tok and the three laws of robotics. Science Fic-
tion Studies, 5(1), 67–80.
Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In M.
Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and
flow in collaborative learning environments (pp. 15–37). IOS Press.
Albertazzi, D., & Cobley, P. (2013). The media: An introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Anistyasari, Y., & Kurniawan, A. (2018). Exploring computational thinking to improve
energy-efficient programming skills. MATEC Web of Conferences, 197(2018), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819715011
Bates, A. W. (1988). Television, learning and distance education. Journal of Educational
Television, 14(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260741880140305
Brainerd, C. J. (2003). Jean Piaget: Learning, research, and American education. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions
(pp. 251–287). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buyukozturk, S., Cokluk, O., & Koklu, N. (2010). The statistics for the social sciences (6th
ed.). Pegem Academy.
Coles, A. D. (1999). Education week: Mass-produced pencil leaves its mark.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1999/06/16/40pencil.h18.html
Curzon, P. (2015). Computational thinking: Searching to speak.
https://cs4fndownloads.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/searchingtospeak-booklet.pdf
D’Onfro, J. (2019). Amazon’s new delivery drone will start shipping packages in a matter
of months. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/06/05/amazon-new-
delivery-drone-remars-warehouse-robots-alexa-prediction/#e0c08b1145f3
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communi-
cations of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438
Falloon, G. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic cod-
ing tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6),
576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155
Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argu-
ment: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75397
Gatouillat, A., Badr, Y., Massot, B., & Sejdić, E. (2018). Internet of medical things: A
review of recent contributions dealing with cyber-physical systems in medicine.
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(5), 3810–3822. https://doi.org/ff10.1109/
JIOT.2018.2849014f
Gerlach, J. (2012). STEM: Defying a simple definition. http://www.nsta.org/publications/
news/story.aspx?id=59305
Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (2010). Cognition and student-centered, web-based
learning: Issues and implications for research and theory. In M. Spector & D. Ifen-
thaler (Eds.), Learning and instruction in the digital age (pp. 11–23). Springer.
Heaney, L. (2019). Quantum computing and complexity in art. Leonardo, 52(3), 230–235.
https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01572
Hilty, E. B. (2018). Thinking about schools: A foundations of education reader. Routledge.
Jacob, S., Nguyen, H., Tofel-Grehl, C., Richardson, D., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Teaching
computational thinking to English learners. NYS TESOL Journal, 5(2), 12–24.
Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking
based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3),
583–596.
Kalra, H. K., & Chadha, R. (2018). A review study on humanoid robot SOPHIA based
on artificial intelligence. International Journal of Technology and Computing, 4(3),
31–33. https://doi.org/H10420688S219
Kim, B. H. (2016). Development of young children coding drone using block game.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(44), 1–5.
Korkmaz, O., Cakir, R., Ozden, M. Y., Oluk, A., & Sarioglu, S. (2016). Investigation of
individuals’ computational thinking skills in terms of different variables. Ondokuz
Mayis University Journal of Faculty of Education, 34(2), 68–87.
Li, S., Da Xu, L., & Zhao, S. (2018). 5G Internet of Things: A survey. Journal of Industrial
Information Integration, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2018.01.005
Liu, B., & He, J. (2014, August 22–24). Teaching mode reform and exploration on the
university computer basic based on computational thinking training in network
environment. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Sci-
ence & Education (pp. 59–62). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2014.6926430
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An
argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
Musson, A. E., & Robinson, E. (1959). The early growth of steam power. The Economic
History Review, 11(3), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.1959.tb01650.x
Muttappallymyalil, J., Mendis, S., John, L. J., Shanthakumari, N., Sreedharan, J., &
Shaikh, R. B. (2016). Evolution of technology in teaching: Blackboard and beyond in
48 Govender
medical education. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 6(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.3126/

nje.v6i3.15870
Naidoo, J., & Govender, R. (2014). Exploring the use of a dynamic online software pro-
gramme in the teaching and learning of trigonometric graphs. Pythagoras, 35(2),
45–57. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v35i2.260
Naidoo, J., & Govender, R. (2019). Exploring in-service and pre-service teachers’ per-
ceptions of integrating technology-based tools when teaching circle geometry.
The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning, 26(2),
29–49. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7971/CGP
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Harvester Press.
Philbeck, T., & Davis, N. (2019). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal of Interna-
tional Affairs, 72(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/26588339
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
2(1), 176–186.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Littlefield.
Pierce, D., & Hathaway, A. (2018). The promise (and pitfalls) of AI for education: Arti-
ficial Intelligence could have a profound impact on learning, but it also raises key
Questions. The Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 45(3), 20.
Reynolds, R. (2011). Trends influencing the growth of digital textbooks in US higher
education. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12109-011-9216-5
Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017). Computational thinking development through
creative programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0080-z
Roy, S., Williamson, C., & McLean, R. (2018). LMS performance issues: A case study of
D2L. ISCA Journal of Computers and Their Applications, 25(3), 1–9.
Sano, A. (2019). Newspaper economy: Coding will be mandatory in Japan’s primary
schools from 2020 Tokyo aims to plug IT worker shortage and catch up to other countries.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Coding-will-be-mandatory-in-Japan-s-primary-
schools-from-2020
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-
it-means-and-how-to-respond/
Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education.
Bergin & Garvey.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.128.3330.969
SONA. (2019). State of the Nation Address. https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-
cyril-ramaphosa-2019-state-nation-address
Ullas, S. (2019). Lessons in this school. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/
70867286.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_
campaign=cppst
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in
compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and
Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
Weller, C. (2017). Meet the first-ever robot citizen: A humanoid named Sophia that once
said it would ‘destroy humans’. https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-first-
robot-citizen-sophia-animatronic-humanoid-2017-10
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
https://doi.org/0001-0782/06/0300
PART 2
The 21st-Century Classroom Environment
∵
CHAPTER 4
Visualizing as a Means of Understanding in the

Fourth Industrial Revolution Environment
Vimolan Mudaly
Abstract
Visualization has been a subject of much research, and recently, technology in terms
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution movement has also been in vogue. While visuali-
zation serves as a strong tool for problem-solving, technology offers learners the pos-
sibility of experiencing mathematics and science in a dynamic environment, with
diagrams changing by simply dragging or implementing a code. If these changes are
visible and understandable, then they offer opportunities for an increased conviction
that something is either true or not. This interpretivist qualitative study combined
these areas of study to explore the possibility of engaging learners using technology
from a visual perspective. Thirteen in-service teachers were asked to design lessons
that incorporated visuals and learners were allowed to engage in these lessons actively.
These participants then became co-researchers of the study. The research sites varied,
and therefore the lessons planned and delivered were not the same for all participants.
The participants reported an increase in learner confidence and a subsequent improve-
ment in understanding of concepts. The framework that was used as a lens to look at
the data was the Iterative Visualization Cycle, which was an adaptation of Kolb’s Expe-
riential Learning Theory. Much of what is written is from the participants’ perspectives
because it was their voices that needed to be highlighted.
1 Introduction
Krantz (2015) stated that “never mind the shame that in the past, we were
not concerned about teaching [mathematics]. Now we are all concerned,
and that is good” (p. xi). The concern arose out of the prevailing evidence
that learners are underperforming in tests and examinations. Research has
shown that teachers are not doing well in their teaching. Naidoo (2005, p. 198)
found that:

54 Mudaly
the practices in these teachers’ classrooms, there was a tendency towards

regimentation in the learning environment, with the teacher clearly in
authority. Classroom interactions were dominated by a focus on getting
the right answers, usually through some procedure given by the teacher.
When pupils were left to work on exercises themselves, they did this
largely in silence. The weaving of fundamental pedagogics into the social
fabric of these classroom practices is highly visible.
But, in reforming teaching we are beginning to engage our learners actively

through using technology and skills that require the use of visuals, both physi-
cally and mentally. The critical goal of teacher education is classroom success
for the learner. Hence, teacher preparation must involve ideas that extend their
teaching methodologies to reach far beyond the traditional chalk and talk.
My experiences as a teacher educator and researcher show that in preparing
participants for the task of teaching mathematics, they struggle with the dif-
ferent approaches available to them. The traditional teaching method is useful
but is becoming archaic as we move into the 21st century. Shulman (1987, p. 13)
claimed that teaching began with an act of reason, continued with the process
of reasoning, culminating in performances of imparting, eliciting, involving, or
enticing. He further stated that after a period of reflection, the process repeats
itself. He highlighted teaching as the processes of comprehension and reason-
ing and, as transformation and reflection (1987, p. 13).
The ideas of Shulman (1986, 1987) combined with Kolb’s Experiential Learn-
ing Theory (1984) provide an ideal framework with which to examine preservice
teacher development. Shulman specifically referred to the action of teaching,
while Kolb’s theory refers to the process of learning. This combination is ideal
for exploring the learning the preservice teachers experience as they develop
the skills to become proficient in their field. The model illustrated in Figure 4.1
combines the two theories but from a visual perspective.
2 Future of Mathematics Education
Zinger, Tate, and Warschauer (2017, p. 579) noted: “that positive participant
outcomes have been achieved when teachers are provided with technical sup-
port and professional development for the integration of technology in the
classroom”. That is exactly where the future of education should be heading.
The advent of Covid-19 suddenly thrust the world into a frenzy looking for
technological solutions for remote teaching. Teachers are currently not pre-
pared for the use of alternative methods.
Visualizing as a Means of Understanding 55
But, creating deep conceptual understanding in learners is an important

role of teachers. The expansion of mathematical knowledge involves the pro-
cess of creating new knowledge by forming associations with new information
and previously acquired knowledge. Generally, learners fail to see these links
and hence they become conceptually deficient. The understanding of mathe-
matical concepts is enhanced by the integration of computer technology into
the classroom teaching and learning strategy. Technology, in particular virtual
manipulatives, is significant in the way it influences conceptual development
in mathematics learning. These virtual manipulatives, including Computer
Generated Animations, GeoGebra, Sketchpad or any other dynamic software
tool, could mediate the learning of mathematical concepts as we teach in the
era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Also, with the advent of easier
computing facilities and smartphones, children have greater access to learning
using an array of technology. This then provides a new dimension to learning.
According to Martínez, Bárcena and Rodríguez (2005, p. 1):
…true understanding of mathematics takes place as learners progress

through phases of action (physical and mental), abstraction (the pro-
cess by which actions become mentally entrenched so that learners
can reflect and act on them), and reflection (deliberate analysis of one’s
thinking). Moving through these phases time after time enables learners
to construct increasingly sophisticated mental models of the abstraction.
3 Use of Technology
This study aimed to explore whether technological manipulatives could pro-

vide learners with the necessary tools to enable them to understand math-
ematical concepts through their engagement with them. The dominance of
technology in almost all spheres of human life and the highly digitized world
has created a paradigm shift in the way we look at teaching and learning in
the era of the 4IR. The idea that the teacher is the sage on the stage, wielding
a stick of chalk as s/he approaches the board is now an archaic one. Teaching
and learning have expanded to include a variety of media, including comput-
ers, radio, television, podcasts or Internet. We must be acutely conscious of the
fact that technology also includes non-electronic media and tools (paper cut-
tings, bending of wires to form parallelograms, and so on). Technology refers to
all the tools or paraphernalia that learners use in their quest to establish a deep
understanding of an unknown phenomenon.
56 Mudaly
But dynamic electronic technology has a distinct advantage in that it allows

the learner to engage in more experiences in a shorter period of time. Accord-
ing to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000, p. 24):
…electronic technologies…furnish visual images of mathematical ideas,

they facilitate organizing and analyzing data, and they compute effi-
ciently and accurately. They can support investigations by learners in
every area of mathematics. When technology tools are available, learn-
ers can focus on decision making, reflection, reasoning, and problem-
solving.
4 Visualization
The influence of technology is significant, but its value in mathematics is mea-

sured in how technology can be used to create a scaffold between the previous
knowledge and new concepts to be taught. While the 4IR has created a digital
miasma (a large portion of the world is being left behind), its value will be
felt in the way it is utilized to reinforce ideas that may be too abstract for chil-
dren to grasp. That is why Arcavi’s (2003, p. 217) definition of visualization is so
significant. His often-quoted definition captured the essence of visualization
when he stated that:
Visualization is the ability, the process and the product of creation,

interpretation, use of and reflection upon pictures, images, diagrams,
in our minds, on paper or with technological tools, with the purpose of
depicting and communicating information, thinking about and develop-
ing previously unknown ideas and advancing understandings. (Arcavi,
2003, p. 217)
The principle of the definition lies in the notion that ideas can be created
by reflecting on pictures, diagrams or images, whether they are on paper or
through the use of technology. This is about physically seeing and then men-
tally reflecting on what is seen. This definition captures the essential link
between visualization and methodologies that need to be employed in the 21st
century. It is not only about the influx of new and complex technology. It must
also include the different ways in which new and existing technologies and
methodologies can be adapted to cater for learners in this fast-changing digital
scenario.
5 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Figure 4.1 describes the process of learning through experiences that applies
to all learning but was used for the analysis of data collected from preservice
teachers. The process begins with active engagement. This could be a physi-
cal activity (for example, drawing, reading, listening or the use of technology)
or a mental activity (for example, imagining, recalling). The physical activity
relates to the senses, mainly sight and the mental activity relates mainly to
insight. In this stage, the learner does something to the information available –
either physically or mentally. This is the doing stage. But the process of mean-
ing-making may require more than one attempt. Often it involves an iteration
between internalization and externalization processes. The learner acts on the
information physically, a level of understanding results by associating the new
information with previously acquired knowledge and then the learner returns
to the activity.
This process of ‘acting’ on the information (‘doing’) and then reflecting
(‘thinking’) on it can result in an iterative process of doing and thinking. These
mental and physical manipulations are often subtle and occur almost simul-
taneously. These may be accompanied by mental images and physical images
(technology, diagrams, pictures and sketches). This is the stage where insight
develops (‘I see’). The use of visuals, technology and dynamic software enables
figure 4.1 The iterative visualization thinking cycle

58 Mudaly
the learner to work with a visual, analyze its properties and establish a level
of understanding. With the new understanding, further analysis ensues to
establish a higher level of understanding. This visual-analytical thinking will
continue until the requisite level of understanding is attained (‘I got it’). This
is the symbolic stage where understanding results in the formation of new
knowledge and the transformation of existing knowledge. At this step, the
learner should be able to produce a proof. The final stage is the application
stage where the new knowledge is used to explain and solve problems in the
contexts presented. Once attained, the process may begin with a new concept.
The visual mediators may be diagrams, pictures or dynamic computer-gen-
erated diagrams that can stimulate the learner into thinking about a specific
concept or idea. For example, a picture of a triangle may elicit thoughts about
the sizes of angles and sides, the sum of the angles, the side opposite the larg-
est angle is the largest, or the area of the triangle using a formula. A picture
tends to draw on previously acquired knowledge (a priori). If the knowledge
is well understood then easy recall of relationships is possible. Using imagi-
nation or mental pictures is similar but slightly more difficult. For example,
if I asked learners to recall a rhombus, learners may picture different types of
rhombi but the properties will be similar. These mental images will depend on
the previous experiences of the learner. It would be impossible for the learner
to mentally picture a rhombus if s/he had never seen one before. Both phys-
ical and mental images could be powerful tools. Similarly, in the understand-
ing stage, the manipulation of these images is crucial for deep conceptual
understanding.
An additional model that is crucial in understanding the iterative processes
involved was presented by Chaouki and Hasenbank (2013) (Figure 4.2). The
model explains the conceptual and procedural understanding of the acqui-
sition of knowledge in a succinct way. The model carefully elucidates the
relationships between shallow and deep understanding of concepts. They
illustrate the acquisition of both procedural and conceptual knowledge by
using a three-dimensional figure, which measures conceptual understanding
against the skills acquired by participants who are novices at solving prob-
lems, and compares these with those of the more experienced, as the par-
ticipant improves at solving the problems. The model illustrates the types of
understanding achieved as a learner goes from being a novice to becoming
experienced and efficient at working with the mathematics concepts.
Novice learners’ conceptual understanding is shallow with little connec-
tion between the new concept and previous concepts. Often the procedures
involved are not understood or memorized and it appears as if the brain has
become overloaded with new facts. As understanding deepens, they begin
to form connections between new and prior concepts, but understanding is

still illusory. Although procedures are executed slowly they are still not well-
understood. Even the ‘practiced’ can also have a shallow understanding of
mathematical concepts. In this case, procedures are performed by rote, and
although concepts are well-memorized, they are still disconnected from other
related concepts. If deep understanding is to be achieved by the ‘practiced’ or
experienced learner, then procedures ought to be executed intelligently with
understanding and new concepts become well connected with all previous but
related concepts.
figure 4.2 Improving understanding in Algebra 1: A deeper understanding of Algebra/Math

(adapted from Chaouki & Hasenbank, 2013)
6 Methodology
As part of their independent research task in one of their Honors modules

(Curriculum Development in Science and Mathematics Education), partici-
pants were asked to prepare lessons that specifically used visualization as a
strategy to teach concepts in mathematics and science. The participants were
encouraged to use a variety of computer software, videos and demonstrations
so that the visualizations became dynamic and, in some instances, dynamic.
This was a qualitative study located within the interpretivist paradigm. The
aim was to try to develop a deeper understanding of how these strategies
60 Mudaly
employed in classrooms would influence learner meaning-making. Although

there were 49 participants in the class, participation in the research itself was
completely voluntary and 13 participants chose to become co-researchers.
The planning of their lessons, choice of topics and methods used were all
left entirely to them. The only stipulation was that they had to conduct three to
five lessons using the chosen methodology in one week and record their expe-
riences. Being novices at research, the participants were tentative with what
they reported but there was sufficient information to report on their research
findings. After the participants had completed their lessons they were asked
to complete a questionnaire using Google Forms and were interviewed in a
group using Zoom. The location of the schools varied from urban to rural areas
in KwaZulu-Natal, and the facilities available in each school ranged from fully
equipped with technology to those schools which had none.
7 Findings, Analysis and Discussion
Participants used both visual (drawings, sketches and mental pictures) and
physical activities in their co-research activities. They were then asked to com-
ment on what they learned from the exercise of engaging in these visualization
activities. Participant S1 stated that his learners had to also use both physi-
cal objects (including computer-generated diagrams) and their imagination
(mental). His learners were asked to firstly visualize a 3-D object to calculate
its area and were then shown a computer demonstration of a rotating object to
see how their mental images compared with what they had imagined. Learn-
ers were expected to compare the calculations in both instances.
S2, on the other hand, enticed his learners into drawing diagrams by listen-
ing to the statement of a theorem. They were then guided through a GeoGebra
discovery session. This involved a combination of visuals that they saw and the
visuals that they had to imagine. Participant S4 used computer simulations in
his lessons. They were able to see, through the simulations, how the science
experiments worked, and then, they were able to carry out similar experiments
on their own. According to participant S4 the learners:
did, in some sense, use imagination to translate the simulation into real-life
situations in the applications as well. (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020)
A number of participants simply used physical diagrams which they asked

learners to interpret, manipulate or use together with words to understand
a concept. Participant S7 did suggest though that using visuals mentally and
physically removed some of the language barriers that are common in South
African classrooms. Participant S12, who also used Sketchpad demonstrations,
stated that he:
learnt that a visualization is a motivational tool that enhanced the teach-

ing and learning environment of my classroom. While working with the
assessment task I observed that visualization helped learners understand
and grasp the mathematical concepts easily. The use of visualization sim-
plified the concepts in such a way that learners no longer saw transfor-
mations as abstract. (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020)
The thematic analysis was determined by the general responses of the par-
ticipants in the online questionnaire and from the Zoom interview. Similar
responses were clustered into categories and arguments evolved around these
participant responses.
7.1 Learners’ Manipulation of the Figure in the Task

The participants were asked to comment on their learners’ ability to manip-
ulate the diagrams, figures and software and, the level of understanding the
activity generated. Participant S1 felt the learners were able to easily manipu-
late the figures both physically and mentally. As is evident in the extract from
the Focus Group Interview that follows:
Yes, they did, they were then able to use their visual reasoning even after
the figures were manipulated, where they were asked to imagine if the
3-D objects were either open or closed or if other parts were removed.
Making a connection between what they had seen and what they were
asked, made it easy for learners to answer the questions correctly. (Focus
group interview, 25 February 2020)
There was consensus among the participants that learners were able to
manipulate the diagrams, figures and software. In this process of meaning-mak-
ing, the learners were able to utilize the given artefacts to develop a greater
sense of the concept itself, resulting in more in-depth understanding. Jiang et
al. (2011, p. 4) also concur that that to manipulate a diagram, “techniques based
on an underlying structure of the diagram are effective and efficient”. They
worked on hand-drawn diagrams but this could easily be extrapolated to other
diagrams as well. Participant S7, who also worked with 3-D shapes, found that:
62 Mudaly
the learners who were exposed to the computer-generated 3-D shapes

could easily calculate areas even without having the shapes in front of
them. They were able to create mental images and perform their calcula-
tions with ease. These learners seemed to have a greater understanding
of working with 3D shapes. They understood how to find the surface area
and the volume of the given images. (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020)
Participant S4 found that the learners understood the activity as well as the
PHET (Physics Education Technology) simulation. He stated that:
they got a visual interpretation and understanding of the phenomena

first and this created the knowledge for them that they may have found
hard to understand through ordinary, plain text. They did ask questions;
however, most of these were trivial as they developed their own under-
standings. (Focus group interview, 25 February 2020)
Many of the participants reported that the diagrams and visuals used were
self-explanatory, and the learners required little guidance. There may have
been instances where the participant (as the teacher) was called upon to
explain, but in general, the diagrams or activities were self-explanatory. Partici-
pant S2 chose to work with two theorems in Euclidean geometry. He decided to
use GeoGebra to demonstrate these theorems diagrammatically. Learners had
to measure lengths and angles so that they could draw hypotheses about the
relationships between the different angles and lengths. This was experiential
and would have involved both mental and physical manipulations.
7.2 Learners’ Reaction to the Activity

The participants were asked about the learners’ reaction to the activity and
how they responded. There was a great deal of enthusiasm exhibited by the
learners and an unusual willingness to participate in the activities. This could
have been as a result of the uniqueness of the tasks, but nonetheless, they did
engage more than expected. Participant S13 observed that:
while learners were answering their activity, some learners were moving
their hands like we discussed earlier in the lesson for the different types
of transformation. Additionally, some learners wrote the lyrics of the
song on a page to help them recall transformation. I noticed that learners
were excited to move their hands to show the transformation. However,
when the learners watched the video of transformation, they were very
enthusiastic and asked to watch it more than once. (Focus group inter-
view, 25 February 2020)
Participant S1 felt that the learners understood and answered the questions
about nets of the 3-D objects with relative ease. More importantly, though, was
their ability to connect what they were learning with their previous knowl-
edge. In some instances, participants used pencil and paper methods first and
then other visual strategies, including computer software. Participant S2, for
example, tried to teach participants two theorems using ‘chalk and talk’. Most
participants could not understand, nor could they recall even the statement of
the theorem. But when they were exposed to GeoGebra:
they were quick to arrive at the conclusion of both the theorem and its
converse. (Focus group interview, 25 February 2020)
There was also an overall tendency for learners to want to work together.
Participant S11 observed that the learners tried to add to the activity by provid-
ing their own interpretations of what they saw and also helped other learners
understand. Participation was not normal in her classes because of learners’
fear of not understanding and ‘looking silly’ in front of the entire class. Accord-
ing to participant S11, the learners’ initial reaction was that it looked easy and
simple to comprehend as they could ‘see’ it with their own eyes. Philominraj,
Jeyabalan and Vidal-Silva (2017, p. 54) also concluded from their research that
“when learners are introduced into the world of images, spontaneous creativ-
ity towards the goal is achieved”. In the current research, it could have been the
activities, but there seemed to have been an overwhelming acceptance of the
ideas around the visual strategies. Technology makes the creation and manip-
ulation of these diagrams much easier.
7.3 Learners’ Ability to Engage with Concepts

There was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the visualization of the les-
sons enabled the learners to engage actively in the lessons and with the con-
cepts under scrutiny. For example, participant S1 felt that the learners:
were able to picture the 3-D objects and connect them with the previous
lesson on calculating the area of a 2-D shape to enhance their under-
standing. Pictures and diagrams helped them to quickly connect con-
cepts as they showed understanding. (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020)
To see learners develop this relationship with current and previous work
while working within the domain of visualization, was not unusual. For the
process of meaning-making to occur and the concepts to be well-connected,
being able to see the relationship as a visual proof often plays a more profound
role than simply being told about the relationship. In a similar way, participant
64 Mudaly
S2 discovered that by becoming engrossed in the GeoGebra activity the learn-

ers were able, on their own, to calculate missing lengths on the circles or trian-
gles given to them. The fact that they engaged in the activity and arrived at the
hypothesis themselves contributed to their confidence and success at solving
the problems. Participant S12 also found that:
they were able to integrate the activity with the concept because it was
their findings that allowed them to draw a conjecture, and generalize and
that was, in fact, the theorem. (Focus group interview, 25 February 2020)
Other patterns also emerged. Participant S8 wrote about the procedure

that her learners followed after observing them work through a few examples.
These were her observations during geometry lessons. The learners would read
the questions, pause and read the questions again. They would then underline
or highlight important words or known facts. This was either followed by the
learner drawing a diagram or adding some information onto a given diagram.
Generally, learners tried to include what is given in the statements onto the
diagram. The learners would then try to solve the problem on the diagram
itself. This is a fairly significant observation because it shows the role that the
visuals play in both understanding the concept and in the application of the
concept.
This type of visualization did not have to necessarily occur in complex prob-
lems only. Participant S4 worked with probability, specifically on the use of
Venn-diagrams and the use of shading to show the union of sets, complement,
universal set and that which was mutually exclusive. She found that the learn-
ers were able to transfer the meaning of the shading of the various diagrams to
the written work and find the solutions of the questions in the activities given.
7.4 Learners’ Iteration between the Activity and the Question

Learners’ ability to engage with concepts may require them to iterate between
the question and the activity several times. As was observed by participant S8,
there was a general tendency of the learners to read their questions several
times as they solved the problem. The participants could not explain the phe-
nomenon because they felt that if the learners understood the question once,
then there was no need to revert to the question again. Participant S1’s obser-
vation showed that the learners read the question a few times then sketched a
diagram and then returned to the question to see whether the diagram made
‘sense’. This is indeed a significant step because the sense-making process
requires that the learner attempts to create a deeper understanding of the
problem itself before proceeding with the solution.
7.5 Participant Observations

As co-researchers, it was important to understand what the Participants
observed as they watched their learners work through the different activities.
These observations were significant in locating the role visualization played in
conceptual understanding. Participant S1 acknowledged that visual represen-
tations helped the learners understand the questions and what the question
expects of them. The diagrams and pictures themselves assist learners to visu-
alize the different parts of the question and then they draw the diagram. They
then answer the question based on the drawn diagram while making connec-
tions with previously learned knowledge.
Many of the participants observed the learners work both individually and
collectively. If a visual was not providing sufficient information for some then
other learners would become actively involved in explaining and sharing ideas.
This participatory learning style was encouraged throughout the research
among all participant researchers. It was observed that the learners who had
knowledge, helped and shared what they understood with others. Some of the
participants observed that the learners showed greater enthusiasm in class
with unusual concentration levels. This was not a longitudinal study so it can-
not be stated with absolute confidence that it was the visualization activities
that created these changes in the learners.
Participant S2 also made an encouraging observation. He found that hardly
any of the learners had developed serious misconceptions. They were applying
what was learnt in the activity appropriately and it seemed as if the fact that
they could see many of the concepts depicted in diagrams or using GeoGebra
helped eradicate possible misconceptions.
7.6 The Role the Visuals Played in Understanding of the Concepts

There was an overwhelming consensus that without the visuals the learners
would have struggled to understand the concepts. Cook (2012), while specifi-
cally writing about science, stated that most often, visuals are used to depict
phenomena and relationships that students cannot observe or experience
directly and this seems to be true for mathematics as well. The participants felt
that it was better when the learners worked with what they could see. This was
reinforced by participant S2 when he said that the visuals allowed them to see
what they were learning. He was convinced that:
Seeing is believing – and in this sense, learners were not learning through
text which makes concepts abstract. They were also able to interact with
the visualization tools and better comprehend the concepts. (Focus group
interview, 25 February 2020)
66 Mudaly
Some comparison was also drawn to previous experiences of the learners.

Participant S3 claimed that previously learners were not adept with solving
geometric riders since they began working with visualization strategies; they
are more willing to tackle these problems. In measuring the actual success of
her learners, participant S8 indicated that more than 75% of the class managed
to pass with more than 60% accuracy. This was not the norm in her class. Gen-
erally, less than 40% of the learners passed with a mark of 40% or more. She
also asked her learners to complete an evaluation form, and their responses
generally indicated that learning with visuals deepened their understanding
and even suggested that this type of teaching also be adapted to other topics.
Participant S9 captured a significant role that visuals played in the understand-
ing of concepts. He found that the visual used:
played an important role by condensing a large amount of data into one

diagram and this made it easier for the learner to make sense of it. (Ques-
tionnaire, 25 February 2020)
He went on to add that these visuals provided an accessible way to see and
understand trends and patterns (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020).
The participants were convinced that the visuals were critical for deep con-
ceptual understanding. Participant S1 stated that after the use of visual repre-
sentations, learners used different methods to solve problems and found that
all the strategies provided the same correct answer. Similarly, participant S2
found that learners showed a great deal of understanding in the review session
at the end of the lesson. Learners showed confidence and voluntarily answered
questions. Other participants found that the learners were now able to work
independently or in groups and at their own pace. They were not scared to
tackle unfamiliar problems using visualization.
Cook (2012) was fairly specific and stated that visuals are common in text-
books, in presentations developed by teachers and learners, and computer-
based software. He further argued that when keeping diagrams simple and
explanations short, teachers must monitor student learning to ensure alter-
nate conceptions do not result (p. 67). This resonates well with the findings of
this research.
7.7 Visualization and Its Contribution to New Knowledge

The experiences of the participants indicated that the learners had developed
useful knowledge. Participant S1 felt that the learners:
were able to use their imagination to understand the question. Connect-

ing what they learned with real-life experiences to answer the questions.
Even in their responses, they made use of diagrams as scaffolds towards

reaching the correct answer. (Focus group interview, 25 February 2020)
There were other positive observations made by the participants regarding

the learners’ renewed commitment to working with problems. Participant
S3 was convinced that new knowledge was indeed created, and it was this
knowledge that provided the learners with the confidence to solve and apply
theorems and riders. Participant S7 found that her learners understood the dif-
ference between 2-D and 3-D objects and could calculate areas and volumes
quite easily. There were other obvious observations such as the learners under-
stood a specific section such as the Midpoint Theorem. There was also related
knowledge acquired using the different instruments, technology and software.
The knowledge that the learners gained went beyond just the theorems and
axioms in the curriculum. Participant S13 stated that:
prior to the use of visualizations, learners struggled to understand the

concepts of transformation and they were unable to make correlations
with the concepts to everyday life. However, once the learners completed
the activity using a yellow arrow and their hands the meaning of rotation,
reflection and translation became apparent. I found that learners were
able to give me examples of where we see this in everyday life. They were
able to give me an example of reflection as a mirror and that the wheel of
the bus and car rotates without me giving examples. (Focus group inter-
view, 25 February 2020)
In most cases, the learners showed great improvement in their ability to

answer questions in the specific sections. They were able to apply the knowl-
edge learned and showed a greater tendency to use diagrams. Even when they
were expected to calculate the surface area of simple figures, they chose to
draw a diagram to get to the answer. Many used visual reasoning first and then
reverted to a written solution. The participants who used technology in their
classrooms found that learners grasped the concepts quicker and with greater
ease because
they saw more examples in a shorter space of time. (Questionnaire, 25

February 2020)
With the use of technology:
they were able to find the generalization themselves, then they were able
to state the theorem, and apply it. (Questionnaire, 25 February 2020)
68 Mudaly
Yusoff, Katmon, Ahmad and Miswan (2013) acknowledged that visualiza-

tion of knowledge is widely used in the education field for knowledge transfer
and creation. The data evidence in this research corroborates their findings
and it shows how technology can be used quite easily to develop new knowl-
edge, by visualizing previous and current knowledge.
8 Conclusion
The visual task on its own was not enough. Learners had to engage with the
visual manipulative, reflect on it sufficiently and create their own understand-
ing. In many of the cases the learners were given opportunities to mentally or
physically manipulate the diagrams so that what they saw or imagined could
fit into the schema of understanding already established. The learners who
worked with the 3-D figures, for example, used the 2-D knowledge quite well
and their imagined figures to complete the tasks. The computer-generated
shapes provided adequate links to their a priori knowledge so that they could
easily find ways of determining the areas of the given shapes. There were many
instances where the learners used the reflective process to iterate between the
physical shapes and the imagined shapes, and even manipulated then men-
tally. The learners who worked with transformations were able to recall what
they had seen in the video presentation and then use their hands to recall the
movements. But seeing the changes effected on the computer-enabled the
learners to draw quick conclusions.
Those learners who worked with GeoGebra verified the truth of the result
very quickly and were able to state what they saw as the relationship. This is
the power of using visualization in the context of technology. It enables the
learner to actively engage with the artefacts and develop an increased level
of conviction through a rapid and responsive meaning-making activity. It is
the ‘seeing’ combined with the available evidence that convinces the learners
that what they are experiencing is true. This ensures that concepts become
well-connected and well-memorized. Palais (1999, p. 648) who worked exten-
sively with technology stated that “applied mathematicians find that the highly
interactive nature of the images produced by recent mathematical visualiza-
tion software allows them to do mathematical experiments with an ease never
before possible”. It creates ease of use and allows for ease in understanding.
Visualization using technology in the 21st century in the era of the 4IR as a
strategic methodology has distinct advantages for learners who struggle to see
the abstractness of mathematics and science. Learning opportunities must be
provided in ways that are accessible, understandable and meaningful to our
struggling learners. Becoming more visually connected in a classroom may be

the solution.
References
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215–241.
Chaouki, R., & Hasenbank, J. F. (2013). Improving understanding in Algebra 1: A deeper
understanding of Algebra/Math. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from
http://www.slideserve.com/elina/adeeper-understanding-of-algebra-1188586
Cook, M. (2012). Teaching with visuals in a science classroom. Science Scope, 64–67.
Jiang, Y., Tian, F., Zhang, X., Dai, G., & Wang, H. (2011). Understanding, manipulating
and searching hand-drawn concept maps. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems
and Technology, 3(1). doi:10.1145/2036264.2036275
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and devel-
opment. Prentice-Hall.
Krantz, S. G. (2015). How to teach mathematics (3rd ed.). American Mathematics Society.
Martinez, M., Barcena, F., & Rodriguez, S. (2005). ICT in mathematics education: Geom-
etry problem solving with applets. Recent research developments in learning tech-
nologies. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Multimedia and
Information and Communication Technologies, Caceres, Spain.
Naidoo, A. (2005). Pre-service mathematics teacher education: Building a future on
the legacy of apartheid’s colleges of education. In R. Vithal, J. Adler, & C. Keitel
(Eds.), Researching mathematics education in South Africa: Perspectives, practices
and possibilities. HSRC Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for
school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Palais, R. S. (1999). The visualization of mathematics: Towards a mathematical explor-
atorium. Notices of the AMS, 46(6), 647–658.
Philominraj, A., Jeyabalan, D., & Vidal-Silva, C. (2017). Visual learning: A learner-centred
approach to enhance English language teaching. English Language Teaching, 10(3),
54–62.
Presmeg, N. C. (1992). Prototypes, metaphors, metonymies and imaginative rationality
in high school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 595–610.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educa-
tional Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Har-
vard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
70 Mudaly
Stylianou, D. A., & Silver, E. A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced
mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert-novice similarities and
differences. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 353–387.
Yusoff, Z., Katmon, S. A., Ahmad, M. Z., & Miswan, S. H. M. (2013, September). Visual
representation: Enhancing students’ learning engagement through knowledge visual-
ization. Paper presented at the International Conference on Informatics and Cre-
ative Multimedia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261226062
Zinger, D., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Learning and teaching with technology:
Technological pedagogy and teacher practice. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 577–593). Sage.
CHAPTER 5
Transforming the Classroom Context:

Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences of the Use of
Technology-Enabled Pedagogy for Embracing
the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Jayaluxmi Naidoo
Abstract
Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution within education contexts is an important

issue being researched globally. Within mathematics education contexts, coupled with
embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution are issues of what it means to teach within
the 21st-century classroom. This chapter draws attention to a study that explored math-
ematics teachers and lecturers experiences of using technology-enabled pedagogy for
the 21st-century classroom. This qualitative, interpretive study was located at one uni-
versity within KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The study was framed within the ambits
of connectivism. Participants were invited to an interactive workshop focusing on the
use of technology-enabled pedagogy for the 21st-century classroom. Subsequently,
participants were interviewed based on their experiences of the use of technology-
enabled pedagogic strategies. The findings of this study exhibit that participants were
empowered to transform their traditional pedagogy to embrace the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. Furthermore, the findings of this study indicate that participants were
willing to transform their existing pedagogy to cater to the 21st-century classroom
context founded on the needs and learning styles of their students. Two main themes
surfaced from this study: Limitations and strengths of using technology-enabled peda-
gogy. After the data coding, subthemes emerged. These themes and subthemes are
discussed in detail in this chapter. Globally, these findings have relevance when con-
sidering the role of the Fourth Industrial Revolution within educational contexts.
1 Introduction
As we teach within the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), there are
various debates on how existing classroom contexts ought to be transformed
to cater to technology-enabled learning. Technology-enabled learning refers to

72 Naidoo
the effective integration of technology-based tools within classroom contexts

to facilitate students’ learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012). Teachers1
ought to be sufficiently trained for preparing learners2 with the 21st-century
skills that are necessary to address the strengths and challenges linked with
embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution. However, if there is an imbalance
between the curricula, transforming the classroom3 context and professional
development for teachers, then neither teachers nor students will be 4IR ready.
This chapter reports on a study which sought to explore mathematics teach-
ers’ experiences on the use of technology-enabled pedagogy for transforming
their classroom context.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Exploring the 21st-Century Classroom Context

The capacity and technology that is required for creating digital learning envi-
ronments extend far beyond the traditional classroom (Boothe & Clark, 2014).
Technology in the 21st-century classroom serves as an essential tool to enhance
the digital learning environment (Boholano, 2017). Digital learning environ-
ments support the effective integration of digital tools (for example, comput-
ers and mobile devices) to enable pedagogy (Buzzard, Crittenden, Crittenden,
& McCarty, 2011).
Also, the physical space within the classroom needs to be considered to
ensure that technology-enabled pedagogy is sustained and effective (Clem-
mons, 2013). Within the traditional classroom context, learners are situated at
desks surrounding one another; however, within the 21st-century classroom
context, global real-time collaboration through the use of digital tools are
enabled. This means that learners do not need to be at the same place or be
present at the same time for teaching and learning to take place.
The 21st-century classroom supports pedagogy which encourages critical
thinking, hands-on learning, collaboration, problem-solving approaches, inqui-
ry-based teaching and learning, the use of digital tools and technology-enabled
pedagogy (Goertz, 2015). Also, notions of the 21st-century classroom advocate
for the teacher to assume the role of a facilitator within the classroom context
(Boothe & Clark, 2014). Teachers are also required to ensure that students have
the necessary skills that are essential to embrace learning within the era of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution. These skills include the ability to construct new
ideas, assess and analyze the information offered, collaborate to create differ-
ent problem-solving approaches and use inquiry-based learning to apply their
understandings to their previous educational experiences (Boholano, 2017).
Transforming the Classroom Context 73
To assist teachers in ensuring that they enhance their existing pedagogy to

teach effectively within the 21st-century classroom, teachers require profes-
sional development focusing on this area. Along similar lines, Borko (2004)
and Darling-Hammond (2017) argue that teachers’ professional development
is essential for transforming the classroom context, ensuring effective teaching
and improving students’ learning outcomes.
2.2 Using Technology-Enabled Pedagogy to Embrace the Fourth

Industrial Revolution
Since the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution has been acknowledged
by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, there has been much debate
about it. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is a technological revolution
that has transformed our way of life (Schwab, 2016). The 4IR is described as the
merging of the physical world and the virtual world, creating a more globally
connected society. The 4IR guides the role of Higher Education institutions
to prepare students for the digital era by incorporating the use of technology
within revised curricula.
Technology has always been a part of the teaching and learning environ-
ment and has been used to facilitate students’ learning. However, it is essential
to consider that technology has transformed dramatically with time. More-
over, accessibility to a variety of digital tools has amplified the use of technolo-
gy-enabled pedagogy (Buzzard, Crittenden, Crittenden, & McCarty, 2011). With
technology being a part of our daily life, it is essential to rethink the concept of
integrating technology within pedagogy. The aim of this integration ought to
support the learning process.
Thus, learning with technology has become essential for the 21st-century
classroom. This means that technology-enabled pedagogy ought to become a
fundamental part of the learning experience and a necessary consideration
for teachers within the 21st-century classroom context. Teachers may adopt a
blended teaching and learning approach, whereby teaching shifts from the tra-
ditional ‘chalk and talk’ pedagogy to incorporate the use of technology-enabled
pedagogy. This type of pedagogy aims to introduce a combination of online
educational resources and opportunities for online interaction, together with
traditional classroom methods (Lalima & Dangwal, 2017).
Presently, technology is regarded as being distinct from teaching and learn-
ing, and professional development workshops generally describe how to use
technology but not necessarily how to embed technology effectively within
classrooms. Similarly, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2012) maintain that
teacher professional development workshops for technology integration
generally focus on administration rather than how technology may be used
74 Naidoo
effectively for instruction. This implies that at present, the inclusion of tech-
nology within the classroom is done casually and does not essentially meet the
needs of the 21st-century learner (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Within teacher professional development, teacher learning is vital and
related to students’ learning; there ought to be a link between teachers’ pro-
ficiencies and understandings and students’ learning (Welch, 2012). Hence,
learning opportunities for teachers ought to be created to inspire technolo-
gy-enabled pedagogy. Also, to teach within 21st-century classrooms, teachers
ought to be aware of developing trends in education, technology-enabled ped-
agogy and responsive pedagogic tools. Moreover, teachers ought to possess the
necessary skills to teach within 21st-century classrooms; they ought to be tech-
nology savvy (Boholano, 2017).
As was evident, there is a need to assist teachers in acquiring these neces-
sary skills. To learn these skills, teachers are required to undergo professional
development to use digital tools effectively as they embrace the Fourth Indus-
trial Revolution. There are a variety of digital tools accessible globally (Buz-
zard, Crittenden, Crittenden, & McCarty, 2011), for the purpose of this study,
digital tools refer to software and platforms for teaching and learning that may
be used with computers or mobile devices. Additionally, the Internet4 provides
teachers with access to digital tools and social networking sites, and these sites
offer the user the opportunity to invite other users to join these networks
(Boholano, 2017).
Through the use of these networks, for example, Google classroom, Edmodo,
TedEd and so on, students are provided with the chance to articulate their
ideas, discuss their successes and challenges, work collaboratively, students
also enhance their critical thinking skills and their skills of self-reflection and
thereby construct meaningful knowledge (Jovanovic, Chiong, & Weise, 2012).
3 Theoretical Considerations: Exploring the Notions of Connectivism
Computers are essential in facilitating learning within the 21st-century class-

room, and currently, institutions globally are introducing computer-supported
learning and distance education courses to 21st-century students (Foroughi,
2015). Thus, within 21st-century education contexts, technology plays a sub-
stantial role in how we learn and how we conduct our everyday lives (Vululleh,
2018). New developments in technology-enabled pedagogy have provided
more access for teachers to introduce a diverse array of technology-based tools
and interactive technology-based learning approaches within the 21st-century
classroom (Bailey, 2019).
However, to enhance the effectiveness of technology-enabled pedagogy,

teachers ought to use technology effectively to support students’ learning
(Nami & Vaezi, 2018). The introduction of technology-enabled pedagogy into
the learning environment, and the swift advances in technology, has led to the
advancement of the theory of connectivism (Goldie, 2016). Connectivism is
recommended as an applicable theory for learning within the digital age (For-
oughi, 2015) since connectivism is a network learning theory which is guided
by the notion that learning is a process whereby new information is continu-
ously being acquired (Siemens, 2005).
Within the ambits of this framework, learners are allowed to use digital
platforms, for example, social networking sites, blogs and online learning com-
munities to discuss and develop knowledge (Goldie, 2016). The concept of net-
working is significant to connectivism since knowledge is perceived as moving
from a network of humans to a network of machines (Bell, 2009). Hence, con-
nectivism refers to networked social learning (Duke, Harper, & Johnson, 2013)
and focuses on disseminated learning which is influenced by technology and
the notion that learning may dwell within non-human applications (Goldie,
2016). Connectivism thus allows for a community of individuals working with
technology-based tools to justify what they are undertaking (Bell, 2009).
4 Research Design and Methods
This qualitative study which sought to explore mathematics teachers’ expe-

riences on the use of technology-enabled pedagogy for transforming their
classroom context was located within an interpretive paradigm. Data were
generated via an interactive workshop and semi-structured interviews.
4.1 Ethical Issues

Gatekeeper access was acquired from the research office of the participating
university. Participants were provided with an informed consent form detail-
ing the purpose and process of the research study. To assure participants of
their anonymity, names were not used, but rather the code ‘P’ and a number
was assigned to represent each participant.
4.2 The Participants

The population for the study were postgraduate mathematics education stu-
dents and lecturers. The postgraduate students were also mathematics school
teachers. Thirty-eight participants were invited to participate in the study,
and 29 responded positively. Five participants were randomly selected to
76 Naidoo
participate in the pilot study. Twenty four participants participated in the main
study. Data were generated through an interactive workshop and semi-struc-
tured interview schedules.
4.3 The Pilot Study

Conducting the pilot study workshop and semi-structured interviews increased
the validity and reliability of the research process. During the pilot study, some
participants were uncertain of what was required of them for certain ques-
tions during the interview process. Subsequently, questions were rephrased
to eliminate ambiguity and to ensure that each question was understandable.
The language used during the workshop and interview process was focused
and well-defined to improve the dependability and validity of the research
instrument and research process.
4.4 The Research Process and Tools

4.4.1 The Workshop
One workshop focusing on technology-enabled pedagogy was conducted with
the participants. The researcher facilitated the workshop and the participants
were provided with teaching notes, presentations of case studies, lesson plans
and assessments focusing on the effective integration of technology-enabled
pedagogy within mathematics classrooms. Moreover, the workshop focused
on using technology-enabled pedagogy with a view of embracing the Fourth
Industrial Revolution.
PowerPoint Presentations, videos and the document camera5 were used
during these interactive workshops. At the end of the workshop, all partic-
ipants were invited to one on one semi-structured interviews scheduled on
dates a few months after the workshop. This meant that each participant
would have the opportunity of reflecting on what they had learned from the
workshop with the view of advancing their own pedagogy and thereby pro-
moting their professional development. The interviews were designed to gauge
the experiences of each participant on the use of technology-enabled peda-
gogy to transform their classroom context.
4.4.2 The Semi-Structured Interviews

Although 24 participants attended the workshop, due to work, study, personal or
family commitments, only 15 participants were available to be interviewed. The
interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were sent
to participants for inspection to ensure the accuracy and validity of the inter-
view transcripts. The purpose of the interview was to establish the participants’
experiences of technology-enabled pedagogy with the view of transforming

their classroom context to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Each interview lasted between 30 to 45 minutes. The interviews were con-
ducted at a venue and time that was suitable for each participant. Each inter-
view began with a few general questions to place the participant at ease, the
interview then progressed to specific questions focusing on the participant’s
experiences of the use of technology-enabled pedagogy for the 21st-century
classroom. The findings of this study offer significant information for teacher
professional development within the ambits of embracing the Fourth Indus-
trial Revolution.
4.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis in the form of coding and categorizing of themes were based on
the theoretical framework of the study, i.e. the theory of connectivism. Data
analysis included the following steps: acquaintance with the data to classify
codes after reading and rereading the qualitative data; refining the codes into
themes; arranging segments of the data that were related to each other, and
studying the data excerpts to warrant that the excerpts revealed a connection.
Hence, three phases of coding were used to analyze the data generated.
Firstly, open coding was used to analyze the data. The purpose of this type of
open coding was to reveal the experiences of participants focusing on the use
of technology-enabled pedagogy within 21st-century classroom contexts. Sec-
ondly, all data was re-examined using a list of anticipated codes and themes
focusing on each participant’s responses regarding transforming their class-
room context with the notion of embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Finally, the similarities and difference between the participants’ responses
were compared. Also, member checking was done to confirm the accuracy of
findings and to provide participants with the chance to correct and make addi-
tions to the data generated. A detailed discussion focusing on the findings of
this study may be found in the section that follows.
5 Findings and Discussion
While in general, the participants valued the integration of technology

within the classroom context, they did indicate that they had misgivings and
experienced problems when attempting to replicate what they had learnt
during the workshop. The participants’ responses are captured in the discus-
sions that follow.
78 Naidoo
5.1 Limitations of Using Technology-Enabled Pedagogy

5.1.1 The Lack of Material Resources Inhibits Technology-Enabled
Pedagogy
Participants tried imitating demonstrations and experiences from the work-
shop; however, some of the participants had challenges due to the lack of
infrastructure or resources at their schools to facilitate technology-enabled
pedagogy within their classrooms. These notions are supported by excerpts
from the interview transcripts that follow.
P10 : …I could not access the suitable video that was linked to the lesson
I was teaching…I copied the link at home…the Internet connection did
not work at school…
P15: …it seemed like a good idea…combining of technology and the
chalkboard…the school does not have a working data projector…Internet
access is limited…I used this for certain tasks…but using the Internet in
class needs to be approved by the principal first…
P23: …I reflected on what I was exposed to during the workshop. I real-
ized that while it would be beneficial for my class, we do not have Inter-
net access or the appropriate gadgets at school…I was not willing to use
my phone it is too expensive to download presentations I can’t use my
data for Internet access…
Along similar lines, within the ambits of connectivism, learners ought to be

supported by the teacher or a non-human appliance (Kizito, 2016). However,
the lack of material resources may hinder teachers while they attempt to incor-
porate aspects of the 21st-century classroom within their milieus. The preced-
ing transcript excerpts indicate that teachers are willing to embrace the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. Teachers have a desire to integrate technology within
their classroom milieus; however, the lack of material resources affects the
teacher’s ability and inspiration in introducing technology-enabled learning
within their classrooms (Klopfer, Osterweil, Groff, & Haas, 2006).
The effective integration of technology within education forms an integral part
of a 21st-century classroom (Boothe & Clarke, 2014; Cloete, 2017) and technology
is vital for embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Relevant role-play-
ers within educational milieus ought to collaborate to ensure that classrooms are
adequately equipped with the necessary resources required to embrace the 4IR.
5.1.2 The Lack of Teacher Professional Development Inhibits

Technology-Enabled Pedagogy
The effective integration of technology-enabled pedagogy is an essential
aspect of teacher professional development; teachers need to know how to use
technology for instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012). In this study,

some participants indicated that they did not possess the know-how to inte-
grate technology effectively during instruction. This notion is exemplified in
the transcript excerpts that follow.
P3: …I just did not know how to link with my teaching…I had a mixture
of technology and the board…I saw the demonstration at the workshop,
but I could not do the same in my class…
P13: …I could only show the class the video, and I could explain how it
was related to my maths topic…I could just do a visual activity and relate
to their classwork or homework, but I did not know how to go further…
P18: …I use the technology to enter marks…submit to the department…I
don’t know how to search for maths links and videos…
P19: …need help to use technology tools…it is useful for learning…I need
someone to show me how to develop teaching tasks using technology…
As was evident, teacher professional development activities focusing on using

information communication technology (ICT) for teaching within differing class-
room contexts is needed (Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018). So while connectivism may be
used to transform learning activities (Kizito, 2016), teachers require professional
development to become innovative and at ease with the integration and use of
ICT as they teach their students within classroom contexts (Scott & Scott, 2010).
5.1.3 Technology-Enabled Pedagogy Causes Distractions in the

Classroom
Although the participants welcomed the use of technology-enabled pedagogy,
they also experienced challenges with the use of technology in their class-
rooms. They realized that the integration of technology within their classroom
milieus created distractions in their classroom contexts. This notion is sup-
ported by the transcript excerpts that follow.
P10: …I was trying to access the video…I was not paying attention to the
class…my learners were doing other activities and talking…a lot of lesson
time was lost…I could not make my class pay attention to my lesson…
P14: …they became noisy and did not listen…they thought it was excit-
ing…videos in class…very difficult to get their [the learners]6 attention…
P24: …I allowed them [the learners] to use cell phones in class…I
arranged permission with the principal to use the school Internet…the
class was very distracted…did not pay attention…went on Facebook7 and
WhatsApp8…difficult to get them to focus on the lesson…they were send-
ing messages to each other in class…and were not listening to me…
80 Naidoo
Along similar lines, research (Goundar, 2014) supports the notion that the use
of technology-based tools causes distractions and disruptions within the class-
room context. Thus, teachers are required to carefully monitor and observe the
interactions between students as they engage with digital tools. This implies
that teachers need to ensure that they manage their classrooms effectively to
facilitate the success of technology-enabled pedagogy. Hence, if necessary,
teachers ought to attend professional development workshops focusing on
how to manage the class effectively while integrating technology when teach-
ing within differing classroom contexts (Dlamini & Mbatha, 2018).
5.2 Strengths of Using Technology-Enabled Pedagogy

5.2.1 Technology-Enabled Pedagogy Saves Time in the Classroom
Based on the demonstrations that the participants participated in during the
workshop, they were encouraged to use technology-enabled pedagogy. These
participants valued the use of technology-enabled pedagogy. This notion was
evident in the transcript excerpts that follow.
P5: …the PowerPoint presentation saved time in class…I could easily go

back to slides to respond to queries…
P11: …for teaching geometry…I used Sketchpad9…I used less time to
sketch the diagrams…I could go back to the sketch to assist my class with
questions…it is more accurate to draw using this technology teaching
tool…learners can visualize the transformations and manipulations…
P16: …I used transparencies and the overhead projector…I prepared the
transparencies in advance…I could refer to the complex solutions for
Geometry that the class needed…the diagrams became faster and easier
to represent…
P18: …the videos supported me while I was teaching…the class could see
the dimensions I was talking about…the visuals saved time…I had more
time to give feedback to my class…
As was evident, technology-enabled pedagogy allowed the participants to

teach their content in innovative and exciting ways. These participants were
agents of change (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010); they were transform-
ing their classroom contexts to embrace the 4IR. These participants inspired
their learners by exhibiting innovative strategies for students to visualize the
mathematics being taught. Being able to visualize the mathematical concepts
being taught inspires active learning (Shallcross & Harrison, 2007).
Moreover, within the ambits of connectivism, the learning environment is
student-centered and focusses on engaging students in meaningful learning
tasks (Kizito, 2016). Thus, technology-enabled pedagogy deepens students’

understanding of concepts being taught and also enhances meaningful learn-
ing (Huang & Li, 2009).
5.2.2 Technology-Enabled Pedagogy Makes Abstract Mathematical

Concepts Easier to Comprehend
The participants valued the use of technology-enabled pedagogy since this
supported learners’ understanding. The mathematics concepts being taught
were easier to explain and were more manageable for the learners to grasp.
Learners could continuously refer to the visuals and the videos being used in
the class to support their meaning-making process. These views are supported
by the transcript excerpts that follow.
P6: …technology helped me to explain the maths concepts…when they

[the learners] had a problem we could go back…it was efficient with
technology…going back enabled me to reinforce what I was teaching…
concepts became easier to understand…
P8: …from the diagrams that we used with sketchpad learners understood
the maths better…it was becoming easier…they [the learners] could see
the maths being taught…
P13: …as the class watched the video…they were enlightened…they
now understood the mathematics concepts being taught…the learners
answered the questions with ease…the video made the concepts easier
for them [the learners] to understand…
P24: …they [the learners] used their cell phones to probe the maths being
taught…they were distracted…went on Facebook and WhatsApp…but at
the end of the lesson they could answer questions and define what was
being taught…technology made the maths being taught easier for them
[the learners] to grasp…
Research (Murphy, 2016; Silin & Kwok, 2017) supports the notion that technol-
ogy-enabled pedagogy is useful within the classroom environment as was evi-
dent, based on the findings of this study, the accessibly to technology allowed
the participants to be innovative within their pedagogy (Bell, 2009). Moreover,
within the ambits of connectivism, the use of technology-enabled pedagogy
may be used to transform activities for learners (Kizito, 2016). This transfor-
mation of pedagogy made the abstract mathematics concepts (for example
concepts revolving around proofs in Euclidean Geometry) being taught easier
to understand.
82 Naidoo
5.2.3 Technology-Enabled Pedagogy Encourages Interaction and

Collaboration
The participants used a blending teaching and learning approach, which
incorporated the use of technology and the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ method.
Based on the findings of this study, this type of approach encouraged interac-
tion and collaboration within the classroom environment. This is supported by
the transcript excerpt that follows.
P7: …I used the PowerPoint in the class…learners started discussing con-

cepts with each other…more interactive…discussions were focused on
the maths being taught…seemed to enjoy working with each other…
P14: …used WhatsApp to start discussions while they were away from class…
in the classroom, the discussions continued…they enjoyed this type of
teaching…it became more fruitful and interesting…learners took control…
P15: …experienced challenges…I had to get permission to use the Inter-
net…I used a combination of the chalkboard and my computer…my
learners became more talkative…worked together on problems…they
seemed to learn better when working with each other…
As was evident, through the use of the blended teaching and learning
approach, the participants made the learners responsible for their learning.
Moreover, connecting learners and resources online does not necessarily take
place in the classroom; this is ubiquitous due to our access to the Internet (Bell,
2009). This notion was supported by the participants’ use of WhatsApp before
the lesson commenced.
Through the blended teaching and learning approach, the learners collab-
orated and discussed solutions while the teacher facilitated. Collaboration is
supported within the ambits of connectivism, student learning is enhanced
by sharing and collaboration (Duke, Harper, & Johnson, 2013) and there is also
room for individual learning (Kizito, 2016). Thus, this type of learning milieu is
supported by the notions of connectivism, since connectivism promotes tech-
nology-enabled pedagogy whereby control for learning within the classroom
shifts from the teacher to the learner (Foroughi, 2015).
6 Conclusion
This study aimed to explore mathematics teachers’ experiences of using

technology-enabled pedagogy for the 21st-century classroom. This qualitative,
interpretive study was conducted at one university in KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa. Participants were invited to an interactive workshop and were conse-

quently interviewed. Two main themes surfaced from this study, Limitations
of using technology-enabled pedagogy and strengths of using technology-en-
abled pedagogy. After the third stage of data coding, subthemes emerged: The
lack of material resources inhibits technology-enabled pedagogy, the lack of
teacher professional development inhibits technology-enabled pedagogy, and
technology-enabled pedagogy causes distractions in the classroom. Technol-
ogy-enabled pedagogy saves time in the classroom, makes abstract mathe-
matical concepts easier to comprehend, and technology-enabled pedagogy
encourages interaction and collaboration.
This study has provided some interesting experiences regarding the use of
technology-enabled pedagogy to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It
was evident that within contemporary classrooms, technology has the poten-
tial to improve pedagogy by providing individualized, real-time interactions
among students and their teachers (Vululleh, 2018). This implies that teachers
may employ the use of technology and social networks within their pedagogy
to enhance meaningful learning within and outside the 21st-century classroom.
Moreover, based on the findings of this study it is apparent that within the
21st-century classroom as technology becomes more available and if connec-
tivism is embraced as a useful framework within the Fourth Industrial Rev-
olution, teachers will seek to engage in supportive pedagogy to amplify the
benefits to student learning. This was evident since the participants within this
study were willing to transform their traditional pedagogy to create collabo-
rative and engaging technology-enriched classroom milieus to support their
students’ learning needs. However, for the successful integration of technol-
ogy-enabled pedagogy within the 21st-century classroom, there is a need for
teachers to be involved in professional development workshops focusing on
how to enhance student learning while integrating technology within their
pedagogy. These professional development workshops would of benefit to
teachers globally as we embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Acknowledgement
This research was partially funded by the National Research Foundation: NRF
Grant Number: UID 113952.
Notes
1 The words teacher and lecturer are used synonymously in this chapter.
2 The words learner and student are used synonymously in this chapter.
84 Naidoo
3 The words classroom and lecture room are used synonymously in this chapter.
4 The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that consists of private,
public, academic, business, and government networks linked by electronic, wireless, and opti-
cal networking technologies.
5 A document camera is a contemporary replacement for the overhead transparency projector
and allows the user to project documents or objects digitally.
6 Words in square brackets within the transcripts have been added by the researcher to support
the reader’s understanding.
7 Facebook is a social networking site that provides one with the opportunity to connect and
share information online with friends, colleagues and family.
8 WhatsApp is a free app that you may download on your cell phone, iPad or computer.
WhatsApp uses the Internet to send or share messages, images or video.
9 Sketchpad is a type of dynamic geometry software that may be used to teach geometry in the
classroom.
References
Bailey, L. W. (2019). New technology for the classroom: Mobile devices, Artificial Intel-
ligence, tutoring systems, and robotics. In Educational technology and the new world
of persistent learning. University of Phoenix.
Bell, F. (2009). Connectivism: A network theory for teaching and learning in a con-
nected world. University of Salford, 1(1), 1–7.
Boholano, H. B. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning
skills. Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 21–29. doi:10.17810/2015.45
Boothe, D., & Clark, L. (2014). The 21st century classroom: Creating a culture of inno-
vation in ICT. https://conference.pixel-online.net/ICT4LL/files/ict4ll/ed0007/FP/
0475-ICL733-FP-ICT4LL7.pdf
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Buzzard, C., Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & McCarty, P. (2011). The use of digital
technologies in the classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Journal of Mar-
keting Education, 33(2), 131–139. doi:10.1177/0273475311410845
Clemmons, R. (2013, May). Technology, instruction and the 21st century classroom.
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2013/05/technology-ins
Cloete, A. L. (2017). Technology and education: Challenges and opportunities. HTS
Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 73(4), 1–7. doi:10.4102/hts.v73i4.4589
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn
from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309.
doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnson, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory.
https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/
HETLReview2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf
Ertmer, A. P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, T. A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Tech-
nology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Ertmer, A. P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical
changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning.
Computers & Education, 64(1), 175–182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
Foroughi, A. (2015). The theory of connectivism: Can it explain and guide learning in
the digital age? Journal of Higher Education and Practice, 15(5), 11–26.
Goertz, P. (2015). 10 signs of a 21st century classroom. George Lucas Educational Foundation.
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age.
Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661
Goundar, S. (2014). The distraction of technology in the classroom. Journal of Education
& Human Development, 3(1), 211–229. http://jehdnet.com/journals/jehd/Vol_3_
No_1_March_2014/14.pdf
Huang, R., & Li, Y. (2009). Examining the nature of effective teaching through mas-
ter teachers’ lesson evaluation in China. In J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry, & N.-Y. Wong
(Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives. National and cross-
national studies (pp. 163–181). Sense Publishers.
Jovanovic, J., Chiong, R., & Weise, T. (2012). Social networking, teaching and learning.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7(1), 39–43.
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55629.pdf
Kizito, R. N. (2016). Connectivism in learning activity design: Implications for pedagogi-
cally-based technology adoption in African Higher Education contexts. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 19–39. https://doi.org/
10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2217
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2006). Using the technology of today, in
the classroom today. The instructional power of digital games, social networking
simulations and how teachers can leverage them. In The educational arcade. Cre-
ative Commons, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lalima, D., & Dangwal, K. L. (2017). Blended learning: An innovative approach. Univer-
sal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 129–136. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1124666.pdf
Murphy, D. (2016). A literature review: The effect of implementing technology in a high
school mathematics classroom. International Journal of Research in Education and
Science (IJRES), 2(2), 295–299.
Nami, F., & Vaezi, S. (2018). How ready are our students for technology-enhanced
learning? Students at a university of technology respond. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 30(1), 510–529. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9181-5
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
86 Naidoo
Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2010). Innovations in the use of technology and teacher pro-
fessional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning
communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education
delivery (pp. 169–189). IGI Global.
Shallcross, D. E., & Harrison, T. G. (2007). Lectures: electronic presentations versus
chalk and talk – A chemist’s view. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(1),
73–79. https://www.rsc.org/images/Shallcross%20paper%20final_tcm18-76282.pdf
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1–9. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/
Jan_05/article01.htm
Silin, Y., & Kwok, D. (2017). A study of students’ attitudes towards using ICT in a social
constructivist environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5),
50–62. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2890
Vululleh, P. (2018). Determinants of students’ e-learning acceptance in developing
countries: An approach based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Interna-
tional Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 14(1), 141–151.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183560/
Welch, T. (2012). Teacher development: What works and how can we learn from this and
maximize the benefits? Presentation at the Teachers’ Upfront meeting. Wits School
of Education, South Africa.
PART 3
The 21st-Century Teacher
∵
CHAPTER 6
Teaching and Assessment Skills Needed by

21st-Century Teachers: Embracing the Fourth
Septimi Kitta and Jaquiline Amani
Abstract
Today, as never before, the world is experiencing rapid transformation accompanied by

knowledge-driven economies, information exchange and technological advancement
and innovations, which has created a global shift in educational goals in pedagogy, the
curriculum and assessment. By using secondary sources, this chapter highlights the key
competencies and skills that teachers need in the 21st century for them to teach and
assess effectively. The authors draw on the experiential learning theory by Kolb, the con-
structivist approach to learning and Singapore’s 21st-century Model for teaching profes-
sionals to answer the basic question: “What makes the 21st-century teacher different from
previous centuries in terms of instructional and assessment skills?” Specifically, we exam-
ined what 21st-century teachers need to know (knowledge) and do (skills) to prepare
students to respond to the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Our critical
review of the literature is based on seven sub-themes namely: Student-centered teach-
ing, differentiated instruction, linking technology, content and pedagogy, the role of
professional ethics and values, assessing skills beyond knowledge, performance-based
assessment and the adoption of multiple assessment tools for varied skills. Based on our
review, we conclude that 21st-century teachers need to be lifelong learners to enable
their students to meet the labor market demands in the era of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. Indeed, as Information and Communications Technology has become
an important tool in the 21st-century, teachers need to apply innovative teaching
and assessment approaches that personalize learning, while providing students with
hands-on skills. Lastly, we emphasize that character-building needs to be an integral
part of education provision at all levels to prepare our students for global citizenship.
1 Introduction
Education is crucial for any society, and its effectiveness is reflected in its stren-
gths and weaknesses, both domestically and abroad. It involves the experience

90 Kitta and Amani
that a person acquires inside and outside the classroom. Türkkahraman (2012)
argue that for a society to be successful in competing economically in the
world, education is fundamental and is impacted by economics, advances in
scientific technology and industrial knowledge, amongst others. The major
aims of education are to prepare and equip learners with relevant skills and
competences so that they contribute substantially to the well-being of soci-
ety. This training provides individuals with the requisite skills, good morals
and tolerance, which promotes co-existence and the nation’s development
(Okogbaa, 2017).
Today, as never before, the world is experiencing rapid transformation
accompanied by technological advancement and innovations, which has raised
questions as to what skills our young people and teachers need in response to
this, and what and how students should learn to function effectively in the
era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The reason for these questions is that
employers are concerned about whether the competencies of school leavers or
graduates will be of use to them and contribute to society (Care, Kim, Vista, &
Anderson, 2018; Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011).
A thorough analysis of research by Chalkiadaki (2018), Voogt and Roblin
(2012) and Care (2018) revealed that the core frameworks for skills needed by
21st-century learners are: Partnership for 21st-century skills; Assessment and
Teaching of 21st-Century Skills (ATCS) (Binkley et al., 2012); EnGauge 21st-
century skills (Lemke et al., 2003); 21st-Century Skills and Competencies for
the new millennium learners (Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD], 2005); Key competences for lifelong learning, Infor-
mation and Communications Technology (ICT) competency framework for
teachers (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO], 2008a). In addition, Care and Kim (2018) reported on large-scale
mapping research by UNESCO supported by NEQMAP in 102 countries. The find-
ings revealed the attempts made to identify specific skills for the 21st-century
in vision and mission statements, curricula, policies and educational plans.
For example, 86% of the sampled countries agreed on the need to have young
people who are problem solvers, good communicators, evidence-based deci-
sion-makers, and creative thinkers. A report by UNESCO (2015) on nine coun-
tries in the Asia-Pacific region documented the competencies they needed at
policy and practice levels, whereby four were found to dominate, namely com-
munication, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving, as well as inter-
personal skills, intrapersonal skills, global citizenship and computer literacy.
A good number of these skills are in the cognitive and social domains (Care,
2018). Basically, these studies agree on the need for the rationale of teaching
Teaching and Assessment Skills Needed by 21st-Century Teachers 91
and learning beyond traditional pedagogical practices (Care, 2018; Price, Pier-
son, & Light, 2011; Care & Kim, 2018).
In view of these global changes, Tanzania reviewed its curricula for basic
education, that is, primary education and ordinary level secondary education.
This took place between 2004 and 2008. Apart from basic education, advanced
secondary education and teacher education curricula were also reviewed. This
was necessitated by the need for the education systems to prepare school leavers
who are ready in solving socio-economic challenges in terms knowledge, skills
and attitudes (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training [MoEVT], 2010).
This is because of the realization that the “education system could no longer
ignore the skills necessary for employment and academic and social survival
in the modern world” (Paulo & Tilya, 2014, p. 114). According to Mkimbili and
Kitta (2020), the reviewed curriculum was aimed at enabling pupils to acquire
competencies for meeting the demands of the 21st century, and ensuring that
teachers use interactive, participatory teaching and learning approaches in a
child-friendly environment. “In the curriculum, seven 21st-century skills were
emphasized, namely, communication, numeracy, creativity, critical thinking,
technology, interpersonal relationships and independent learning” (Mkimbili
& Kitta, 2019, p. 64).
However, the biggest challenge is teachers’ ability to design classroom learn-
ing that imparts 21st-learning skills. The authors used Kolb’s (1984), construc-
tivist approach to learning theory, and Singapore’s 21st-Model for the teaching
profession to assess whether or not teachers have the necessary skills to teach
effectively in the 21st century. Specifically, we addressed the question, “What
makes the 21st-century teacher different from previous centuries in terms of
instructional and assessment skills?” We adopted the teacher education model
for the 21st century from the Singapore National Institute of Education (NIE)
to gain insights into how well teachers are prepared. The Teacher Education
Model for 21st century (TE21 Model) was developed in 2009 to guide the design,
delivery and evaluation of education programs, whereby learners are at the
heart of education goals (NIE, 2009).
This means that the teaching process should consider the diverse needs of
the students. The TE21 Model underscores the essential knowledge and skills
that should be possessed by our teachers in light of the contemporary global
dynamics in order to improve student outcomes. In an attempt to provide
a theoretical foundation on how to produce a “thinking teacher”, TE21 Model
considers the underpinning philosophy, curriculum, desired outcomes for
our teachers, and academic pathways as key elements of teacher education
(Schleicher, 2012). Moreover, the competences for the 21st century aspiring
92 Kitta and Amani
teaching professionals are viewed in a holistic manner whose development

process results from a combination of various pillars such as, the pedagogies,
assessment, values, skills and knowledge (NIE, 2009). These interrelated ele-
ments are considered the potential for addressing the 21st-century classroom
challenges. Indeed, a balance between theory-practice nexus is of paramount
importance whereby the TE21 Model proposes the adoption of experien-
tial learning, reflection, and school-based inquiry or research as the suitable
approaches to provide students with hands-on skills before they join the world
of work.
2 Methodology
Drawing on secondary sources to draw inferences from existing data on the

subject being researched (Steward & Kamins, 1993), this chapter analyzes the
skills needed by a 21st-century teacher to effectively teach and assess 21st-
century learners. Taking into consideration the aim of the study, the peer-
reviewed journal articles, electronic and printed books, unpublished Master
Dissertations and international reports on 21st-century skills were searched.
Secondary research data is usually analyzed to obtain information which may
influence the conclusions drawn (Steward & Kamins, 1993; Bryman, 2012). We
chose to analyze what was relevant in the collected data, based on the research
question, which was then interpreted and analyzed through content analysis.
Accordingly, the authors reviewed 27 Journal articles, 12 book chapter, two
unpublished Master Dissertations, one (1) national report and three interna-
tional reports. The analysis further revealed that only 17 Journal articles and
eight book chapters offered close themes which were related to the research
questions.
Key themes which were found to be relevant for discussion include ped-
agogical practices, assessment skills, values and ethical dimensions. These
themes were then expanded as factors explaining the main research questions
with support from empirical evidence from previous research. These were (i)
21st-century teaching strategies and approaches, (ii) Strategies for assessing
21st-century skills. (iii) The role of teachers’ professional ethics in teaching and
assessing 21st-century skills (see Figure 6.1). Under pedagogical strategies, we
characterized effective 21st-century teacher is one who places the learners at
the core of the learning process, considers their diversity and needs while link-
ing the technology with the content and pedagogy. Furthermore, our concep-
tualization of the 21st-century teacher under assessment package was centered
on three key assessment practices. These include; use assessment as a tool to
figure 6.1 21st-century teachers’ knowledge base: A conceptual framework (based on

Anangisye, 2010; Binkley et al., 2012; Care, 2018; Chowdhury, 2016; Daisy, 2015;
Kolb, 2014; NIE, 2009; Schleicher, 2012; Rasheed & Wahid, 2018; The American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2008; UNESCO, 2008a)
enhance learning, assessment beyond the content knowledge, and role of mul-
tiple assessment tools. Professional ethics was conceived as the intermediate
frame, in which, its presence is critical for the quality realization of effective
pedagogical and assessment practices. We analyze and discuss how each of
these factors accounts for the knowledge-base and skills of the 21st-century
teachers in the next section.
3.1 Strategies for Imparting Skills for the 21st Century

The introduction to this chapter provides an understanding of what skills
our children need to acquire to enable them to cope with the demands and
challenges of the 21st century, based on frameworks established worldwide.
It also shows that the challenges facing most surveyed countries are teachers
knowing how best to translate the vision, mission statement and curriculum
into what students are capable of learning and how they should learn it, what
teachers need to teach and how to assess students (Care, 2018), which calls for
teachers’ approaches to learning to be scrutinized. The following section anal-
yses the student-centered approach to teaching.
94 Kitta and Amani
3.1.1 Student-Centered Teaching

There has been a global shift in educational provision, from traditional instruc-
tional practices to innovative ways of teaching, which put the student as a focus
of teaching and learning process. Care and Kim (2018) argue, therefore, that this
interactive style of pedagogy needs teachers with 21st-century skills. Moreover,
Blomeke et al. (2015) assert that teachers need these skills to enable students to
acquire competencies applicable to their lives, which means that our teachers
need to use relevant learning approaches to fulfil this important goal.
One approach that has contributed to our understanding of how students
learn is constructivism (Olusegun, 2015). Drawing on the work of Piaget
(1890), Dewey (1929) and Vygotsky (1962), the constructivists view the learner
as an active participant in the acquisition of knowledge. This means that for
learning to be meaningful, students should participate in the construction of
knowledge so that what they learn has come from their experience, i.e. stu-
dent-centered learning (Olusegun, 2015). As they do this, they will create their
own image of the real world and will update their mental model to take in and
interpret the new information received (Driscoll, 2000).
Constructivism is similar to Kolb’s experiential learning theory. In his book
titled experiential learning as a source of learning and development, he argues
that consciousness and experience play a central role in the learning process,
whereby gaining knowledge is a continuous process tested out in the experi-
ence of the learner. So it is a process and not an outcome (Kolb, 2014). Through
this approach, students have the opportunity to actively participate in learning
through reflecting on it, in order to apply what they have learnt to different
situations, in and outside the classroom.
Both these approaches to learning agree that learning is a process that is
linked to what students already know. Thus in the classroom, teachers can
create a learning environment which allows students to resolve their real-life
problems by conducting research, sharing their findings, receiving feedback
and reflecting on what has or has not worked. Teachers may give students
activities based on the subject to enable them to create new knowledge based
on their previous understanding. To achieve this, problem-based learning,
laboratory experiments, case-based learning, cooperative learning and inqui-
ry-based learning can be used. In groups, for example, students will have the
opportunity to explore what they already know, their current learning needs,
and sources of knowledge to solve existing problems.
3.1.2 Differentiated Instruction

Contemporary classrooms are increasingly being populated by students who
are diverse (Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Subban, 2006), which means that educators
are compelled to adopt instructional strategies that respond to a different

learners’ needs, known as “differentiated instruction”. According to Tomlinson
(2005), this is a philosophy of teaching which view effective learning as a func-
tion of teachers’ ability to accommodate students’ differences in terms of their
readiness to learn, language and interests. With differentiated instruction, the
structure, management and content of the classroom will benefit all students
(Subban, 2006). Learners need differentiated instruction because they do not
learn in the same manner (Subban, 2006; Rasheed & Wahid, 2018).
While educators agree that learners’ needs are diverse, a good number of
teachers do not accommodate these differences in teaching and learning process
(Gable, Hendrickson, Tonelson, & Van Acker, 2000), which might affect students’
readiness to learn, thereby lowering their academic performance. Therefore,
teachers are encouraged to apply the best strategies for their context so as to
develop the skills needed for the 21st century. Diana (2004), Subban (2006),
Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm (2000) propose several ways in which teachers can
effectively adopt differentiated instruction. Getting additional support to enable
struggling students to achieve learning goals as per the curriculum, such as the
assistance of other students or teachers, is one way. Others are to emphasize the
most important skills, to make a connection with prior knowledge/experience,
to use an enriched curriculum for gifted students, and to fully engage students to
make sure that the curriculum is positively connected to their lives.
3.1.3 Linking Technology, Content and Pedagogy

The 21st century has witnessed a global transformation in Information and
Communications Technology (ICT), which impacts how we use it, especially as
education systems are not immune to this technological transformation. Since
the global economies strive to maintain productivity and embrace technolog-
ical advances, equipping students with ICT skills is necessary for them to fully
participate and succeed in today’s information-rich, technology-driven soci-
ety (Kozma, 2011). Today, with technological advances, learners can access the
content learnt or to be learnt on various search engines inside and outside the
classroom. According to the Assessment and Teaching of 21st-Century Skills
project done in 60 institutions worldwide, ICT is categorized as a working tool
for the 21st-century labor market (Binkley et al., 2010). Thus, teachers need to
be agents of innovation because technology keeps on changing. They need to
acquire and use technological skills not only to teach but also to manage and
track students’ learning outcomes. To help them do so, two guidelines were
developed in 2008 to integrate ICT in education, namely Technological Ped-
agogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Thompson & Mishra, 2007) and ICT
competency framework (UNESCO, 2008a).
96 Kitta and Amani
The TPACK guides the kind of knowledge needed by teachers to integrate

technology in the content, and to help them understand the relationship
between technology, pedagogy and content (The American Association of Col-
leges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2008; Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). It builds
on Shulman’s construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to include
technology knowledge as situated within the content and pedagogical knowl-
edge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Schmidt-Crawford et al., 2009). Thus, 21st-cen-
tury teachers need to know how to align new technologies with content and
pedagogy and creatively use them to meet students’ diverse learning needs
(AACTE, 2008). UNESCO (2008a) also developed an ICT competency frame-
work to identify the qualifications teachers need to integrate ICT in teaching
and learning. For ICT to be integrated to achieve the best quality pedagogy and
mastery of 21st-century skills, macro and micro initiatives are needed. At the
macro level, the government needs to invest in the infrastructure needed and
in building the capacity of teachers. In contrast, at the micro-level teachers
need to be able to apply the technology to how they teach and assess students.
3.1.4 The Role of Professional Ethics and Values

It has become apparent that fast-moving ICT has compelled education sys-
tems throughout the world to access knowledge through it, which is the main
thrust of the 21st-century. Research has shown that with the rapid technolog-
ical transformation, it is imperative to nurture our students morally, intellec-
tually, physically and socially (Chowdhury, 2016; Hameed, 2011). To inculcate
morals, values and ethics in students, we also need teachers with the same
characteristics, who are aware of and abide by their professional ethics. Sherpa
(2018) explains that “teaching is a noble profession as it creates good quality
human resources, responsible citizens, socialized and creative individuals” (p.
16). Therefore, teachers need to be committed to their institution and learn-
ers (Sherpa, 2018). Campbell (2003) cited in Anangisye (2010) maintains that a
teacher should be a moral person and educator, who is to guide students to live
a moral life. This is vitally important because, as Schaeffer (1999) says, “when
teachers provide character education, they will be inculcating in students
important ethical values, such as caring, honesty, fairness, a sense of responsi-
bility and respect for self and others” (p. 3).
Daisy (2015) put forward four ethical values that are linked to the standard of
teaching, knowledge, skills, competence and conduct, which are: (a) Respect,
which presupposes that teachers should uphold human dignity and promote
equality and emotional and cognitive development. In their professional prac-
tice, teachers should demonstrate respect for spiritual and cultural values,
diversity, social justice, freedom, democracy and the environment; (b) Integ-
rity, which entails honesty, reliability and moral action, demonstrated through
the commitment, sense of responsibility and actions of teachers; (c) Care,
whereby teachers bear in mind the best interests of the learners entrusted to
their care, by showing empathy and making professional judgments; and (d)
Trust, on which teachers’ relationship with pupils, colleagues, parents, the
school management and the public are based. It also embodies fairness, open-
ness and honesty (p. 73).
In Tanzania, various scholars have widely researched on teachers’ ethics. Their
findings revealed the prevalence of teachers’ misconduct in various schools and
the proposed mitigation strategies (Anangisye, 2011), teachers and educators’
practices which foster teacher ethics (Fussy, 2012) and teachers’ awareness of
their role as moral educators (Mdem, 2013). These studies underscore the impor-
tance of teachers’ ethics and moral education for the delivery of quality educa-
tion in Tanzania. Since teacher training institutions are entrusted with preparing
good quality teachers, their programs should inculcate ethics and values in
trainee students before they enter the teaching profession as graduates. Sirot-
nik (1990) argued that teacher education is more about building moral character
than imparting knowledge-based skills and expertise. Although research praises
the initiatives taken by teacher training institutions to use college regulations
and religious codes of conduct, there is no course on teachers’ ethics (Anangisye,
2010), which calls for the teacher education curriculum to be reviewed.
To conclude, having well-trained teachers with pedagogical skills and
knowledge needed for the 21st century, who are either unethical or fail to
impart moral and ethical values to pupils is like having a beautiful house with
no foundations. Thus, teachers’ ethical behavior is extremely important for
successful teaching and learning. Teacher training institutions should focus on
fundamental ethics, knowledge of the subject matter, innovation, teaching and
assessment methods and imparting the skills needed in the 21st century.
3.2 Strategies for Assessing the Skills Needed for the 21st Century
It is maintained that for the education system to prepare students with the
skills they need for both work and life in the 21st century, effective mecha-
nisms are needed to assess them. The following sections present the strate-
gies for enabling teachers to assess both cognitive and social skills effectively
while tracking students’ learning outcomes and progress. The strategies are (1)
Assessment for Learning as the centrality of Learning (2) Assessment beyond
Knowledge (3) Performance-based Assessment (4) Multiple Assessment tools
which Measure Various Skills.
98 Kitta and Amani
3.2.1 Assessment for Learning as the Centrality of 21st-Century Learning

The major goal of formative assessment is to improve students’ learning out-
comes and competence (Care & Kim, 2018; Anderson &, Palm 2017). It provides
specific information about their strengths and difficulties, which will enable
teachers to make informed decisions about what and how they teach (Pere-
grino, 2014; Black & William, 2009). On the other hand, the purpose of sum-
mative assessment is to determine whether or not educational standards have
been met (Gotch & French, 2014), as well as gaps in students’ learning and
how far they have progressed (Isaacs, Zara, Herbert, Coombs, & Smith,2013).
Whether the summative or formative assessment is used, the results should
align with the intended learning goal (Vlachou, 2018).
Basically, the 21st-century skills require assessment practices which not only
reveal how and what students know through paper-pencil medium but also
assist the application of acquired competences in their work and life. In order
to achieve this, assessment practices should be geared towards guiding teach-
ers’ actions and enabling students to gauge their learning progress (Perregrino,
2014). Therefore, assessment for learning seems to be a relevant practice as it
supports ongoing teaching and learning. Students will also benefit from assess-
ment, as it will show them where they have done well and where improvement
is needed (Peregrino, 2014). As such, this would enable the contemporary stu-
dents to evaluate the validity and relevance of what and how they learn from
their own perspectives. They will gather information, make hypotheses and
collect evidence to test them and come up with innovative ideas which will
help them make sense of the world and function properly in their societies.
3.2.2 Assessment of Skills beyond Knowledge

Sustainable Development Goal four recognizes learning objectives across three
categories, namely; cognitive socio-emotional and behavioral (UNESCO, 2015a).
This implies that 21st-century teachers should go beyond assessing core knowl-
edge and concepts to equipping students to apply them, thereby showing a clear
association between what has been taught with the assessment (Care, 2018). It is
asserted that assessment by teachers that is of a high quality enables them to assess
students’ skills and abilities beyond the content (Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011).
According to Gulikers et al. (2004), this assessment enables students to
acquire information about their knowledge and skills to solve problems, have
good communication skills, make evidence-based decisions, think creatively
and apply what they have learnt to their socio-cultural contexts (Care et al.,
2018). Gulikers et al. (2004) also insist that the results of the assessment must
also reflect students’ progress in learning, which means tracking the develop-
ment of skills in different disciplines at various stages. Therefore, it is vital for
teachers to have the skills needed to assess students across all these domains.
3.2.3 Performance-Based Assessment

One strategy for assessing higher-order skills is performance-based assessment
(PBA) (Palm, 2008; Richards & Schmidt, 2002; VanTassel-Baska, 2013). PBA is
aimed at finding out whether students have learnt what they should have by
giving them a task to perform (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). In any subject mat-
ter in which performance-based assessment is used, it is basically an attempt
to discover not only what students know about a topic and if they have capa-
bilities to apply that knowledge in a “real-world” situation (Price, Pierson, &
Light, 2011). Therefore, it is an alternative way of assessing students’ ability
(VanTassel-Baska, 2013), which does not depend on tests and examinations to
measure their performance (Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011). Besides, it enables
students to apply their knowledge and skills to different contexts that are likely
to occur outside the classroom (Palm, 2008).
An example of performance-based assessment activities is designing and
constructing a model based on any subject, conducting research and writing
a report, doing a scientific experiment, and creating and testing a computer
program (Darling-Hammond & Pecheone, 2009), which are tasks that simu-
late real-world challenges (Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011). PBA has many advan-
tages over standard multiple-choice examinations. It enables teachers to make
meaningful adjustments to their teaching (Darling-Hammond & Pecheone,
2009). Another benefit of PBA is that it is student-centered. Apart from being
student-centered, PBA is very good at assessing higher-order thinking and other
21st-century skills (Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011), as well as allowing students
to demonstrate their understanding (Darling-Hammond & Pecheone, 2009).
More importantly, with PBA, it is easier to predict the future performance of
learners (Yousefpoori-Naeim, 2014). However, the authors’ emphasis on per-
formance-based tasks does not mean replacing standardized tests. The adop-
tion of performance-based assessment should be informed by the purpose of
testing and nature of the skill to be measured. As VanTassel-Baska (2013) insist
if the examiners assess the mastery of the content in a given subject matter,
paper-and-pencil test with close-ended items may be preferable unlike high-
er-order thinking and problem solving which performance-based approach
sounds more appropriate.
For performance-based assessment to be authentic, the following aspects
need to be taken into consideration (Gulikers et al., 2004):
– Activities which relates to professional practice;
– The physical context reflects the mechanism in which the competencies
will be applied in professional practice;
– The reflection of the application of social processes (if relevant) in the real
situation; and,
– Criteria to identify and indicate the expected level of performance.
100 Kitta and Amani
However, Care and Kim (2018) caution that for an assessment to be authen-
tic, it must measure what it purports to measure and have supporting evidence.
Therefore, in line with Gulikers et al. (2004), teachers should produce evidence
of learning from the tasks students are given that reflect their competences.
3.2.4 Multiple Assessment Tools Which Measure Various Skills

It has been empirically established that no single assessment, whether forma-
tive or summative, can evaluate all learning outcomes (Pellegrino, 2014). As
such, it is worth envisioning multiple assessment tools for different assessment
purposes. According to Pellegrino (2014), the use of multiple assessment tools
will bring complementary data for reasoned decisions about what and how
the students learn. Price, Pierson and Light (2011) proposed tools for assessing
learning and the skills acquired, such as rubrics, portfolios, performance-based
assessments and self-and peer-assessment. However, Chu, Reynods, Tavares,
Notari, and Lee (2017) warn that the wider the range of assessment tools the
more likely that challenges will arise, if the most suitable ones are not used.
This means that teachers need to take into consideration the ease of adminis-
tering the test and the extent to which it reflects learners’ learning.
Evidence from literature shows that in any of the assessment tools, three
interconnected elements which fall in what Pellegrino (2014) called the assess-
ment triangle. Pellegrino (2014) asserts that prior to adopting an assessment
tool, three things need to be considered. The first is students’ cognition (i.e.
how they acquire knowledge and understanding of a subject). The second is
the assumption that the assessment will provide evidence of students’ compe-
tence. The third is the way in which teachers interpret the evidence. This model
of assessment provides a useful framework for analyzing and determining how
well the learning goals have been accomplished and for designing future valid
assessments tools (Pellegrino & Hickey, 2006). Notable fact across each of the
three elements is that they must have a meaningful connection to each other
to ensure valid and sound inferences about students’ learning outcomes.
4 Conclusion
This chapter has answered the question, “What makes the 21st-century teacher
different from previous centuries’ teachers in terms of knowledge and skills?”
The answer was informed by assessing what was important for teachers to
be effective in preparing students for the 21st-century. Three important fac-
tors were unfolded: These include; effective pedagogical and assessment prac-
tices and role of professional ethics and values. Based on our review and the
theories and models used, we conclude that gone are the days when learning
is curriculum centered because now teachers must not only teach the con-
tent but also provide students with the skills that will enable them to use the
knowledge they have acquired beyond the classroom setting. In this regard,
teachers’ ability to use ICT is very important, as the Fourth Industrial Revolu-
tion requires people to be computer literate. This means that since knowledge
acquisition has become digitalized and jobs are rapidly changing, teachers are
supposed to be lifelong learners to enable their students to become market-
able in the labor market. This will ultimately enable them to integrate the con-
tent, pedagogy and technology to acquire the skills appropriate for their for the
21st century.
Teachers also need to apply innovative teaching and assessment approaches
that personalize learning while ensuring students are motivated to learn.
Lastly, teachers should embrace character building as an integral part of edu-
cation. Students’ behavior, attitudes, morals and values need to be equally
emphasized along with acquiring relevant knowledge prior to joining the
21st-century world of work. Besides, this cannot be possible if teachers them-
selves do not own and see the value and meaning of these skills due to lack
of knowledge. Therefore, teacher training institutions need to integrate moral
and ethical issues in the curriculum to ensure that trainee teachers understand
their importance. Also, ongoing professional support is vital to enable teachers
to become lifelong learners and so learning how to learn should be part and
parcel of our education system in the 21st century.
References
Anangisye, W. A. L. (2010). Promoting teacher ethics in colleges of teacher education in

Tanzania: Practices and challenges. African Journal of Teacher Education, 1(1), 64–77.
Anangisye, W. A. L. (2011). Why are teachers motivated to behave unprofessionally? A
qualitative-data-based-inquiry on educational stakeholders’ experiences in Tanza-
nia. A Journal of Contemporary Research, 8(1), 1–23.
Anderson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). Characteristics of improved formative assessment prac-
tice. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) Committee on Inno-
vation and Technology. (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Routledge.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2010). Defining 21st century skills. In E. Care, P. Griffin, & B. McGaw (Eds.), Assess-
ment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.
102 Kitta and Amani
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educa-
tional Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies, competence
viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3–13. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/
a000194
Care, E. (2018). 21st century skills: From theory to action. In E. Care, P. Griffin, & M.
Wilson (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Research and applica-
tions (pp. 3–17). Springer.
Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A., & Anderson, K. (2018). Education system alignment for 21st
century skills: Focus on assessment. Center for Universal Education, Brookings Insti-
tution.
Chalkiadaki, A. (2018). A systematic literature review of the 21st century skills and
competences in primary education. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 1–16.
Chowdhury, M. (2016). Emphasizing morals, values, ethics, and character education
in science education and science teaching. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educa-
tional Science, 4(2), 2–16.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J. Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Assess-
ment instruments for twenty-first century skills. In S. Chu, R. Reynolds, M. Notari, N.
Taveres, & C. Lee (Eds.), 21st century skills development through inquiry based learn-
ing from theory to practice (pp. 163–192). Springer Science.
Daisy, D. (2015). Teachers’ conduct in the 21st century: The need for enhancing stu-
dents’ academic performance. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 71–78.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Pecheone, R. (2009). Reframing accountability: Using perfor-
mance assessments to focus learning on higher-order skills. In L. M. Pinkus (Ed.),
Meaningful measurement: The role of assessments in improving high school education
in the twenty-first century. Alliance for Excellent Education.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. Minton.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
Fussy, D. S. (2018). Institutionalization of teacher ethics in secondary schools: A school
heads’ perspective. Pakistan Journal of Education, 32(2), 79–96.
Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Tonelson, S. W., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Changing disci-
plinary and instructional practices in the middle school to address IDEA. The Clear-
ing House, 73(4), 205–208.
Gotch, C., & French, B. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14–18.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional frame-
work for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development,
52, 67–86.
Hameed, S. A. (2011). Effect of internet drawbacks on moral and social values of users
in education. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(6), 372–380.
Isaacs, T., Zara, C., Herbert, G., Coombs, S. J., & Smith, C. (2013). Key concepts in educa-
tional assessment. Sage Publications Ltd.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and develop-
ment. Prentice-Hall.
Kozma, B. B. (2011). ICT, educational transformation and economic development:
An analysis of the US national education technology plan. E-learning and Digital
Media, 8(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2011.8.2.106
Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for stan-
dards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education,
32(3), 34–62.
Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Thadani, V., & Martin, C. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills.
Literacy in the digital age. NCRL/Metiri Group. Retrieved January 11, 2020, from
http://www. metiri.com/features.html
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mdemu, A. Z. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of their roles as moral educators in Tanza-
nia: A study of selected secondary schools in Iringa Municipality. Unpublished Master
Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.
Ministry of Education and Vocational Training [MoEVT]. (2010). Education sector
development program: Secondary education development program II. MoEVT.
Mkimbili, S., & Kitta, S. K. (2019). The rationale of continuous assessment for develop-
ment of competencies in Tanzania secondary schools. Advanced Journal of Social
Science, 6(1), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.21467/ajss.6.1.64-70
National Institute of Education [NIE]. (2009). A teacher education model for the 21st
century: A report by the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Retrieved March
14, 2020, from http://www.nie.edu.sg/files/TE21%20online%20version%20-
%20updated.pdf
Okobaa, V. (2017). Preparing the teacher to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Journal of Education and Practice, 8(5), 81–86.
Olusegun, B. S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and
learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 5(6), 66–70.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The defi-
nition and selection of key competencies (Executive summary). Retrieved December
10, 2019, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf
Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual
analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4), 1–11.
Paulo, A., & Tilya, F. (2014). The 2005 secondary school curriculum reforms in Tan-
zania: Disjunction between policy and practice in its implementation. Journal of
Education and Practice, 5(35), 114–122.
104 Kitta and Amani
Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Assessment as a positive influence on 21st century teaching and

learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa, 20, 65–77.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hickey, D. (2006). Educational assessment: Towards better align-
ment between theory and practice. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, &
S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Sixteen
essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 169–189). Elsevier.
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance.
In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning (pp. 23–34). Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Price, J. K., Pierson, E., & Light, D. (2011). Using classroom assessment to promote 21st
century learning in emerging market countries. Paper presented at Global Learn Asia
Pacific, Melbourne Australia.
Rasheed, F., & Wahid, A. (2018). The theory of differentiated instruction and its applica-
bility: An e-learning perspective. International Journal of Technical & Non-Technical
Research, IX(IV), 193–202.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics. Pearson Education.
Schaeffer, E. (1999). It’s time for schools to implement character education. NASSP Bul-
letin, 83, 1–7.
Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st
century: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing.
Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., Thompson, A. D., Baran, E., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin,
T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The develop-
ment and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 4(2), 123–149.
Sherpa, K. (2018). Importance of professional ethics for teachers. International Educa-
tional and Research Journal, 4(3), 16–18.
Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). Society, schooling, teaching, and preparing to teach. In J. I. Good-
lad, R. Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 296–327).
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A. (Eds.). (1993). Secondary research: Information sources
and methods. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985802
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education
Journal, 7(7), 935–947.
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory
into Practice, 44(3), 262–269.
Türkkahraman, M. (2012). The role of education in the societal development. Journal of
Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(4), 38–41.
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives.

UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008a). ICT com-
petency standards for teachers. Implementation guidelines. Retrieved December 10,
2019, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156209e.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008b). ICT com-
petency standards for teachers. Policy framework. Retrieved December, 2019, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156210e.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2015).
2013 Asia-Pacific Education Research Institutes Network (ERI-Net) regional study on
transversal competencies in education policy & practice (phase 1). UNESCO.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013). Performance-based assessment: The road to authentic
learning for the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 41–47.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C., & Schumm, J. (2000). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk stu-
dents in the general education classroom (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Vlachou, M. A. (2018). Classroom assessment practices in middle school science lessons:
A study among Greek science teachers. Cogent Education, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1080/2331186X.2018.1455633
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for
21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44(3) 299–321.
Vygotskiĭ, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Yousefpoori-Naeim, M. (2014). Performance-based assessment: What we should know
about it? ROSHD FLT Journal, 29(2), 39–47. https://www.academia.edu/25306558/
Performance_Based_Assessment_What_We_Should_Know_about_It
CHAPTER 7
Pre-Service Technology Teachers’ Learning

Experiences of Teaching Methods for Integrating
the Use of Technologies for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution
Abstract
One of the challenges teacher educators face today is the need to integrate learning
technologies into the learning experiences of pre-service teachers to equip them with
innovative and responsive teaching methods to be able to teach in the Fourth Indus-
trial Revolution. These responsive teaching methods will equip them to address and
solve contextual problems faced by society and develop 21st-century skills. Case studies
are a responsive teaching method that was embraced in the teaching of a technology
education module. These case studies required pre-service teachers to use the Internet
of Things, to equip them to be able to teach in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The
current chapter focuses on pre-service technology teachers’ learning experiences of
using the Internet of Things when engaging in case studies to solve local contextual
problems. There is a paucity of research on pre-service teachers’ learning experiences
of teaching methods integrating the use of the Internet of Things in developing coun-
tries like South Africa. Hence the need for this study. Data was generated via reflective
journals and focus group interviews from 18 pre-service teachers. Informed consent
of pre-service teachers was sought, and they were assured of confidentiality and ano-
nymity. Focus group interviews were audio-recorded and were transcribed verbatim.
Thereafter transcripts were sent to participants for member checking, to ensure that
the recordings were an accurate representation of what they meant to say. The findings
revealed that pre-service technology teachers engaged in deep and surface approaches
to learning when they used the Internet of Things, they encountered learning experi-
ences regarding their teacher agency. They valued and enjoyed case studies that tar-
geted to resolve contextual issues. These findings have implications for the kinds of
tasks that are designed to prepare pre-service teachers to teach in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution within an African context.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2021 | doi: 10.1163/9789004460386_007

Pre-service Technology Teachers’ Learning Experiences 107
1 Introduction
The teaching and learning environment is no longer confined to ‘chalk and

talk’ as it has been revolutionized by emerging technologies such as artificial
intelligence (AI), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), autonomous vehicles,
3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy stor-
age, and quantum computing (Morrar, Arman, & Mousa, 2017). Technology has
become a quintessential component in a teachers’ toolkit of pedagogies. This
means that education and the use of technologies in education are intrinsi-
cally connected and cannot be separated. The effective use of teaching tech-
nologies has made it possible for enhancing students’ engagement with the
course material, ensuring students’ progress as active learners by structuring
information mentally, improving visualization, encouraging independence of
students as well as improving social interaction of students (de Ruyter, Brown,
& Burgess, 2019).
Based on the aforementioned points, it stands to reason that technology is
not just a gadget or tool to be used in isolation within the classroom to improve
or benefit the teaching and learning of content only. Rather it is a socially
embedded medium that shapes our daily existence and experiences, for exam-
ple, wheelbarrows, tractors, cell phones, trains, and aeroplanes were devel-
oped in response to society’s needs and they impact our lives and experiences
daily. Certain technologies, for example, the Internet of Things, robots and 3-D
printers have a dual purpose whereby they could be used during teaching and
learning to develop 21st-century skills among students such as critical thinking,
problem-solving, creativity, people management, coordinating with others,
emotional intelligence, decision-making, cognitive flexibility, responsible citi-
zenship and agency as well as a vehicle to address and solve many contextual
problems that communities encounter. This means that communities can bene-
fit when students use technologies to solve contextual problems in case studies.
I am aware of the debate put forth by Lelliot, Pendlebury, and Enslin (2001)
who warn that the social embeddedness of technology leads to an unavoid-
able dilemma in Africa and that access to technology (or a lack thereof) will
bring new forms of exclusion which could lead to more poverty and social ills.
However, I argue that if the technology is used appropriately during teaching
and learning, it can be used for social innovation to address contextual chal-
lenges in the local community (Allenby & Sarewitz, 2011). This means that
technologies can be used to meet social needs and tackle social challenges
(Marolt Pucihar & Zimmermann, 2015). For technologies to be used within the
teaching and learning environment for social innovation and as leverage to
address socio-economic challenges, teaching and learning activities must be
108 Singh-Pillay
well-structured to include technology-based learning activities that address

societal challenges. Put simply this means that in well-structured lessons, on
the one hand technology could bridge the dichotomy that often exists between
theory and application of theory in practice to solve contextual problems in
society. While on the other hand, it could illuminate how communities benefit
via their indirect access to technologies when it is used for social innovation
during teaching to address contextual challenges. One such technology that
can be used during teaching and learning to address societal challenges is the
Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT is a networked world of connected devices,
objects, and people that is responsive to the needs of individuals and society
as it was created to make life and business easy (Greengard, 2015). This chapter
assumes the position that curriculum development and the practice of teach-
ing and learning should be aligned to the needs of the communities they serve.
In the teaching of technology education opportunities to engage students
in the application of theory to solve contextual problems in society occur
via the design process, capability task, resource task, and case studies. Case
study tasks were used in this study to solve contextual problems which will be
elaborated upon under the case study section. This chapter reports on prac-
tice-led research which highlights how technologies can be used in case study
activities in a socially responsive way to address real contextual problems and
further exposes Pre-service Technology teachers’ (PSTTs) learning experiences
of teaching methods using the Internet of Things to address real contextual
problems.
2 Case Study Activities in Technology Education
In technology education, case studies are usually short, structured tasks. Their
purpose is to link real-life examples of technological challenges in society to
classroom activities. Case studies help to find solutions to contextual problems
and allow for reflection about learning, responsible citizenship, agency, prob-
lem-solving, creativity, design, and appropriateness of the solution provided
(DBE, 2011). Case study tasks include the use of simulations, observations,
interviews, and the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT uses smart devices and
the Internet to provide innovative solutions to various challenges and issues in
society (Kumar, Tiwari, & Zylmber, 2019). It links the objects of the real world
with the virtual world, thus enabling anytime, anywhere connectivity for
anything and anyone (Dwivedi, Janssen, Slade, Rana, Weerakkody, Millard, &
Snijders, 2017). In other words, the IoT refers to a world where physical objects
and beings, as well as virtual data and environments, all interact with each
other by exchanging data and information gathered about the environment
while reacting to the triggers of the physical world with the ability to influence
ongoing processes with their actions (Santucci, 2010).
Most case study assignments require students to answer an open-ended
question or develop a solution to an open-ended problem with multiple poten-
tial solutions. Case study assignments can be done individually or in teams
so that students can brainstorm solutions and share the workload. Most case
studies have these common elements: (i) a question or problem that needs
to be solved; (ii) a description of the problem’s context (a law, an industry, a
family); and (iii) supporting data, which may include data tables, links to URLs,
quoted statements or verification, supporting documents, audio, images or
video (Dunne & Brooks, 2004).
I requested students to follow a systematic approach as suggested by Dunne
and Brooks, (2004) to address the case study. For example:
– What is the issue?
– What is the context of the problem?
– What key facts should be considered?
– What alternatives are available to the decision-maker?
– What would you recommend and why?
2.1 Task
Students were expected to design and build a wireless watering system to
remotely irrigate a small garden or farm in a rural community. Table 7.1 sum-
marizes the common elements of the case study teaching method for the case
assignment.
table 7.1 Common elements of the case study for teaching method
Elements Participant Task/comment
Decision-maker Lecturer Presented the wireless network module.

Problem description Lecturer and PSTTs To design and build a wireless watering
system to remotely irrigate a small garden
or farm in a rural community.
Supporting data Lecturer, PSTTs Course content, the use of the Internet
and laboratory and the apparatus provided by the
technician laboratory technician.
110 Singh-Pillay
3 Methodology
As the objective of this study was to explore PSTTs’ learning experiences of

teaching methods using the IoT to address real contextual problems, a qual-
itative approach was adopted. Qualitative research aims to understand and
explore the phenomenon, namely the learning experiences of PSTTs of teach-
ing methods using IoT to address contextual problems, from the perspective
of the participants (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017). The interpretative par-
adigm was embraced in this study, to reveal the essence of the participants’
learning experiences of using the Internet of things when engaging in case
studies to solve local contextual problems from their perspectives (Henning,
Van Rensburg, & Smit, 2004).
PSTTs (18) enrolled for the exit level technology education module were pur-
posively selected to participate in this study. Informed consent of participants
was sought, and they were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. All 18
PSTTs1 consented to participate in this study. PSTTs were requested to self-se-
lect groups. Three groups with 6 PSTTs per group were formed. Each group
was tasked with the case study assignment: to design and build an irrigation
system using the IoT. This system could be an automated irrigation system or a
mobile irrigation system. Students were requested to use Python Programming
(https://www.python.org/) because it is easier to learn, allows system integra-
tion, and is recommended by literature as one of the relevant programming
languages for the case studies (Schwab, 2017; Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018). The
students organized different components, that is, microcontroller/processors,
GSM module, moisture sensors, driver, relay, water pump, bread/circuit board
and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to conduct their case assignment.
Permission to conduct this study was acquired from Richwood Univer-
sity. Data was generated via interviews and reflective journals. The interview
questions focused on the following issues: experiences of case study tasks in
technology education, using the Internet of Things to address the case studies,
working collaboratively with their colleagues and teacher agency. Interviews
were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and thereafter transcripts
were sent to participants for member checking. According to Creswell and
Creswell (2018), member checking enhances the credibility of the study. Mem-
ber checking allows participants to read individual interview transcripts to
ensure data was captured correctly on the phenomenon being explored, and
to avoid misinterpretation by the researcher due to the possibility of mishear-
ing what had been said.
Data were analyzed using content analysis which involved the organiza-
tion of the data into categories (Ezzy, 2002). In the study, coding was used to
categorize the data that had been collected. Coding is the process of identify-
ing concepts or themes that are in the data (Ezzy, 2002), which involves noting
regularities in the setting or participants chosen for the study (De Vos, 2004).
To begin the coding process, the author read all the transcripts and identified
initial themes established from the data. The assigned themes were analyzed
and coded more closely. Using a continuous comparative method of analysis
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008), the author analyzed all transcripts and explored
patterns or dissimilarities in the data, and identified themes as they emerged
through an interpretative lens.
In this section, data from the interviews and reflective journals are presented
to bring to the fore PSTTs’ learning experiences to teaching methods using the
Internet of Things to address real contextual problems. Four themes emerged,
PSTTs approaches to learning, PSTTs learning experiences of case study learn-
ing using IoT, PSTTs learning experience of teacher agency, and PSTTs learning
experiences of social learning.
4.1 PSTTS’ Approaches to Learning Using IoT in Case Study Projects

The data from the reflective journal and interviews reveal that PSTTs embraced
deep and surface approaches to learning when using the IoT during their case
study task. First, the deep approaches to learning will be presented followed by
the surface approaches to learning. On the one hand, the majority of (13) PSTTs
viewed learning through the IoT as a way to improve understanding of wire-
less networks and irrigation systems to develop a broader and deeper perspec-
tive on the case study by being able to explore and evaluate information from
multiple sites in a short space of time. The excerpts below reflect the in-depth
learning approach used by PSTTs.
The Internet as a technological tool for research has widened my abil-

ity of reading, sifting information, comparing information, synthesizing
information needed to develop the remote-controlled irrigation system.
I feel I am also able to process and make sense of all the information I
have, I combine it to information from the Internet with that obtained in
lectures and contained in the course pack. (PSTT: 6, Reflective journal)
I do not need to depend on one source when utilizing the Internet like
I would have had to if I were to use a book, I just move from one source to
another, comparing contrasting and at the end, select the best, accurate
112 Singh-Pillay
and suitable source to construct the wireless irrigation system. (PSTT: 9,

Interview)
The above excerpts highlight how PSTTs used the IoT to enhance their dis-
cerning abilities, by comparing, sifting, contrasting and synthesizing informa-
tion available to them. The above approaches reported by PSTTs reveal that
they engage with the information source, evaluate the information and inte-
grate it with information from their lectures and course pack. This means that
the IoT was used as a way of learning through integration, analysis, evaluation
with a focus on the possibility to assess the accuracy of the facts by cross-check-
ing them. The above-mentioned approach of checking and cross-checking
has resulted in a broader scope of interpretation, reading for meaning, and
learning. The approaches reported in the preceding excerpts describe deeper
approaches to critically integrating sources of information with a focus on ana-
lyzing and evaluating resources to resolve a contextual problem (building an
irrigation system). Key strategies involved summarizing, comparing, critiqu-
ing, and synthesizing ideas. The above finding concurs with that of Rohman,
Fauzan, and Yohandri (2020) study which illuminates the 21st-century skills,
such as critical thinking, problem-solving, analyzing, comparing, contrasting
that learners develop when they engage in projects that depend on the use of
digital technologies.
On the other hand, a few (5) PSTTs engaged in a more surface approach to
learning when using the IoT as is visible in the excerpts below:
I surf the net to collect information, copy and paste and find an easy solu-
tion for the case study it just to meet the requirement, it is an opportunity
to go on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. (PSTT: 11, Reflective journal)
I spend a minimum of time copying and pasting information for the proj-
ect so that I can have more time for entertainment and social networking.
(PSTT: 4, Interview)
From the above excerpts, it is visible that these PSTTs spend more time on
the IoT for social networking rather than their case study task; hence they
focused mainly on combining rather than interrogating sources of information
related to the case study task. A key feature of the more surface approaches to
learning using the Internet focused mostly around collecting and replicating
information. The visible strategy of these approaches reported by PSTTs was the
indiscriminate tendency to copy and paste, with no effort to interrogate, com-
pare, analyze or synthesize information. Further, they emphasized the need to
find an easy solution for the case study task to meet class requirements. The
above finding resonates with that of Schindler, Burkholder, Morad, and Marchs’
(2017) study on students’ learning patterns in higher education and beyond. The
study reported that 30 percent of students who use the IoT for learning spend
more time on social media and engage in surface learning patterns.
4.2 PSTTS’ Learning Experiences of Case Study Learning Using IoT

Data from the reflective journals and the interviews illuminate that PSTTs fore-
grounded the benefits of the Internet of Things in solving case studies that
focus on contextual problems as is evident in the excerpts below:
I’m starting to realize how easily the IoT can be used to improve the qual-
ity of our lives, I could apply the theory learned to solve the real practical
problem encountered in my community for example women could be
assisted to control the timer on the stove from their phone so that when
they get home meals are ready and they can spend time with their chil-
dren. The IoT allows us to live smartly, all assessment tasks should require
us to use IoT to solve problems experienced in our communities, I enjoy
tasks of this nature where we have to solve contextual problems. (PSTT:
7, Reflective journal)
Comments made by the PSTTs in the interview seem to concur with the
comments received in the reflective journal.
The IoT is beneficial to the rural farmers, it allowed them to enhance pro-
ductivity and reduce the time spent on watering their garden, we must be
exposed to more of this type of task it helps us to apply theory learned to
solve real contextual problems affecting people in our community that is
what learning and teaching should be about. (PSTT: 18, Interview)
From the above excerpts, it is evident that PSTTs enjoyed working on the
case study task using the IoT as it allowed them the space to apply the theory
learned to solve contextual problems. The case study assessment task provided
opportunities for PSTTs to transform their learning experiences by engaging
them in contextually relevant projects. In traditional learning environments,
attention to the context in which learning takes place as well as the interac-
tion between learners and the surrounding environment is often neglected
or ignored (Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron, & Osher, 2020).
In this instance, case study tasks ensured continuity of the learning experi-
ence (apply theory to solve the real problems) by promoting opportunities to
114 Singh-Pillay
practice and apply content and skills learned in lectures to solve real contex-
tual problems. In case study tasks, real contexts are brought into the classroom,
and thus the contexts are meaningful and concrete to the learner. According
to Lindsay (2017), the more personalized and relevant the tasks are to students’
daily lives and aimed at addressing societal issues in their communities, the
more invested they become in finding appropriate solutions and carrying out
the task. The above finding is aligned with that of Mok (2017) who established
IoT tasks that motivate students to engage with difficult content and apply
theory to solve practical problems encountered in society.
PSTTs acknowledge that the IoT is a useful technological resource that can
be used to solve contextual problems in their communities. They realize the
social embeddedness of IoT and its positive impact on addressing contextual
issues and challenges such as assisting working people, health benefits, and
saving time in the above excerpts.
4.3 PSTTS’ Learning Experiences of Teacher Agency

By engaging in case study tasks, PSTTs had multiple opportunities for deeper
inner reflection. The data from both the reflective journal and interviews reveal
that case study tasks using the IoT catalyze PSTTs’ awareness of their role as
agents of change. Reflections allowed 18 PSTTs to (re)evaluate their frame of
reference regarding what a teacher’s job is and what it is not as is visible in the
excerpts that follow:
If it weren’t for this task, I would have ignored the using IoT and trying to
solve the problem encountered in communities. To me, I was supposed to
learn about sensors, interfacing them and connectivity, write the exams
and pass. Helping to solve community issues, driving change is not my
job, my job will be just to teach, now I feel differently, I have changed it’s
not just about passing it’s also about my learning as a lifelong learner, I
have changed because of this case study task, my thinking about me as a
teacher and my role in the community has changed, I can use my teacher
voice to change people’s lives, improve our society, it’s my responsibility, I
now care about my community. (PSTT: 15, Reflective journal)
Likewise, excerpts from the interviews support the views expressed in the
reflective journal:
I know now that change can be little steps we take to improve the quality
of life for others in our community, it doesn’t have to be grand and fancy.
Working on this project let me see that I can contribute to change. Even
though this project was on a wireless irrigation system, I found I could not
ignore other challenges the community encounters, I took it upon myself
to tell the working mother on how to control her washing machine and
oven from her cell phone to make her life a little easier. I felt inspired and
would want to do this type of project again. I will engage my learners in
this type of project when I start teaching, this is real contextualized learn-
ing. (PSTT: 16, Interview)
The above excerpts highlight the transformative learning that occurs by

engaging PSTTs in contextualized case study tasks using the IoT. By using the
community as a resource, PSTTs had an opportunity to (re)align their frames of
references. The consequence of the realignment of their frame of reference was
a transition from ignorance of the social responsibilities attached to teaching (it
not my job) to a greater sense of awareness of the need to bring about change,
transformation and social justice in the communities they are working in (this
is my responsibility; I can make a difference). The case study tasks allowed
PSTTs to be conscious of their roles as agents of change in the communities
they worked in; they became aware of power or social capital (teacher’s voice),
inequalities that prevail, and their civic responsibility towards the community.
PSTTs can see how their role as an agent of change extends from the school
classroom to the community. These PSTTs were able to see the power linked
to the professional identity of a teacher and the capacity to produce change.
These participants see teaching as a moral-ethical value-laden practice. Powers
(2004), in her evaluation of school community case study projects in the United
States, found that this approach increases students’ interest in their community
issues. These findings confirm that the use of a case study approach to address
contextual issues makes a difference in how PSTTs view their role as agents of
change. Contextualized case study tasks led to caring PSTTs who reflected upon
their communities’ challenges (Orr, 1992; Theobald, 2000) during case studies.
4.4 PSTTS’ Learning Experiences of Social Learning When Using the IoT
during Case Studies
Case study tasks using the IoT provided PSTTs with reflective spaces to ques-
tion, (re)examine their (un)conscious values, beliefs, and judgments in life as
is visible in the excerpts below:
I don’t like working in groups but in this case study project, I had a chance
to collaborate with people in my group, I normally don’t speak to them,
we are faces in the same lecture room. They treated me kindly, were so
warm towards me. The best part was I learned how to be a team player,
116 Singh-Pillay
not to be judgemental, trust the judgment of others and be confident,

this was a humbling experience for me. I gained more skills during this
project than passing any exam. (PSTT: 17, Reflective journal)
I realized problem-solving becomes easier and solutions are reached

faster when we work together. I am independent I work by myself, in this
project I learned about group dynamics, trust, to listen to other voice, to
share ideas, I learned about teamwork, strengths and weakness and how
to help and be helped. (PSTT: 2, Interview)
The excerpts above confirm that case study tasks using the IoT allow for col-
laborative reciprocal learning, promote deep thinking about actions, help to
break stereotypes and allow PSTTs to believe in the good of others. The reflec-
tive space that case study tasks provided helped PSTTs to gain a better under-
standing of themselves (be a team player).
PSTTs’ engagement in case study tasks using the IoT helped them to break
down stereotypes, produced positive feelings toward group members and
developed collegial relationships. In a way, the reflection processes attached
to the task were liberating as it provided PSTTs with the skills needed to suc-
cessfully manage life tasks such as identifying anxieties, labelling emotions,
learning in groups, teamwork, awareness of themselves and others, the need
for kindness and respect for others, forming relationships, caring about oth-
ers, making good decisions, behaving ethically, avoiding negative behavior and
overcoming biases which Zins, Weissberg, Wang, and Walberg (2004) refer to
as emotional learning. The emotional catharsis that PSTTs experienced during
the case study tasks is important as they are a part of what concerns education
(Sen, 2009) as they bring to the fore the humanistic dimension of teaching and
learning as well as important emotional competencies pre-service teachers
need to be able to relate to each other and their learners in future.
5 Conclusion
The findings of this study revealed that the majority of PSTTs engaged in deep
approaches to learning when using the IoT, they read critically, compared, ana-
lyzed, synthesized, and evaluated information accessed from the Internet and
compared the information retrieved to information obtained via lectures and
the course pack. A few PSTTs resorted to surface approaches to learning when
using the IoT, they copied and pasted information and completed the case study
to meet the requirements for the module. PSTTs enjoyed working on the case
study tasks using the IoT as a teaching method as it allowed them the space to
apply the theory learned to solve contextual problems. Engaging with the case
study tasks enhanced PSTTs’ learning experience of teacher agency as well as
their learning experiences of social learning. The above findings support the ini-
tial argument made in this chapter if the technology is used appropriately during
teaching and learning, it can be used for social innovation to address contextual
challenges in the local community. In other words, the findings of this study
elucidate that when teaching and learning activities are well designed, technol-
ogies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution can be used to develop
21st-century skills among PSTTs while addressing contextual social challenges.
Note
1 PSTTs were coded from 1–18, for example PSTT 13 refers to the participant coded as 13 and so on.
References
Allenby, B. R., & Sarew, D. (2011). The techno-human condition. The MIT Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education. Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
de Ruyter, A., Brown, M., & Burgess, J. (2019). GIG work and the Fourth Industrial Rev-
olution. Journal of International Affairs, 72(1), 37–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
10.2307/26588341
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020).
Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development.
Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. doi:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum assessment policy statement – grade
7–9-technology education. Pretoria.
De Vos, A. S. (2004). Combined quantitative and qualitative approach. In A. S. De Vos,
H. Strydom, C. B. Fouché, & C. S. L. Delport (Eds.), Research at grassroots for the
social sciences and human service professions (2nd ed.). Van Schaik Publishers.
Dunne, D., & Brooks, K. (2004). STLHE Green guide no. 5: Teaching with cases.
http://www.mcmaster.ca/stlhe/publications/gree.guides.htm
Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., & Snijders,
D. (2017). Driving innovation through Big Open Linked Data (BOLD): Exploring
118 Singh-Pillay
antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers,

19(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9675-5
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Allen & Unwin.
Greengard, S. (2015). The Internet of Things. MIT Press.
Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on digital english and education
4.0 for industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 7(11), 22–240.
Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W., & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative
research. Van Schaik Publishers.
Kumar, S., Tiwari, P., & Zylmber, M. (2019). Internet of Things is a revolutionary
approach for future technology enhancement: A review. Journal of Big Data, 6, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2
Lelliott, A., Pendlebury, S., & Enslin, P. (2001). Online education in Africa: Promises and
pitfalls. South African Journal of Information Management, 3(1), 1–10.
Lindsay, K. (2017). Why IoT and personalization are made for each other. CMS Wire.
Marolt, M., Pucihar, A., & Zimmermann, D. H. (2015). Social CRM adoption and its
impact on performance outcomes: A literature review. Organizacija, 48(4), 260–271.
http://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2015-0022
Mok, K. (2017). Prototype: A smartphone universal remote for the Internet of Things. The
New Stack.
Morrar, R., Arman, H., & Mousa, S. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry
4.0): A social innovation perspective. Technology Innovation Management Review,
7(11), 12–20. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1117
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy education and transition to a post-modern world.
Albany State University of New York Press.
Powers, A. L. (2004). An evaluation of four place-based education programs. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 17–32.
Rohman, F., Fauzan, A., & Yohandri, Y. (2020). Project, Technology and Active (PRO-
TECTIVE) learning model to develop digital literacy skills in the 21st century. Inter-
national Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(1), 12–16.
Santucci, G. (2010). The internet of things: Between the revolution of the internet and the
metamorphosis of objects. Forum American Bar Association.
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & March, C. (2017). Computer-based
technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Technology in High Education, 14(25), 1–28. doi:10.1186/
s41239-017-0063-0
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Allen Lane.
Theobald, P. (2000). Communities as curricula. Forum for Applied Research and Public
Policy, 15(11), 106–111.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic
success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? Teachers Col-
lege Press.
CHAPTER 8
Pre-Service Teacher Educators’ Experiences

of Using Mobile Technologies in the Teaching
and Learning of Mathematics and Technology
Education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Asheena Singh-Pillay and Jayaluxmi Naidoo
Abstract
This qualitative ethnographic study reports on a project which sought to explore expe-
riences of using mobile technologies, in the teaching and learning of mathematics and
technology education. The researchers worked collaboratively to develop curricula
featuring the use of mobile devices, in the context of their respective technology and
mathematics education flipped lecture rooms, in response to the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. Aligned with the module outcomes, mobile devices were used for teach-
ing shapes, angles and design in mathematics and for applying the shapes, angles
and design to build rigid structures in technology education. Mishra and Koehler’s
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model undergirded this study.
This chapter advances the rationale that teacher educators’ pedagogical and tech-
nological practices cannot be understood without considering their socio-cultural
backgrounds. The participants were teacher educators at one university in KwaZulu-
Natal. Six teacher educators were purposively selected to participate in this study.
Semi-structured interviews and observations were used to generate qualitative data.
Data were subjected to content analysis. The findings reveal that teacher educators use
mobile technologies to heighten students’ awareness of mathematics and technology
in everyday life, to initiate thinking by enabling students to move from the concrete,
observable phenomena to abstract understanding of principles and their application
to design to solve contextualized problems. Such use of mobile technologies enhances
students’ observation, discussion and presentation skills. Moreover, the findings high-
light that teacher educators’ pedagogy relating to mobile technologies are impacted by
early learning experiences and socio-cultural background. The findings have implica-
tions for the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model and calls for
an extension of the model.

120 Singh-Pillay and Naidoo
1 Introduction
Advances in technology influence the way people create, share, use and dev-
elop information in society. Nowadays computer devices are more powerful,
easily accessible and come in a variety of forms, from those that are placed
on our desks to those that are placed in the palm of our hands, for example,
mobile devices. Mobile devices or technologies consist of portable two-way
communications devices, namely, the computing device and the networking
device that connects them. For this study, mobile technologies are used to refer
to the use of mobile phones. The increasing variety and easy accessibility of
technology have expanded the resources and the opportunities available to
teachers to facilitate teaching and learning with technologies.
Furthermore, most students entering Higher Education are competent
users of mobile phones and have excellent social networking skills acquired
through experiential learning. Despite students’ ability to use mobile phones
and the potential to use mobile phones to facilitate the learning process,
mobile technologies are not readily embraced during teaching in South Afri-
can classrooms (Makoe, 2013; North, Johnston, & Ophoff, 2014; Ngesi, Landa,
Madikiza, Cekiso, Tshotsho, & Walters, 2018). Also, Jita (2018) noted that not
enough attention had been paid to the preparation of teachers to use technol-
ogy tools for teaching. Similarly, Ekanayake and Wishart (2014) have pointed
out that teacher training has been the least explored topic in mobile learn-
ing research. The points raised deep concerns among the researchers. Hence
they explored the possibility of introducing teaching and learning with mobile
devices during the teaching of mathematics and technology education, in a
pre-service teacher education programme at a teacher training University
in KwaZulu-Natal. This study responded to the following research question:
What are pre-service teacher educators’ experiences of using mobile technol-
ogies in the teaching and learning of mathematics and technology education?
It is envisaged that the introduction of teaching and learning with mobile
devices will help to bridge the divide between theory and application of theory
to solve the contextual problem as well as to prepare pre-service teachers to
teach effectively with technologies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).
To embark on their research project, the researchers established the number
of pre-service teachers enrolled for mathematics and technology education
that have access to mobile phones (all pre-service teachers had smartphones).
The researchers were aware that to use mobile phones to facilitate teaching
and learning, there had to be a pedagogical focus. Hence, they designed their
mathematics and technology education module outcomes, teaching strate-
gies and learning tasks to integrate the use of mobile devices to teach shapes,
Pre-Service Teacher Educators’ Experiences 121
angles and design in maths and application of shapes and angles to design
rigid structures in technology education. Thus, this study sought to explore
teacher educators’ experiences of using mobile technologies in their pedagog-
ical practice. This study aims to explain the connection between teacher edu-
cators’ socio-cultural background, how they taught and how they used mobile
phones in their teaching of shapes, angles and design in mathematics and the
application of design in technology education.
The findings of this study can develop the implementation of an original inter-
vention with mobile devices based on the results of the experiences of teacher
educators and description of its affordances into a programme to bridge the gap
between theory and the application of theory during problem-solving at a Uni-
versity in KwaZulu-Natal. Further, the findings of this study could create a plat-
form for dialogue on the use of mobile devices research in pre-service teacher
education programmes to prepare teachers for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
2 Mobile Learning
Definitions of mobile learning emphasize mobility (Sharples, Arnedillo-Sán-

chez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009), access (Parsons & Ryu, 2006), immediacy
(Kynäslahti, 2003), situativity (Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, 2012), ubiquity
(Kukulska-Hulme Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Sánchez, & Vavoula, 2009), con-
venience (Kynäslahti, 2003), and context (Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubus-
son, 2012). According to Sharples et al. (2009), mobile learning includes the
characteristics of mobility in physical, conceptual, and social spaces. The rela-
tionship between the context of learning and context of being is unique to
mobile learning, as learning may occur in independent, formal, or socialized
contexts (Frohberg, Göth, & Schwabe, 2009).
Mobile learning (M-learning) embraces the use of mobile devices such
as small wireless, portable, handheld devices (for example, cellular phones,
smartphones, PDAs, MP3 players, portable game devices, tablets, notebooks
and laptops), the capacity of human learning, social communication, interac-
tion with the device, the learner and the societal aspects of learning (Kenny,
Park, Van Neste-Kenny, Burton, & Meiers, 2009).
M-learning has the following benefits when the learning task is aligned
with the learning outcome and teaching strategy, namely, it allows students to
actively engage with the functions of mobile technology that allow for varying
levels of interactivity and student-centeredness (Ozdamli & Cavus, 2011). The
students learn by actively constructing, assimilating and applying new ideas
and concepts based on both their previous and current knowledge; further,
they take greater responsibility for their learning (Valk, Rashid, & Elder, 2010).
These features provide opportunities for individualized, situated, collabo-
rative, and informal learning without being limited to classroom contexts
(Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, 2012).
Despite the benefits of M-learning, it remains under-theorized in teacher
education (Kearney & Maher, 2013), which emphasizes the need to inform
teachers of the value of mobile technologies and how to integrate them effec-
tively into their classes. Schuck, Aubusson, Kearney and Burden, (2013) and
North, Johnston, and Ophoff (2014), noted that South African students pre-
dominantly use mobile phones for socializing, safety and privacy. Additionally,
various reasons can be found in the literature about teachers’ concerns about
integrating mobile technologies in their teaching.
3 A Global Perspective on Mobile Learning
The popularity and acceptance of mobile learning are gaining momentum

around the world due to the increasing availability of low-cost mobile devices
and supporting infrastructure for mobile technology (Jalil, Beer, & Crowther,
2015). In many developed countries, such as Australia, the Government,
through the National Vocational Education and Training E-learning strategy,
supports the application of mobile technologies in learning thus universities
and schools have introduced a mobile learning project for example “Bring Your
Own Device” (BYOD), to support students’ learning through their own devices
(McLean, 2016, p. 2).
The immediate access and flexibility of mobile devices are seen as enablers
for collective learning (Falloon, 2015). Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the swiftest
growing regions for mobile subscriptions in the world, with a mobile infiltra-
tion rate of 75% in 2018 (GSMA, 2018). In 2017, third-generation (3G) connec-
tivity via mobile phone was almost universal in South Africa (GSMA, 2017),
while in Kenya, mobile penetration based on SIM connections stood at 91%
(Masese & Makena, 2019). Thus, mobile phones are used to support learning in
resource-challenged schooling contexts in Africa (Traxler, 2010).
4 Teacher Challenges Concerning the Integration of Mobile

Technologies in Their Teaching
Challenges related to teachers’ adoption of mobile technologies have emerged

from the fact that they are not effectively prepared to investigate the advan-
tages or make informed decisions (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2009; Schuck et al.,
2013). Other concerns, associated with the integration of new technologies,

are the fear of change, motivation, lack of training and expertise, teaching
beliefs, self-efficacy, and the school culture (Makoe, 2013; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010). According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), teachers
need a paradigm shift to adjust their traditional pedagogic practices.
An obstacle that prevents teachers in the United Kingdom, from integrat-
ing technology in their teaching is finding time for planning and exploring
the effectiveness of the plan (Haydn, 2001). Within the South African con-
text (more so in rural communities) most teachers are concerned about an
increased workload (Makoe, 2013). The literature discussed above anticipates
the challenges in pedagogical practice when mobile technologies are incorpo-
rated within classroom teaching. This study draws attention to the intricacy
of integrating mobile technologies in teaching, using, Mishra and Koehler’s
(2006, p. 1029) ‘Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge’ model.
5 Theoretical Framing
Mishra and Koehler (2006) suggested the use of Technological, Pedagogical

and Content Knowledge framework for integrating technology when teach-
ing and learning. The Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) model is an extension of Shulman’s (1986, p. 8) model of Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK). Shulman critiqued teacher education programmes
for the isolation of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Shulman
argued that content and pedagogy are intrinsically interrelated; hence, pre-ser-
vice teachers ought to have a deep understanding of both types of knowledge.
Mishra and Koehler (2006) adopted Shulman’s view and extended the argu-
ment to include technology. They assert that since technology has become an
important component of the teaching and learning processes, due to its capac-
ity for improving the learning and teaching processes. Thus, teachers need to
understand the relationship between the three types of teacher knowledge,
specifically content, pedagogy, and technology, as reflected in Figure 8.1.
Teachers require certain competencies to connect the three types of knowl-
edge: content (subject area knowledge), pedagogy (teaching knowledge), and
technology (technology background) namely:
– Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), focuses on Shulman’s (1986) idea
revolving around how to teach specifically content-based material.
– Technological content knowledge (TCK), focusses on how to choose tech-
nologies that best represent and support particular content-based guidelines.
– Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), refers to how to use specific
technologies when teaching.
figure 8.1 The TPACK framework (adapted from Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg,
2013, p. 3; reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org,
http://tpack.org)
– Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK/TPACK), refers to how

to teach material that is specifically content-based while using technologies
that best represent and support it, in ways that are appropriately matched
to students’ needs and preferences.
The technological knowledge referred to in the TPACK framework is not

about computer skills but an elevated awareness of the affordances of emerg-
ing technology tools for learning (Bower, 2008). It refers to knowledge about
the affordances of emerging technologies that impact teachers’ existing priori-
ties and agendas, their concerns, motivations and incentives for use. Studies by
Chai, Ling Koh, Tsai, and Lee WeeTan (2011); Harris and Hofer (2011); Koh, Chai,
and Tsai (2013); Polly (2011); Hyo-Jeong and Bosung (2009) highlight TPACK’s
contribution to understanding the complexity of technological and pedagog-
ical practices within schooling contexts. However, it is significant to remem-
ber that the TPACK model does not consider the influence of the teachers’
socio-cultural background on their use of technologies during teaching. For

example, Polly’s (2011) study discussed causes for the challenges experienced
while enacting TPACK in pedagogical practices, but there is little discussion
of teachers’ socio-cultural backgrounds when examining participants’ TPACK.
Although the TPACK model diagram (Figure 8.1) situates the interconnecting
rings/circles in an area marked “context”, the model does not specify or define
this context. Hence, we argue that TPACK’s theorization does not include room
for explaining teachers’ socio-cultural backgrounds when investigating peda-
gogical practices.
6 Research Methods and Design
This qualitative interpretative study embraced an ethnographic methodol-

ogy to explore teacher educators’ experiences of using mobile phones in their
pedagogical practices. The interpretative paradigm aims to understand the
social phenomenon explored from participants’ perspectives (Cohen, Man-
ion, & Morrison, 2017). Ethnography seeks to understand a particular group
(teacher educators) in their socio-cultural “milieu’s” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 40).
This means that ethnographic research describes socio-cultural entities in
individuals’ actions and emphasizes the ground understanding of participants’
contexts (Wolcott, 1987). Participant teacher educators in this research worked
at a teacher training university in KwaZulu-Natal, Eastwood University (pseud-
onym), in a specific socio-cultural context, which can influence how they form
specific practices. The ethnographic methodology had two foci: institutional
(teacher education context) and socio-cultural (the connection between
teacher educators’ early background and their later formed practices).
Permission to conduct this study was acquired from Eastwood University
(pseudonym). Six teacher educators from the mathematics and technology edu-
cation discipline were purposively selected to participate in this study. These
teacher educators teach Intermediate phase, pre-service teachers. The criteria
for their selection was they lecture to pre-service teachers who study both math-
ematics and technology education as their learning areas. The autonomy of the
participants was guaranteed using informed consent letters. During phase one
of the data generating semi-structured interviews were used to obtain data from
six teacher educators. The interviews which were audio-recorded were approx-
imately 45 minutes each. The interview focused on: their home environment,
community, schooling, childhood, their use of the cell phone in general, their
use of the cell phone during teaching, their experience in using the cell phone
to learn/teach mathematics and solve a contextual problem experienced by the

community during technology education, perceptions on support available for
lecturers to use mobile technologies in their teaching and what enabled or hin-
dered their use of mobile technologies in teaching mathematics and technol-
ogy education at Eastwood University.
In phase two of data generation, the six teacher educators were observed
while lecturing. Observation entails recording the behavioral patterns of par-
ticipants to gain a deeper insight into the phenomenon being observed (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2017). Observations were used to learn about the teacher
educators’ lecture room practice relating to the use of mobile technologies in
the teaching of mathematics and to document it. Furthermore, the observa-
tions were used to validate data from the interview. The following aspects were
observed: how the teacher educator used mobile technology in the teaching
of mathematics and technology education as well as whether mobile technol-
ogies were used in isolation or to contextualize the teaching of mathematics
and technology education.
Two lectures were observed per teacher educator, and all observations
were video recorded. All audio and video recordings were transcribed verba-
tim. Transcripts were sent to participants for member checking. According to
Creswell and Creswell (2018), member checking enhances the credibility of
the study. Member checking allows participants the opportunity to read indi-
vidual interview transcripts to ensure data was captured correctly on the phe-
nomenon being explored and to avoid misinterpretation by the researcher due
to the possibility of mishearing what had been said.
The transcripts were read several times before analysis could begin. During
data analysis, coding sketches were used to trace the links between teacher
educators’ early learning experiences, socio-cultural background and peda-
gogy and how the mobile phone/s were used in practice.
7 Results and Discussion
In this section, we present the analysis for six teacher educators. Our analysis
reveals that four themes emerged.
7.1 Impact of Early Learning Experience on Pedagogy

All six teacher educators reflected on the pedagogical techniques that their
teachers used as a primary source of their teaching-related knowledge as is
implicit in the excerpts below:
I teach mathematics the way I was taught, chalk and talk method, it’s
important to master your content, so yes rote learning has its place… (P1,1
Interview)
I teach technology education the way I learnt in school, I had an excep-

tional teacher who always tried new interesting things in class, who chal-
lenged us to solve a real problem in our community, so in the same way, I
try to challenge my students… (P3, Interview)
Comments made by the teacher educators in the interview seem to concur

with the comments made during the observation of lectures.
The best method to teach math is chalk and talk; it works I am proof of it,
you students cannot add three sets of numbers without using a calcula-
tor, use your head people, it will help you. I grew up without technology
do I am not a slave to it. (P1, Observation)
Back when I was I school my teacher always made abstract concepts less
abstract by using picture or charts, you and I are fortunate to have technol-
ogy at our disposal to facilitate teaching and learning, use your phones to
look at the arch of Moses Maida stadium and establish the types of support
used and explain why this is the best support structure. (P3, Observation)
From the preceding excerpts, the contrasting ways in which teacher edu-
cators’ respective learning experiences influence their pedagogy comes to
the fore. Participant 1’s appreciation of and the value for rote learning and
‘chalk and talk’ pedagogy becomes conspicuous. It is evident that P1 valued
his teachers’ teaching, and, in the process, P1 seems to be oblivious of different
teaching strategies, learning theories and different learning styles and favours
a teacher-centred approach to teaching. Participant 3 is conscious of the need
for innovative pedagogy to promote learning and favours a learner-centred
approach that engages the student in inquiry-based learning. The above find-
ing concurs with that of Olesen and Hora’s (2014, p. 32) notion that teacher
educators do indeed ‘teach the way they were taught’. This means that teacher
educators’ early learning experiences do influence their pedagogy.
7.2 Socio-Cultural Background and Pedagogy

All six teacher educators carry with them their socio-cultural and economic
background, assumptions and beliefs into their lecture rooms. In other words,
their personalities and pedagogy are sculpted by their socio-cultural inter-

actions. The excerpts that follow, highlight how socio-cultural background
impacts teacher educators’ pedagogy.
My culture values education, therefore I actively engage students in dif-

ferent types of activities to encourage them to learn, I believe that teach-
ing is my calling and I enjoy both teaching and research… (P2, Interview)
My parents emphasized that education is the key to success and a way

out of poverty, I am open to learning and use method that helps my stu-
dents grasp difficult concepts… (P6, Interview)
Teaching was a good option, during apartheid we didn’t have many career
choices and opportunities available to us, my parents encouraged me to strive
for excellence in my career, so I invest a lot of time and energy in my teaching
and students, it is a form of Seva,2 keeping abreast with current teaching peda-
gogies and using them effectively is important to me… (P4, Interview).
Similar views were expressed during the observation of lectures.
How you are taught will influence how you will teach, I am exposing you
to all the technologies so that you are prepared to teach in the 4IR, you
must be innovative to capture your learners’ attention. (P5, Observation)
The preceding excerpts reveal how socio-cultural and economic factors

impact teacher educators’ beliefs, teaching values and ultimately, their ped-
agogical approaches used in their lecture room. The socio-cultural, economic
and historical factors mentioned in the excerpts have shaped these teacher
educators’ professional identity. Miller (2002) argues that teacher identity is
a process of social negotiation, strongly shaped by our socio-cultural experi-
ences and is rooted in historical power.
7.3 Teacher Educators’ Pedagogy

These teacher educators’ pedagogy is an interactive and relational reflective
process based on subtle judgments and adaptive responses to their unique stu-
dents and their learning requirements of what to teach and how to teach as is
conspicuous in the excerpts that follow:
I always need to know what the students already know about a topic,
like shapes and their properties, before I introduce them to activities on
shapes. This lets me identify any misconceptions or preconceptions they
bring to the class. I adjust my teaching accordingly to show the student

how to address the misconceptions during teaching. Most of my students
are from previously disadvantaged backgrounds…I come from a similarly
disadvantaged background…I understand their struggle. Therefore, it’s
important to me that they understand and know how to teach math and
to make math accessible to learners…using mobile phones to teach math
is very beneficial… (P5, Interview)
My students learn from how I act as a teacher as they do from the content
I present. When I want them to apply shapes to construct rigid structures,
like a temple or bridge, I have to create opportunities for them to engage
in such reasoning to develop the necessary skills. If I do not do this, then I
will undermine the module outcomes and my own beliefs about training
teachers to teach. I always enquire from my students their beliefs about
teaching and learning to teach. I let my students know that I gaze at my
practice all the time and ask them to let me know how I could improve
teaching a particular section… (P3, Interview)
The excerpts from the interview with P3 resonates with the statement from
the observation of P3’s lecture. The observation that follows demonstrates P3’s
pedagogy.
I want you to use your phones to observe the Eiffel tower, Great mosque of
Djenne and the Parthenon identify what shapes are common and unique
to these structures. Work in pairs, you have 5 minutes before you present
your answers and then 10 minutes for reflection before we discuss correct
and incorrect responses. (P3, Observation)
The preceding excerpts highlight that the teacher educators created the
space for their student voices to be heard during their teaching to improve
the educational process. They forged a rapport with their students by creat-
ing opportunities for active engagement and accessed students’ prior learning
and preconceptions. The actions of these teacher educators positioned these
teacher educators as active learners as they seek input from their students.
In their pedagogy, the teacher educators demonstrated awareness of the self
as a teacher, awareness of the teaching process, awareness of the student and
awareness of context.
According to Lopez and Olan (2018), skilled pedagogy requires a highly
developed awareness of the factors at play during teaching. From this under-
standing of pedagogy, the relational and reflexive nature of teaching becomes
apparent. Our finding shows that teacher educators’ decisions about their ped-
agogical strategies are based on their understanding of what it means to teach
and how technology would suit their context of practice (Barton & Berchini,
2013). The actions of teacher educators in the above excerpts coincide with
what Loughran (2008) regards as pedagogy, knowledge of teaching about
teaching and learning about teaching.
7.4 How Teacher Educators used Mobile Phones during Teaching

Teacher educator (P1) does not embrace mobile phones in his pedagogy. The
excerpts below bear testimony of his lecture room practice.
I don’t use mobile phones in my teaching…I cannot monitor how stu-

dents use their phones to learn…I favour chalk and talk…for me students
knowing the content is important…it’s what would help them in their
teaching. I don’t use technology in my teaching as I’m afraid my students
may know more than me… (P1, Interview)
Excerpts from the observation of his lecture corroborate with the data from
the interview.
Please, you know the rules in my class you are not allowed to have your
phones out, it is a distraction to teaching and learning. This is a maths
class – you must be able to solve problems on the board and in your
books, rote learning is important in math. (P1, Observation)
The above findings reveal the P1 does not embrace the use of mobile technol-
ogies in his teaching and finds mobile technologies to be disruptive to teach-
ing and learning. The above findings resonate with that of Dyson, Andrews,
Smyth, and Wallace (2013) who found that ringtones in the classroom and tex-
ting may significantly disturb pedagogical activities as planned by the teacher.
Also, games, music, videos, photos and access to the internet may compromise
student performance in class (Dyson et al., 2013). Participant 1’s strong earlier
learning experience (learning by rote and ‘chalk and talk’) is dominant in his
practice as a teacher educator and influences his TPACK.
Participant 1 strengthened the validity of this finding, as he repeatedly dis-
cussed the values of this rote learning. The various ways in which participant
teacher educators embrace mobile phones in their pedagogy is conspicuous in
the excerpts that follow.
I fully embrace using mobile technologies in my teaching, it’s important

to demonstrate to students how to use mobile technologies to facilitate
the learning of content and to make learning real and interesting, also to
prepare them to be able to teach in the 4IR… (P2, Interview)
Cell phones help in teaching student’s shapes, angles and design…I get stu-
dents to take photos, videos of geometric shapes in their community or all
around them. In class, they then share this in small groups, and each group
get a chance to present their discussion to the whole class… (P3, Interview)
I am an avid user of various technologies; students learn and understand

concepts better when they use cell phones as a learning device. I get my
students to notice math concepts/ content outside the lecture room.
They don’t see maths as occurring in their local environment and think
it’s too abstract confined to textbook and classrooms only. Through the
use of cell phones, I have placed mathematical concepts in real-life situa-
tions, thereby contextualizing learning and making math concepts more
accessible to the student. I find inspiration in my surrounding to design
activities where students have to apply their knowledge of shapes and
angles to create rigid structures I’m ok with learning from my students
about the various apps that can be used in teaching maths and technol-
ogy education… (P6, Interview)
Comments made by the teacher educators in the interview seem to concur

with the comments made during the observation of lectures.
The pictures you captured yesterday with your mobile phone are excellent
examples of math shapes used in structures. I want you to focus on your
photos and search for fractions within them example halves, quarters etc.
after that convert the fractions observed into decimals. In this activity, you
will be able to see math occurring in everyday contexts. (P2, Observation)
Your task is to investigate the different angles and shapes in your home
and place of worship. (P4, Observation)
I want you to use your phones, to take pictures of various equipment and
structures in the university Gymnasium, study these pictures and write
down what mechanisms are used to reinforce or support these structure.
(P6, Observation)
The preceding excerpts reveal the use of mobile smartphones to make stu-
dents more aware of mathematics in everyday life and to initiate their thinking
about mathematics within real-life contexts. This action of teacher educators
(except for P1) enables students to move from the concrete (observing phe-
nomena) to the abstract (understanding the principles or theories that are
derived from the observation of phenomena and then apply it to design and
solve contextualized problems. In the process, enhancing students’ recogni-
tion and observation skills, discussion and presentation skills and developing
more positive attitudes towards mathematics was exhibited. The use of mobile
phones has advanced these teacher educators’ pedagogy as they see their sur-
roundings as a source of inspiration to design mathematics and technology
education lectures. These findings are aligned with those of Tangney, Weber,
O’Hanlon, Knowles, Munnelly, Salkham, and Jennings’ (2010) findings, which
indicated that smartphones could be used to support collaborative and con-
textualized learning as well as extend mathematical thinking and enhance
problem-solving procedures.
Participant 2’s cultural values influence her belief about education and her
pedagogy. Participant 2 embraces a student-centred approach to her teach-
ing and engages her students with various interactive strategies. Her TPACK
allowed her to use technologies to make her teaching interactive, efficient,
and creative and to demonstrate to students the value of using technologies to
facilitate and contextualize learning.
The innovative teaching P3 encountered as a child has sculpted her teach-
ing identity and influenced her beliefs about the role of teachers and her peda-
gogy. Participant 3 is a reflexive practitioner who uses her students as a mirror
to gaze inward. Her TPACK is shaped by her pedagogical philosophy, which is
grounded by socio-cultural factors that P3 experienced as a learner.
Participant 4’s strong cultural belief has influenced his teacher identity
and pedagogical practice and TPACK. Participant 5’s earlier socio-economic
background has influenced his outlook towards his students and his pedagogy
and TPACK. Her interest affects P6’s TPACK in technology. Participant 6 uses
the mobile phone to contextualize mathematics for her students effectively.
Socio-cultural factors influence her TPACK and pedagogy.
8 Conclusion
Our findings show that teacher educators’ pedagogical and technological prac-
tices are influenced by their identities, early learning experiences and socio-
cultural background. Researchers (Cheng, Cheng, & Tang, 2010; Gay, 2010; Wong,
2005) draw attention to the importance of understanding individuals’ socio-
cultural background when explaining their pedagogical practices. It is worth
mentioning that even though the teacher educators in this study came from
diverse socio-cultural backgrounds, their socio-cultural background and the con-

text where they teach influenced their pedagogical and technological practices.
Thus, this study proposes that the TPACK framework needs to include a
socio-cultural dimension to understand teacher educators’ existing pedagogi-
cal practices with technology concerning their socio-cultural background. The
extended TPACK framework is relevant to explain the connection between
technology, pedagogy and socio-cultural background.
The extended TPACK framework is useful for analyzing teachers’ past and
present experiences when investigating their pedagogical and technological
practice. It would help to identify which aspects need to be considered when
designing teachers’ professional development.
Notes
1 Participants were coded as Participant 1 (P1), participant 2 (P2) and so on.

2 Seva means selfless service in Sanskrit.
References
Barton, A. C., & Berchini, C. (2013). Becoming an insider: Teaching science in urban
settings. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 21–27. doi:10.1080/07351690.2013.743765
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis-matching learning tasks with learning technol-
ogies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.
Chai, C. S., Ling Koh, J. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lee Wee Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school
pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for
meaningful learning with Information and Communication Technology (ICT).
Computers and Education, 57(1), 1184–1193.
Charmaz, K. (2016). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualita-
tive analysis. Sage Publications.
Cheng, M. M. H., Cheng, A. Y. N., & Tang, S. Y. F. (2010). Closing the gap between the
theory and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes
in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 91–104. doi:10.1080/
02607470903462222
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning
readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behaviour. Computers
and Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education. Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dyson, L. E., Andrews, T., Smyth, R., & Wallace, R. (2013). Towards a holistic framework
for ethical mobile learning. In Z. Berg & L. Muilenberg (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of mobile learning (pp. 405–416). Routledge.
Ekanayake, S. Y., & Wishart, J. (2014). Integrating mobile phones into teaching and
learning: A case study of teacher training through professional development work-
shops. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 173–189. doi:10.1111/bjet.12131
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, belief, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technol-
ogy in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Falloon, G. (2015). What’s the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in con-
ventional classrooms. Computers and Education, 84(1), 62–77. doi:10.1016/
j.compedu.2015.01.010
Frohberg, D. D., Göth, C. C., & Schwabe, G. G. (2009). Mobile learning projects-A crit-
ical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4),
307–331.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
New York Teachers College.
GSMA. (2017). The mobile economy Sub-Saharan Africa 2017. Author. Retrieved November
10, 2019, from https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=
7bf3592e6d750144e58d9dcfac6adfab&download
GSMA. (2018). The mobile economy 2018. Author. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from
https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-
Mobile-Economy-2018.pdf
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based,
technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 43(3), 211–229.
Haydn, T. (2001). Subject discipline dimensions of ICT and learning: History; A case
study. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 2(1), 1–19.
Hyo-Jeong, S., & Bosung, K. (2009). Learning about problem-based learning: Student
teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116.
Jalil, A., Beer, M., & Crowther, P. (2015). Pedagogical requirements for mobile learning:
A review on MOBIlearn task Model. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 12(1),
1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jime.ap
Jita, T. (2018). Exploring pre-service teachers’ opportunities to learn to teach science
with ICTs during teaching practice. Journal of Education, 71(1), 74–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i71a05
Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013). Mobile learning in mathematics teacher education:
Using iPads to support pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian
Educational Computing, 27(3), 76–84.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning
from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406
Kenny, R. F., Park, C. L, Van Neste-Kenny, J. M. C., Burton, P. A., & Meiers, J. (2009).
M-learning in nursing practice education: Applying Koole’s FRAME model. Journal
of Distance Education, 23(3), 75–96.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2013). The technological
pedagogical content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators ICT
integrated teacher education models (pp. 1–6). CEMCA.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions
of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural
equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Vavoula, G.
(2009). Innovation in mobile learning: A European perspective. International Jour-
nal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35.
Kynäslahti, H. (2003). In search of elements of mobility in the context of education. In
H. Kynäslahti & P. Seppälä (Eds.), Mobile learning (pp. 41–48). IT Press.
Lopez, A. E., & Olan, E. L. (Eds.). (2018). Transformative pedagogies for teacher education:
Moving towards praxis in an era of change (pp. 123–140). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Loughran, J. J. (2008). Toward a better understanding of teaching and learning about
teaching. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 1177–1182). Routledge.
Makoe, M. (2013). Teachers as learners. Concerns and perceptions about using cell
phones in South African rural communities. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.),
Handbook of mobile learning. Routledge.
Masese, P., & Makena, L. (2019). Kenya mobile report 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
https://www.jumia.co.ke/mobile-report/
McLean, K. (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
Miller, M. M. (2002). Examining the discourses that shape our teacher identities. Cur-
riculum Inquiry, 32(1), 453–469.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Ngesi, N., Landa, N., Madikiza, N., Cekiso, M. P., Tshotsho, B., & Walters, L. M. (2018).
Use of mobile phones as supplementary teaching and learning tools to learners in
South Africa. Reading & Writing, 9(1), a190. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v9i1.190
North, D., Johnston, K., & Ophoff, J. (2014). The use of mobile phones by South African
university student. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11(1),
115–138. http://iisit.org/Vol11/IISITv11p115-138
Olesen, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the
sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty
teaching practices. Higher Education, 68(1), 29–45.
Ozdamli, F., & Cavus, N. (2011). Basic elements and characteristics of mobile learning.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28(1), 937–942.
Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2006). A framework for assessing the quality of mobile learning.
In R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Lincar, M. Ross, & G. Staples (Eds.), Learning and
teaching issues in software quality, Proceedings of the 11th international conference for
process improvement, research and education (pp. 17–27).
Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of Technological Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology inte-
gration professional development. Journal of Computers, Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 30(1), 37–59.
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2013). Mobilizing teacher educa-
tion: A study of a professional learning community. Teacher Development, 17(1), 1–18.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning:
Small devices, big issues. In S. Ludvigsen, N. Balacheff, T. D. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S.
Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233–249).
Springer-Verlag.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educa-
tional Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Tangney, B., Weber, S., O’Hanlon, P., Knowles, D., Munnelly, J., Salkham, A., & Jen-
nings, K. (2010). ‘Mobi Maths’: An approach to utilizing smartphones in teaching
mathematics. In M. Montebello, V. Camilleri, & A. Dingli (Eds.), Proceedings of
mLearn2010: 10th world conference on mobile and contextual learning (pp. 9–15). Uni-
versity of Malta, Valetta.
Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology,
18(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687769.2010.492847
Valk, J.-H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational
outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 117–140.
Wolcott, H. F. (1987). On ethnographic intent. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.), Inter-
pretive ethnography of education (pp. 37–57). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wong, M. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of teachers’ expressed beliefs about
music education and their observed practices in classroom music teaching. Teachers
and Teaching, 11(4), 397–418. doi:10.1080/13450600500137182
PART 4
The 21st-Century Student
∵
CHAPTER 9
Teaching and Learning Science in the 21st Century:

A Study of Critical Thinking of Learners and
Associated Challenges
Yashwantrao Ramma, Ajeevsing Bholoa, Shobha Jawaheer,
Sandhya Gunness, Henri Tin Yan Li Kam Wah, Ajit Kumar Gopee and
Deewarkarsingh Authelsingh
Abstract
The teaching and learning of science entail a set of complex and interrelated tasks and
skills ranging from testing prior knowledge to eventually connecting newly constructed
knowledge to real-life situations. Yet, there is still little research reporting how teachers
make instructional decisions based on learners’ prior knowledge in this technological-
driven era, characterizing the Fourth Industrial Revolution. One of the aims of teaching
and learning science is to promote learners’ scientific reasoning and critical thinking
through a process of criticality. Available studies show that teachers still encounter dif-
ficulties tapping on learners’ prior knowledge through the use of appropriate instruc-
tional practices during their lessons to foster critical thinking. A study was conducted to
investigate the extent to which science students had developed a critical mind through
scientific reasoning at the secondary school level, and to reflect on the subsequent
implications at tertiary level in Mauritius. Questionnaires on an issue related to a power
cut problem and with a focus on three levels of critical thinking, i.e. thinking, reflecting,
and action was administered to a representative sample of students. Selected partici-
pants were then interviewed to corroborate findings from the initial data set. One of
the key findings of this study is that science students at secondary and tertiary levels
have developed limited critical thinking, based on their prior knowledge, to correctly
assess a given contextual situation and eventually make the appropriate decision. The
findings stemming from this study have far-reaching implications for the teaching and
learning of science in the Mauritian and global education systems.
1 Introduction
Although a rapid development in digital educational technology should facil-

itate the teaching and learning of science, the latter is becoming more and

140 Ramma et al.
more challenging. Osborne (2014, p. 54) contends that “science is often taught
more as dogma a set of unequivocal, uncontested and unquestioned facts
more akin to the way people are indoctrinated into faith than into a critical,
questioning community”. Such a practice is, unfortunately, still predominant
in this technological era in many education systems (Isseks, 2011; Timothy,
Feldhaus, & Bentrem, 2013). Students have to be equipped with the necessary
scientific skills for citizenship, work, life and preparedness for the demands of
the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) so that they can address societal chal-
lenges (Scott, 2015). The World Economic Forum in its publication, New Vision
for Education: Unlocking the Potential of Technology (WEF, 2015), lists three
major areas, namely, foundational literacies, competencies and character qual-
ities as being the foundation for the 21st-century skills. Sixteen skills, among
which critical thinking/problem-solving, creativity, curiosity, and Informa-
tion Communication Technology (ICT) literacy without downplaying the soft
skills (such as leadership, collaboration, and social and cultural awareness) are
encompassed within these three major areas. Critical thinking, problem-solv-
ing, creativity and curiosity have always been at the forefront of the process
for scientific investigations and experimentation, which lie at the heart of the
construction of scientific knowledge by learners. To optimize students’ scien-
tific competencies, systematic and high-level classroom processes, curriculum
and learning time, the instructional quality of science teaching and learning
and a supportive classroom climate need to be reviewed (Müller, Prenzel,
Seidel, Schiepe-Tiska, & Kjærnsli, 2016).
Learning science is important for everyone according to the National Acad-
emies Press, (NAP, 2012), even for those who would later not choose careers
in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). In
fact, in this “post-scientific society” (Hill, 2008), due to the growing human
impact on the world, a scientifically literate society is essential for the deci-
sion-making process (SAPEA, 2019; Glaze, 2018) in every task that someone
has to undertake. Concerning STEM-related subjects, learners are required
to engage in critical thinking, which requires “reasonable reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2015, p. 32).
Thus, teachers have the opportunity during group work to engage learn-
ers in critical thinking, through several structured activities (Burke, 2011), to
enable them to assimilate the new knowledge into their pre-existing frame-
work. However, though prior knowledge is the building block for further learn-
ing, it can nevertheless be a barrier to learning (National Research Council,
2005). It is argued that with experience and judicious use of prior knowledge,
coupled with the teacher’s support, learners will develop a critical mind. This
Teaching and Learning Science in the 21st century 141
involves undertaking structured thinking in a context-specific situation (Byrne

& Brodie, 2012; Fields, 2019). By asking the right question to assess, in the first
instance, the occurrence of a situation and then attempt to address it by tap-
ing on fundamental skills (Gyenes, 2015) such as creative thinking, autonomy,
problem evaluation, analysis and interpretation, real-life reasoning and prob-
lem-solving. During that process, it is generally thought that it is important
to promote a critical mind in science education (Bailin, 2002). However, just
learning about developing a critical mind does not lead to the development
of a critical attitude towards social issues unless it is tied to argumentation
and decision-making through a process of “criticality” (Davies, 2015, p. 65). This
entails thinking, reflecting and acting (Barnett, 1997).
Furthermore, learning is not a simple endeavor; it involves “mastering
abstract principles, understanding proofs, remembering factual information,
acquiring methods, techniques and approaches, recognition, reasoning, debat-
ing ideas, or developing behavior appropriate to specific situations” (Fry, Ket-
teridge, & Marshall, 2009, p. 8). Today’s society is increasingly technologically,
and information-driven and the ability to think critically at an early age has
become a keystone to face and compete in everyday life (Stein, Haynes, Red-
ding, Ennis, & Cecil, 2007; Cuban, 2001). However, in practice, STEM educators
tend to adopt traditional teaching approaches (Ramma, Samy, & Gopee, 2015)
such as content-based teaching. This, as described by Osborne (2014), involves
teaching science as a set of unequivocal, uncontested and unquestioned facts.
It also involves resorting to students’ memorization skills for their learning
rather than promoting critical thinking. The view adopted by the National
Research Council, namely, that “Learning science is something students do,
not something that is done to them” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 20)
rightly presents science as a process of knowledge construction and acquisi-
tion. This standpoint is further supported by Osborne (2014, p. 53) who argues
that “[c]ritique and questioning are central to the practice of science; with-
out argument and evaluation, the construction of reliable knowledge would
be impossible”. Teaching and learning science through inquiry in educational
institutions has the potential to develop an inquisitive mind in students by
allowing them to explore a given phenomenon and walk through several pro-
cesses while reflecting on their journey (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003; Fitzgerald,
Danaia, & McKinnon, 2019). Such an inquiry approach to teaching and learning
is no doubt a challenging task for both teachers and students, especially in the
traditional classroom set-up when even universities are failing to equip their
students with critical thinking skills (Flores, Matkin, Burbach, Quinn, & Hard-
ing, 2012). Ultimately, the students are not in a position to consistently apply
142 Ramma et al.
their limited pre-existing knowledge to a new situation (Giselsson, 2020). The

formulation of an in-built strategy for adopting inquiry by teachers rests exten-
sively on ongoing teachers’ professional development (Blank, de las Alas, &
Smith, 2008; Tondeur, et al., 2012; Fitzgerald, Danaia, & McKinnon, 2019).
Many factors, like limited professional development, insufficient time,
limited collaboration, out-of-hours preparatory work (Fitzgerald, Danaia,
& McKinnon, 2019) have been attributed to the difficulty that both teachers
and students encounter in the adoption of inquiry as a classroom strategy for
knowledge construction by the latter. Furthermore, the difficulty becomes
even more prominent when ICT is embedded in science lessons alongside the
traditional approach (Devlin, Feldhaus, & Bentrem, 2013). Sointu, Hirsto, and
Murtonen (2019, p. 1) uphold the view that student-centered learning in the
21st century demands a novel consideration for teaching and learning, which
“necessitates the development of pedagogical thinking, technical infrastruc-
ture, and learning environments”. The learning environment within shared
social contexts is a pre-requisite for learners to develop a shared understand-
ing of concepts (Hume & Coll, 2010) as, for one to “think critically, one needs
to have something to think about” (Lloyd & Bahr, 2010).
The study is aimed at investigating the critical thinking ability of students
when confronted with a real-life problem, namely a power cut problem. To
define the scope and purpose of the study, the following research questions
were formulated:
1. To what extent do students at secondary (age range 16–18 years) and ter-
tiary levels (age range 19–21 years) demonstrate critical thinking while
analysing a power cut problem at their home place?
2. How do the students relate their prior knowledge of science to the power
cut problem?
The research hypotheses were:

– Students (secondary and tertiary levels) perform equally well in the three
levels of criticality (thinking, reflecting and action);
– Tertiary level students have a higher critical thinking ability than secondary
level students.
2 Methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to generate data that
explored how students used their prior knowledge in their critical thinking to
deal with a given power cut situation at their home place.
Data from the two methods were used, through triangulation, to identify con-
vergence, corroboration and correspondence of the findings (Caracelli & Green,
1993) and to extend the range of the inquiry. The qualitative data were used to
refine the findings from the quantitative data (Creswell, 2012) during the trian-
gulation process. The mixed-method research design was adopted to offset the
weaknesses of either method used alone (Rossman & Wilson, 1994). For instance,
the semi-structured interviews provided rich details on issues related to the stu-
dents’ thinking that could not have been obtained from the questionnaires alone.
As such, the data from the semi-structured interviews helped to clarify and inter-
pret data from the questionnaires. In addition to providing a system of checks and
balances, thereby enhancing the validity of the results (Waysman & Savaya, 1997).
It should be emphasized that concurrent mixed analyses (Combs & Onwueg-
buzie, 2010) were conducted in such a way that the analytical strands do not
necessarily occur in chronological order (Teddlie, Tashakkori, & Johnson, 2008).
2.1 Participants
The sample constitutes State Secondary Schools students in the A-level sec-
ondary level science stream [S(A)] and first-year science stream students in
one of the Tertiary Education Institutions (TEIs), as illustrated in Table 9.1.
table 9.1 Frequency distribution
Sample A-level TEI
Participants [Questionnaires] 78 150

Participants [Group interviews] 4 3
Necessary ethical clearance was sought from the institutions concerned

before implementing the study. Besides, consent was sought from all partici-
pants. A consent form was signed by those who had agreed to be group inter-
viewed for 45–50 minutes. For A-level students, a consent form that had to
be signed by their parents was issued. The questionnaires were administered
via Google Form to all students through the Rectors of all the State Secondary
Schools. The selection of the four A-level and TEI participants was based on
their responses in the questionnaires. The responses principally encapsulated
the three levels of critical thinking, as described in the subsequent sections.
The interviews took place at the first author’s institution [TEI 03 Nov 2017; S(A)
22 Nov 2017] on two separate occasions and were video recorded with the con-
sent of the interviewees (and of parents for the S(A)).
144 Ramma et al.
3 Theoretical Framing
To guide the researchers’ understanding and analysis of the respondents’

responses related to a particular real-life situation a power cut problem, a
framework constituting three levels of critical thinking (Barnett, 1997) was
developed then pilot tested. The pilot test was conducted with three students
not forming part of the sample. The initial scenario (Figure 9.1) was adopted
without modification. The scenario was intentionally developed with a broad
perspective where decisions are not expected to be clear-cut (Fortus, Krajcik,
Dershimer, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2005). This would enable the research-
ers to situate the extent to which the respondents were able to connect content
and context (Ramma, Bholoa, Watts, & Nadal, 2018) and to plug in the scien-
tific knowledge acquired in their science lessons to deal with a situation that
occurred in their immediate home environment.
figure 9.1 Power cut problem
The three levels of critical thinking: thinking, reflecting and action (Bar-
nett, 1997) and the description of these levels used to analyse the participants’
responses to the power cut problem are illustrated in Table 9.2.
4 Findings and Analysis
Data from each questionnaire referred to as questionnaire one and question-

naire two were administered to the A-level and first-year TEI students respec-
tively and systematically analysed while considering the flow of ideas captured
(Table 9.3) in juxtaposition with the description items highlighted in Table
9.2. Each statement of the participants was rated a score of 0, 0.5 or 1, reflect-
ing absence of, partial or adequately structured elements of critical thinking
respectively in each of the three levels of criticality as illustrated in Table 9.3.
Furthermore, in the same table, a brief insight into the data captured from
both sets of questionnaires and the respective marks assigned for statistical
analysis are given.
table 9.2 Process of criticality
Process of Critical thinking stage Description [regarding

criticality the current situation]
Thinking Elementary Is it a general power cut in my room/house

[What happened?] or my locality?
What tool do I need to operate during the
power cut?
Reflecting Elementary How do I confĳirm that it is in the room/
[What course of action house/locality?
do I follow?]
Intermediate How do I verify whether it is a general power

[How do I confĳirm my cut, or it is in this room/house only?
hypotheses? What do I What could be the causes of this power cut?
conclude? Do I ask for
help?]
Action Advanced How do I proceed to clarify the questions
[If the issue is local, how do raised?
I proceed to solve it? If it is What course of action do I take during the
not local, what alternatives power cut period?
do I have?] What technological tools do I have access to
help me in my course of action?
The performance (average scores) of the participants is shown in Table 9.4

and illustrated graphically in Figure 9.2.
In the ‘thinking’ category, the secondary school students (N = 78) averaged
a score of 0.65. This score was greater than the average score of 0.45 obtained
by TEI students (N = 150). Both categories of students fared less well in the
subsequent areas of critical thinking, as shown by the lower average scores for
‘reflecting’ and ‘action’. While the secondary school students had a higher aver-
age score than the tertiary level students in ‘reflecting’, the opposite situation
prevailed in the ‘action’ category.
We report two sets of Friedman’s tests that were conducted to test at 5%
level of significance (α = 0.05) the null hypothesis (H0) whether the distribu-
tions for (i) secondary school students and (ii) tertiary students were the same
across the three levels of criticality. We used Friedman’s test because there is
146 Ramma et al.
table 9.3 Overview of fĳindings from questionnaires 1 & 2
Process of Insights into data from questionnaires

criticality 1 (A-level) & 2 (TEI)
Thinking Unplug the Mains supply of the TV. [1, 0, 0 mark]

Elementary I would panic because I’m scared of darkness, then I would try to fĳind
some light to comfort myself. [0.5, 0, 0]
Find a candle. [0.5, 0, 0]
When will power be established? [0, 0, 0 mark]
Search for a torch. [1, 0, 0]
Use my mobile phone as a source of light. [0.5, 0, 0]
Reflecting Use a torch to check for the electrical connection issues. If there is no
Elementary & problem, go to bed. [1, 1, 0]
Intermediate Search for a candle, light it up, go and check the main switch. [1, 1, 0]
To check the breaker. To tell parents. To be cautious. [1, 1, 0]
Is it a general power cut, or is it the circuit breaker? Go and see if the
circuit breaker is ok. Wait for the power to come back if it is a general
power cut. [1, 1, 0]
Check if power has gone out in other rooms. Check if neighbours face
the same problem. Look for candles. Check mains power supply. [1, 1, 0]
Should try and see if the light will turn on. If yes, then the problem
is with the TV. If not, then it’s a power cut. I will wait for the power to
come, a maximum of 15 minutes. If it doesn’t, I will go to sleep. [1, 1, 0]
Get phone and turn on the “torch” mode. Look outside to know if
neighbours too have this power cut. Wait till power is back on or ask
someone to check the breaker. [1, 1, 0]
Action Close the switch to which the TV is connected. Look outside if the
Advanced streetlights are on. If on, I’ll go to check my mains supply. If the Mains
is ok, I will call the electricity provider in the morning for maintenance.
[1, 1, 1]
Turn on the mobile flashlight. See if other rooms are also offf. If lights
outside are on, then check the room breaker or else check the mains
breaker and call for help. [1, 1, 1]
See if the whole house is afffected. Switch offf power on TV socket. Check
if there is power at neighbours’ place and on a public light post. If
yes, go and check the breaker. If no, turn offf all switches and close all
windows and go to sleep. [1, 1, 1]
table 9.4 Average scores of participants in the power cut problem
Category Thinking Reflecting Action
A-level students: S(A) 0.65 0.31 0.13

TEI students 0.48 0.21 0.21
figure 9.2 Outcome in critical thinking
one independent variable (score/mark from the power cut problem) and three
levels of criticality (thinking, reflecting and action) and the design is correlat-
ed-groups (Jackson, 2010). Furthermore, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was
subsequently employed for the post-hoc analysis of significant results.
We conducted Mann-Whitney U tests (Nachar, 2008) to determine (at α =
0.05) whether there were differences in the (median) scores in the areas of
‘thinking’, ‘reflecting’ and ‘action’ between the unrelated and independent
groups of secondary school and tertiary level students. To compensate for the
Type 1 error inflation as a result of the multiple sample contrasts, we adjusted
the level of risk (αB) using Bonferroni’s procedure (Corder & Foreman, 2009).
In our case, we were making 3 comparisons, so that αB = 0.05/3 = 0.017.
The χ2 statistic from Friedman’s test of A-level students is 44.2756 (df = 2,
N = 78, p-value < 0.00001). The result was significant at 5%.
The post-hoc analyses for the secondary school students demonstrated sig-
nificant results in each of the three comparisons, and the data indicated that
the performance of the students declined as they progressed from ‘thinking’, to
‘reflecting’ and taking ‘action’.
The χ2 statistic from Friedman’s test of TEI students is 54.50 (df = 2, N = 150,
p-value < 0.00001). The result was significant at 5%.
148 Ramma et al.
table 9.5 Post-hoc analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) for secondary school students
Treatments Statistics Results at αB= 0.017
Thinking – reflecting W = 0 (N = 40) Signifĳicant

z = ‒5.5109 (p-value < 0.00001)
Thinking – action W = 14 (N = 55) Signifĳicant
z = ‒6.3342 (p-value < 0.00001)
Reflecting – action W = 8.5 (Wcritical = 29, N = 16) Signifĳicant
z = –3.0767 (p-value = 0.00208)
table 9.6 Post-hoc analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) for tertiary students
Treatments Statistics Results at α = 0.05
Thinking – reflecting W = 27 (N = 67) Signifĳicant

z = –6.9463 (p-value < 0.00001)
Thinking – action W = 27 (N = 82) Signifĳicant
z = –7.7411 (p-value < 0.00001)
Reflecting – action W = 0 (Wcritical = 25, N = 15) Signifĳicant
z = –3.4078 (p-value = 0.00064)
table 9.7 Mann-Whitney U tests
Treatments Statistics Results at α = 0.05 Efffect size
Thinking U = 4499 Signifĳicant 0.189

z = ‒2.85808 (p-value = 0.00424)
Reflecting U = 5298 Not signifĳicant 0.077
z = ‒1.16715 (p-value = 0.242)
Action U = 6763 Not signifĳicant 0.012
z = ‒0.18306 (p-value = 0.85716)
The outcomes of the tests related to the tertiary level students were similar
to the ones obtained for the secondary school students. It could be noted that
there was a gradual decline in the performance of the students across the three
areas of critical thinking.
We ran the Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate the difference in the responses

of secondary school and tertiary level students concerning ‘thinking’, ‘reflect-
ing’ and ‘action’.
The test was significant (α = 0.05) for the ‘thinking’ level while the results
for the areas of ‘reflecting’ and ‘action’ were non-significant. Therefore, at 5%
level of significance, it was likely that the observed differences in the scores of
secondary school and tertiary level students were due to random chance. Also,
the size effect was relatively small, thereby indicating that, in each case, there
was a weak association between the two variables.
The students, both from A-Level [S(A)] and Tertiary Education Institutions
(TEIs), displayed a surprisingly low score for items ‘reflection’ and ‘action’ con-
cerning our initial hypothesis. However, the A-level students scored better in
the ‘thinking’ and ‘reflecting’ levels and the answers they offered in the ques-
tionnaires were more focused on the context directly related to their immedi-
ate environment. For example: “…look for a source of light” as they were “scared
of darkness…and would try to find some light to comfort me…”. On the other
hand, the TEI students were more focused on the ‘action’. They had regrettably
missed the preliminary and intermediate critical thinking levels in the analy-
sis of the power cut issue. Though the difference was relatively small, we had
expected the TEI students to score better than the secondary school students
while being engaged in the process of criticality, but this had not been the case.
The interviews for both categories of students brought further insights into
this paradoxical situation. In secondary schools, the teaching and learning of
science are traditional (Ramma, Samy, & Gopee, 2015) and most of the teach-
ing time is predominately devoted to the dictation of notes.
The students explained that:
S(A)1: …we are so used to getting notes from the teacher without much
explanation being offered…
S(A)2: …we like getting notes because it is easier for us to pass the exams.
During private tuition also we do get notes…
The students confirmed that the drill and practice model was preferred by
both the teacher and students and, at times, technology paved its way in the
traditional classroom set-up as emphasized by Devlin, Feldhaus, & Bentrem
(2013).
S(A)3: …sometimes the science teacher makes a PowerPoint presenta-

tion or just presents a video on the topic…
150 Ramma et al.
They also raised an important point, namely that group work was carried
out in subjects other than science. However, group work was not the sole deter-
mining criterion to help students develop critical thinking unless the teachers
facilitated the process for conducive collaborative learning (Burke, 2011). We
learnt from the interview that group work, although occasionally set-up, pro-
vided students with the opportunity to think aloud about some phenomena
(National Research Council, 2005) and to share their ideas in a formal set-up.
S(A)3: …in some classes, we had group work in the subjects like General
Paper, French but not in science. Maybe they [the teachers] should have
taught us how to do our work on our own, like which website to refer to
or they should have told us to go to the library to do independent work…
Furthermore, S(A)2 explained that she was lucky to have engaged in

self-learning as she had participated in competitions for secondary schools and
her involvement had made her adopt a somewhat different way of thinking.
She further added that she now understood the importance of co-curricular
activities for the development of self-efficacy (Giselsson, 2020) and indepen-
dent learning.
S(A)2: …my first experience of thinking by myself has been during my

participation in the United Nations competition. You have to research all
the things by yourself, and this is when I realized how much time it takes
to know a subject properly…I have to acknowledge that the teacher was
there to offer guidance…
The views expressed by the A-level students confirm that the teacher-led
approach in secondary schools hinged on drill and practice and at times sup-
ported by technology, does not have a meaningful impact on the ability of stu-
dents to be engaged in critical thinking. This finding further consolidates what
previous research has highlighted about the development of critical thinking in
students, namely that context-specific curricular tasks have significant implica-
tions for the development of critical thinking in learners (Byrne & Brodie, 2012).
During the interview, the tertiary level respondents [TEI] maintained that
teaching and learning activities at the tertiary level are hardly organized
around the promotion of critical thinking in the sciences. They also acknowl-
edged that group work had not been carried out for the science subjects when
they were studying at A-level and that, at times, they had organised group work
on their own. Furthermore, the students stated that they had been “completely
lost” when they had joined the tertiary institution as they had not felt ade-
quately prepared to face the challenges at the tertiary level.
TEI 1: …we were facing difficulties to answer the lecturers’ questions, and
we were told that we were not critical enough…
During the interview, the students affirmed that they were not quite clear
about what is meant by “being critical enough” during lectures and they revealed
that, in some cases, they were not encouraged to have open discussions.
TEI 1: …there are some lecturers who do not allow questions to be asked
during the lecture and, in case questions are asked, they will simply tell
us that this is your homework…
They therefore resorted to working in groups to be able to pass the exam-

inations. Furthermore, the TEI students asserted that they were not engaged in
formally structured group work in the teaching-learning set-up. However, they
occasionally conducted group work with selected peers during their free time.
They added that they wished group work had been carried out during lectures
as this would have provided them with the opportunity to think and reflect
while interacting with their peers (Fry, Ketteridge, & Marshall, 2009).
TEI 2: …hopefully, we are able to surmount the difficulties by collaborat-

ing with our peers…
The students insisted that some lecturers still favoured strict lecturing
(Hativa, 2000), which involved the dictation of notes. They also claimed that
they understood that such an approach did not help them to organise their
thinking for self-directed and independent learning, especially in this technol-
ogy-driven era.
TEI 2: …we were very much surprised when we joined …tertiary educa-
tion…we were being dictated notes just as when we were in secondary
school…of course, we did not like it. Also, we were viewing the Power-
Point and wasting time copying the notes from it. The lecturer could have
sent us the PowerPoint by email and used lecture time for discussion…
The explanation offered by both the A-level and TEI students suggested
that not enough attention was paid to the acquisition and development of soft
152 Ramma et al.
skills by students as the focus of the teaching was principally geared towards
the mastery of subject content. This promoted rote learning at the expense of
critical thinking and may explain not only the relatively poor performance of
the participants in the power cut problem but also the lack of clear demarca-
tion between the performance of the TEI students and A-level students.
Though the TEI students were collaborating in groups outside the formal
set-up, the evidence shows that, in general, they could to a limited extent relate
their acquired knowledge and skills to a particular real-life context. Most prob-
ably because teaching and learning are still being influenced by the didactic
model with a focus on examinations, thereby compromising the development
of their critical thinking. Such a situation also prevails at the secondary level as
indicated by the students during the interview.
5 Conclusion
The study had two research hypotheses which the use of quantitative data
analysis (Friedman, Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney tests) revealed not to be
true. The secondary school students performed relatively better than the ter-
tiary level students on the ‘thinking’ component of critical thinking. However,
no significant difference was found in the ‘reflecting’ and ‘action’ components
between the two categories of students.
Additionally, it was observed that, since critical thinking involves the three
components, the students did not generally perform equally-well between
these components as we had conjectured. The interviews with both catego-
ries of the participants (A-level and tertiary level) enabled us to understand
that critical thinking had not been a prominent element in the teaching and
learning of science in secondary schools and at the TEI. The traditional teach-
ing and examination related expectations that were dominant in secondary
schools extended to the tertiary level. Unfortunately, the recent reform in the
education system in the country has had little effect in bringing about the
desired change. The development of 21st-century skills demands a profound
transition from the didactic to the learner-centred approach, where students
can display innovativeness through a reasoned course of action.
This study thus reinforces the calls for changes to be brought to curricular
design, particularly for the science subjects at both secondary and tertiary lev-
els for the promotion of 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking, among
others. The power cut problem has revealed that students at both levels are
not able to take prompt and judicious decisions due to their inability to make
meaningful connections between knowledge acquired at school and tertiary

level and real-life problems. In the long run, this shortcoming may affect our
country’s human resource capacity to respond to emerging crises in this tech-
nologically connected world. This may have global implications.
References
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking in science education. Science & Education, 11, 361–375.
Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Open University Press.
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional development
have effects on teaching and learning? Evaluation findings from programs in 14 States.
Retrieved May, 2020, from http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/cross-state_
study_rpt_final.pdf
Burke, A. (2011). Group work: How to use groups effectively. The Journal of Effective
Teaching, 11(2), 87–95.
Byrne, E., & Brodie, M. (2012). Cross-curricular teaching & learning in the secondary
school – Science. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Caracelli, V. J., & Green, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evalua-
tion design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195–207.
Combs, J. P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Describing and illustrating data analysis in
mixed research. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1–23.
Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians. A
step-by-step approach. John Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. P. (2012). Educational research – Planning, conducting and evaluating quan-
titative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Davies, M. (2015). A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 41–92). Springer Inter-
national Publishing.
Devlin, T. J., Feldhaus, C. R., & Bentrem, K. M. (2013). The evolving classroom: A study of
traditional and technology-based instruction in a STEM classroom. Journal of Tech-
nology Education, 25(1), 34–54.
Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R.
Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp.
31–47). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2
Fields, Z. (2019). Cognitive skills development at higher educational level in the Fourth
Industrial Revolution: A case for creativity. In Z. Fields, J. Bucher, & A. Weller (Eds.),
154 Ramma et al.
Imagination, creativity, and responsible management in the Fourth Industrial Revolu-

tion (pp. 126–157). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9188-7
Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based
science teaching and potential solutions: Perceptions of positively inclined early
adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(567), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11165-018-9812-x
Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2012). Deficient
critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educa-
tional Theory and Theory, 44(2), 212–230.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005).
Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Sci-
ence Education, 27(7), 855–879.
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (Eds.). (2009). A handbook for teaching and learning
in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Giselsson, K. (2020). Critical thinking and critical literacy: Mutually exclusive? Interna-
tional Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 1–9. doi:10.20429/
ijsotl.2020.140105
Glaze, A. L. (2018). Teaching and learning science in the 21st century: Challenging criti-
cal assumptions in post-secondary science. Education Sciences, 8(12), 1–8.
Gyenes, A. (2015). Definitions of critical thinking in context. Annals of Educational
Studies, 20, 17–25. doi:10.18910/57422
Hativa, N. (2000). Lecturing and explaining. In N. Hastiva (Ed.), Teaching for effective
learning in higher education (pp. 71–86). Springer.
Hill, C. (2008). The post-scientific society. Issues in Science & Technology, 24(1), 78–84.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations
for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hume, A., & Coll, R. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the
intended curriculum and the student‐experienced curriculum. Research in Science
& Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.
Isseks, M. (2011). When teachers reduce curriculum content to bullet points, student
learning suffers. Educational Leadership, 74–76.
Jackson, S. L. (2010). Statistics plain and simple. Wadsworth, Cengage Printing.
Lloyd, M., & Bahr, N. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher edu-
cation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 1–17.
Müller, K., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Kjærnsli, M. (2016). Science teach-
ing and learning in schools: Theoretical and empirical foundations for investigating
classroom-level processes (pp. 424–446). In S. E. Kuger (Ed.), Assessing contexts of
learning, methodology of educational measurement and assessment. Springer Inter-
national Publishing.
Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent
samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psy-
chology, 4(1), 13–20.
NAP. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and
core ideas. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn in the classroom (S. M. Donovan
& J. D. Bransford, Eds.). The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching critical thinking? New directions in science education.
School Science Review, 95(352), 53–62.
Ramma, Y., Bholoa, A., Watts, M., & Nadal, P. S. (2018). Teaching and learning physics
using technology: Making a case for the affective domain. Education Inquiry, 9(2),
210–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1343606
Ramma, Y., Samy, M., & Gopee, A. (2015). Creativity and innovation in science and
technology: Bridging the gap between secondary and tertiary levels of education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 2–17.
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being “shame-
lessly eclectic”. Quality and Quantity, 28, 315–327.
SAPEA. (2019). Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and
uncertainty. Science Advice for Policy by European Academies. Retrieved May, 2020,
from https://www.sapea.info/topics/making-sense-of-science/
Scott, L. C. (2015). The futures of learning 2: What kind of learning for the 21st century?
UNESCO Education Research and Foresight.
Sointu, E., Hirsto, L., & Murtonen, M. (2019). Transforming higher education teaching
and learning environments – Introduction to the special issue. International Journal
of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(13), 1–6.
Stein, B., Haynes, A., Redding, M., Ennis, T., & Cecil, M. (2007). Assessing critical think-
ing in STEM and beyond. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Innovation in e-learning, instruction
technology, assessment and engineering education (pp. 79–82). Springer.
Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A., & Johnson, R. B. (2008). Emergent techniques in the gath-
ering and analysis of mixed methods data. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.),
Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 389–414). The Guilford Press.
Timothy, D. J., Feldhaus, C. R., & Bentrem, K. M. (2013). The evolving classroom: A study
of traditional and technology-based instruction in a STEM classroom. Journal of
Technology Education, 25(1), 34–54.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Vougt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012).
Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of
qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59, 134–144.
156 Ramma et al.
Waysman, M., & Savaya, R. (1997). Mixed method evaluation: A case study. Evaluation
Practice, 18(3), 227–237.
WEF. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Retrieved
April 2020, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_
Report2015.pdf
CHAPTER 10
Genius-Hour: Student-Led Learning in the Fourth

Jennifer M. Schneider and Guy Trainin
Abstract
This chapter looks at the implementation of inquiry-based learning in Genius-Hour, a

K-12 classroom learning strategy. For this project, Jerome Bruner’s constructivist learn-
ing theory research and the link to motivation in the classroom as theorized by Daniel
Pink and Peter Gray’s study of structured play were combined to establish a concrete
foundation. With a focus on building a constructivist culture through Dewey’s expe-
riential Learning by Doing, Genius-Hour originated as a learning design. Fostering
inquiry, creativity, research, and collaboration through exploring learner-generated
essential questions, Genius-Hour expands project-based/problem-based learning to
passion-based learning. The key research question for this study is, What are students’
perceptions of participating in Genius Hour in the classroom? Two participants were
interviewed about their experience in the project. The themes we identified in the
interviews included independence, support, motivation, and mentorship. Artifacts
from successful Genius-Hour projects and qualitative data based on learning experi-
ences are included in the chapter. This project outlined in this chapter follows learner
perceptions and the implications to and a district’s investment to implement a school-
wide program for all students regardless of achievement on state and national stand-
ards. Using this unique approach to learning and technologies, teachers and students
will become 21st-century learners as they embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
1 Introduction
Inquiry-based learning projects, in the form of Genius-Hour and other discov-

ery-oriented learning projects, are growing in popularity in K-12 classrooms,
which include students from ages 5 through 18. Genius-Hour is drawn from
Google’s 20% time in which Google employees can spend 20% of their work-
week, working on their own projects and Daniel Pink’s 2009 TED Talk, “The
Puzzle of Motivation”, which talks about “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” and
how the Google model reflects these concepts. In his book, Pink encouraged

158 Schneider and Trainin
the use of 20% time in the classroom in similar ways to address the factors that
cause motivation to go down as students get older (Pink, 2011).
After watching Pink’s TED Talk, I (the first author) started to think about
implementing Genius-Hour in my own classroom. As a middle school Lan-
guage Arts teacher, much of my time was being spent preparing students for
state assessments. In 2014, I was in my ninth year in the classroom and frus-
trated by the disconnect between what I was teaching and what students were
passionate about or wanted to explore. My students echoed this frustration.
I had already started implementing inquiry projects where students were
researching a topic, giving a speech, and teaching their classmates about a spe-
cific topic. However, my students and I wanted more. Genius-Hour provided
an avenue to deeper inquiry, connection to community and career interests,
and engagement.
Inquiry-based learning, or IBL, is defined as an approach that uses questioning
to stimulate students and aim to construct new knowledge in pursuit of answer-
ing that question (Spronken-Smith et al., 2008). IBL is often used as an umbrella
term that is used for different levels of inductive methods, but there are distinc-
tions within inductive teaching methods. Typically, these methods are taught
by supplying the students with a problem or a question to solve. These methods
are distinguished by the teaching approach. Inquiry-based learning begins with
a problem or challenge in which prior knowledge is not necessarily applicable
and curricular knowledge has not yet occurred. This question or challenge may
be presented by the instructor, and the students attempt to solve the problem
with their own research (Prince & Felder, 2007). Quite often, student research is
guided by the instructor as a facilitator. The foundation of inquiry-based learn-
ing is questions driven by real-life observations. Problem-based learning (PBL),
in contrast, addresses ill-structured problems for students to solve through var-
ied analysis and research (Oguz-Ünver & Arabacıoğlu, 2011). PBL often assumes
that students come with background knowledge or curriculum focused on
helping them solve the given problem. Still another distinction in these induc-
tive methods is project-based learning, which calls for the student to address a
question or challenge but produce something as a result (performance, paper,
artifact) (Prince & Felder, 2007). Inquiry-based research is more prominent
than problem-based research at the K-12 level (Oguz-Ünver & Arabacıoğlu,
2011). Genius-Hour (also known as passion projects or 20 percent time) is a cul-
mination of these methods, drawing from the questioning approach of inqui-
ry-based learning, the student-guided approach of problem-based learning, and
the final product of project-based learning.
Spronken-Smith and her colleagues (2012) studied cases of higher education
inquiry-based learning courses, including student perceptions of the learning
Genius-Hour 159
process and intended outcomes. The study used a quantitative survey mea-
sure for data collection to measure students’ perceptions of their participation
in IBL courses based on the mode (structured, guided, or open) and framing
(information or discovery-oriented). Findings were that students that experi-
enced more open discovery-oriented approaches (similar to Genius-Hour) had
more positive perceptions of learning outcomes.
The gap in the literature regarding student perceptions of inquiry-based
learning methods is in the lack of research on student perceptions at the mid-
dle school level for open, discovery-oriented teaching and learning methods.
2 What Is Genius-Hour?
Before starting Genius-Hour, I asked my students what bothered them about

school. Several students responded regarding the relevance of what they were
learning and how it applied to real life. One student reported, “It bothers me
that I am not learning things in school that will help me with what I want to
do when I grow up”. Although middle school students may not be fully aware
of their long-term life goals, the notion of relevance is critical for 21st-century
students as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution – what people do must
matter. Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution must develop students
who know how to independently pursue their interests and goals.
Constructivist learning approaches allow students to gain knowledge and
apply it to their own experiences and the world around them. Traditional
schooling often focuses on the specific and concrete while Genius Hour brings
in the abstract, applicable knowledge beyond the curriculum. “In the case of
the so-called disciplinary or pre-eminently logical studies, there is danger of
the isolation of intellectual activity from the ordinary affairs of lie” (Dewey,
1916). Dewey’s early approach to learning is seen through Genius Hour and
other PBL methods.
During Genius-Hour, knowledge work is ongoing and adaptable. Students
use their unique perspectives, and learning is individualized as students focus
on their learning goals and potential careers. This mode of learning moves
teachers away from the front of the class as conveyors of knowledge to serve as
facilitators and coaches (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). While it fits the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, this approach harkens back to the principles of Dewey
(1916), Bruner (1961) and Korczak (1942), focusing on student-centered learning.
Genius-Hour starts with respect to the individual learner, regardless of age
or development, coming up with an essential question that extends beyond a
Google search. Topics in Genius-Hour are open-ended, which allows students
to explore myriad interests. Questions ranging from “How do I create an app

that helps me remember science vocabulary?” to “How can we provide clean
water to developing countries?” bring students into the world and embrace the
Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2016). Students then use a collaborative
design process to arrive at a product that serves as an interrogative answer to
the essential question. Teachers serve as coaches who provide research assis-
tance through teaching digital literacy and inquiry skills. Electronic communi-
cation allows students to collaborate outside the classroom and reach mentors
with specialized knowledge applicable to their essential questions. This tech-
nology, so central to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, affords students an
extended learning community. Ultimately, the product is shared with the learn-
ing community and even beyond. The question guiding this study was to exam-
ine the feasibility and impact of Genius-hour in the middle school curriculum.
3 Methodology
3.1 Sample Selection

We used purposive sampling to maximize the depth of potential impact with
two students who were engaged with Genius-Hour during their last year of
middle school and were willing, four years later, to examine the impact Genius-
Hour had on their lives and learning. Students were selected from my class-
room (first author) in a suburban middle school close to Title 1 status (almost
40% free and reduced lunch).
Katie was an eighth-grade at-risk student who was living with her parents,
niece, and five siblings. She is one of 12 children in her family. Katie’s eighth-
grade Genius-Hour project involved art. At the start of the project, Katie had
no experience with art creation or technique. Her extracurricular activities
prior to the project included track and field and cross country running. By the
time we wrote up this study Katie was working part-time: caring for her grand-
mother, raising a child, and planning on attending art school the following year.
Tamara lived at home with her mother, father, and sister. Tamara created
clothing from patterns and was interested in fashion design prior to starting
the project. During her Genius-Hour experience, she obtained an in-person
mentor, a then 19-year-old emerging fashion designer. By the time we wrote
up the study Tamara had gained basic experience in sewing and creating fash-
ion designs without patterns. Tamara is now a first-generation college stu-
dent studying construction management while designing her own clothing
and attending fashion shows and events. In February 2020, she was one of 40
women selected from the United States and Canada to attend Kiewit Corpora-
tion’s Women in Engineering and Construction Leadership seminar.
Genius-Hour 161
3.2 Participant Perspectives

In this study, the focus is on the student participants’ perceptions of their
experiences in the inquiry-based learning project. Themes reflected multiple
perspectives from the different participants. The study’s themes emerged from
the data, as we tried to preserve student words and intent as much as possible.
3.3 Methods
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to explore middle school
general education students’ perceptions of participation in an inquiry-based
learning project: Genius-Hour. Findings related to student perceptions, motiva-
tions, and challenges were examined to suggest ways to better deliver Genius-
Hour. The project sought to address the problem of relevance and applicability
to learning and career goals as students experience innovative inquiry-driven
education.
The research on inquiry-based learning is extensive, but little has been stud-
ied regarding student perceptions of participating in Genius-Hour or similar
inquiry-based projects across the curriculum. Much of the research regarding
the impact of inquiry-based learning has been quantitative in nature.
The philosophical assumptions which characterize qualitative research
make a qualitative design preferable over a quantitative approach for this study.
Considering the epistemological assumption, qualitative researchers attempt
to gain understanding through the subjective experiences of the participants.
Qualitative research typically begins with the interest of the researcher that
leads to a problem that addresses a particular need for ongoing research (Bab-
chuk & Badiee, 2010). Genius-Hour and inquiry-based learning were our pri-
mary research interests, and we have been pursuing ways to (a) help students
gain more access to experts in their individual fields of interest and (b) use
instructional technology to increase student motivation and acquisition of
knowledge within their inquiry-based learning and Genius-Hour studies.
Data were obtained in the natural setting of the study, the classroom and
through observations and interviews, making qualitative research (case study)
the optimal design for this study. Qualitative research uses face-to-face interac-
tion over a given period of time (Creswell, 2015), which is a factor that will be
pertinent to this study. The study was completed using interviews and artifacts
from two post-secondary students that participated in Genius-Hour while in
middle school.
3.4 Data Collection Method

To begin the Genius-Hour projects, students first filled out a brainstorming
form to help them decide what their interests are and what they would like
to study. Next, students completed a question generation form to determine
questions they may ask concerning the topics they are interested in. Finally,
students completed a Genius-Hour proposal form and a video “elevator pitch”
that was approved by their classroom teacher. Proposals were denied only if
logistical, financial, or safety concerns were factors. Informed consent did not
need to be obtained for all students completing these forms as they are part of
the Genius-Hour curriculum.
During this study, interviews and artifacts were used. Data was collected
through semi-structured interviews, using open-ended questions. One inter-
view was completed via email because of scheduling difficulties with the par-
ticipant. The other interview was completed in person.
3.5 Documents & Artifacts

Initial data (prior to sample selection) was obtained via Genius-Hour brain-
storming forms, question generation forms, and Genius-Hour proposal forms.
Student project artifacts (i.e. research notes, blogs, physical projects) were also
used in data collection.
3.6 Interviews
Individual interviews were conducted in person (when possible) with partici-
pants. Since students may be influenced by their peers’ answers or reluctant to
speak honestly when other students are present, this method produced more
valid results. The interviews were semi-structured, guided by a list of open-
ended flexibly worded questions with follow-up questions emerging from par-
ticipants’ answers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In order to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon during the
data collection process, semi-structured interview questions are used. Ques-
tions were carefully worded in language that is understandable and relevant
to participants. By carefully choosing words (sans jargon or difficult vocab-
ulary), participants were more likely to provide relevant, sensible answers
(Patton, 2015). To obtain basic information about the participant, Patton’s six
types of questions were used: experience and behavior questions (to explore
experiences with their project and utilizing a digital mentor), opinions and
values questions (to measure perceptions of motivation), feeling questions (to
measure perceptions/feelings closely related to the experience and behavior
questions), knowledge questions (to assess projects and information related
to the content), sensory questions (to elicit more data related to experience
and behavior but in context of what is being seen, heard, or felt), and limited
background/demographic questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Probes such as
“tell me more” or “what does _______ mean?” may be used to clarify responses
or allow participants to elaborate (Creswell, 2015, p. 220).
Genius-Hour 163
4 Theoretical Framework
Dewey’s theory of Learning by Doing and Experiential Learning framed this

study. Dewey explored the idea of interest in education. According to Dewey
(1916), interest is any experience having a purpose. When students reported
their concerns of being disconnected from their learning, their lack of purpose
in education was exemplified. In addition, Dewey’s model of learning finds
that learning occurs when students have a desire to learn (Kolb, 1984).
Within the study, we explored the role of the teacher or the mentor in influ-
encing students’ perceptions of participating in Genius-Hour in the classroom.
Children are greatly influenced by teachers’ habits and presentation of particular
subject matter (Dewey, 1910). With project-based learning, teachers serve as facil-
itators of learning rather than lecturers. During the study, we analyzed the per-
ceptions of the participants before and after having teacher or mentor direction.
The experience will not result in meaningful learning without some inde-
pendent thinking or reflection (Dewey, 1916), which is why this study also
explores students’ perceptions of their Genius-Hour experience including
their initial knowledge acquisition without the direction of a mentor.
5 Findings, Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Analytic Procedure

After the interviews, I read through all data, adding margin notes, and form-
ing initial codes. Drawing from these codes, themes were generalized, and a
detailed description of the case and its setting was generated from the data
(Creswell, 2013). Categorical aggregation (Stake, 1995) was used in order to
determine relevant meanings and themes that emerged from the collected
data from individual interviews and artifacts. Data was reviewed multiple
times to generalize themes (Creswell, 2013).
Looking at the codes and themes, I interpreted the larger meaning of the
data in connection and context of the larger body of research literature per-
taining to the themes in the study. In the study, validity was ensured by using
multiple methods (interviews and artifacts). Validity in the formal study should
be increased by using triangulation through obtaining data via multiple meth-
ods of data collection including interviews, observations, and documents and
artifacts. By looking at the codes and generalized themes from the multiple
methods, these findings can be deemed valid.
From the codes and categories, we identified emergent themes regarding the
perceptions of working with digital mentors. During this iteration of the study,
pre-interview questions were given, so the analysis is highly interpretative

(Stake, 1995), and additional themes may emerge with observation, added par-
ticipants, and during the project and post-project interviews.
5.2 Independence before Mentorship

The first theme that emerged in the study was the need for independence
before mentorship. Since in Genius-Hour essential questions are not focused
on current skill levels or prior knowledge, both Katie and Tamara had limited
knowledge about their topic. Katie said that she did not have much knowl-
edge about art and focused on the fun. This meant that Katie had to find her
own passion and style before getting connected with a mentor in high school
the following year. This theme emerged in the context of beginning knowledge
and need for exploration through the interviews.
Katie: I was just getting into art, so I feel like I had to find myself and find
where I was going. I just kind of did it. I wanted to work with paint, and it
gave me an opportunity to.
Tamara had a basic knowledge of sewing and working from patterns but
emphasized that she had never experienced this type of learning before. Both
students were able to work independently before finding a mentor through
class or on their own after the course had ended. Katie said that it was import-
ant to work on her own first.
Tamara: I had never done anything like this before.

Katie: I had to find myself and find where I was going. I wanted to put my
skills to the test and see what I could really achieve on my own.
The transcripts above showed the fundamental need for exploration and
independence before mentorship through teachers or community members
were introduced. Since knowledge is an adaptive process, students can con-
struct knowledge regardless of teacher input (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).
By its very nature, inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning meth-
ods like Genius-Hour are student-centered. Knowledge is constructed by the
student, often with minimal background knowledge research (Oguz-Ünver &
Arabacıoğlu, 2011).
In coursework outside of Genius-Hour, often teachers give students questions
to answer. Students then focus on the answer that will be most pleasing to the
teacher rather than their own knowledge acquisition. This is particularly true
when students have a positive relationship with the teacher (Dewey, 1910). It was
Genius-Hour 165
important for the students to experience their own research and exploration
separate from teacher or mentor influence during the infancy of their projects.
As knowledge is the combination of individual life experiences and objective
social experiences as learned through traditional schooling (Kolb, 1984), the
students’ Genius-Hour experiences were shaped by the knowledge obtained
by research and asking questions as well as their own personal desires to
explore their art on their own.
The impact of knowledge acquisition and independence on student per-
ceptions of Genius-Hour is evident through the interviews and Katie’s initial
painting (Figure 10.1). Katie explored different painting techniques on her own.
She did not have an art mentor to guide her during her Genius-Hour project.
Her unique style (Figure 10.2) emerged after working with an art mentor and
collaborators in high school.
figure 10.1 Katie’s To Kill a Mockingbird ceiling tile
5.3 Collaborators and Supports

The second theme that emerged was the need for collaborators and supports
in achieving goals. Although Katie and Tamara did not have mentors at the
onset of their projects, both mentioned people who pushed them or encour-
aged them to reach their goals. This theme of the need for collaborators and
support was found through the interview data in connection with the study of
experiential learning.
Katie: I met a few artists in this group called Pipe Dreams like young
artists in the metro area that get together and do art together…I have this
really cool art teacher now…she is an amazing person. She really pushes
figure 10.2
Katie’s work in 2019
me hard to keep on making art…I have a lot of friends that will help me
out and give me pointers on things when it comes to art like drawing.
As their projects progressed, Katie found collaborators (i.e. other art-

ists) to be important in helping her perfect her craft. In addition, Katie was
able to find a mentor in high school through her art teacher. This was after
she had explored her style in middle school. Her mentor, however, was piv-
otal in helping her make connections in the art community and develop her
own style.
Tamara worked with a 19-year-old mentor who was emerging as a designer
in the area. During Tamara’s Genius Hour project time, her mentor presented
her clothing line at New York full-figured fashion week. In addition, Tamara
and her mentor attended local fashion shows and a business/entrepreneur
conference for students. These experiences helped Tamara find her own style
while having someone to cheer her on and help her succeed.
Tamara: …was a huge encouragement to know that someone was…

cheering for me to be successful.
Tamara’s experience with her mentor also helped her develop leadership
skills that lead to her current education path in construction management.
Genius-Hour 167
She is also a student officer for her college’s Associated General Contractors of
America club.
The relationship between the teacher and student and the subject matter
itself shapes students’ perceptions in any educational subject. The role of an
educator is not to guarantee student interest but “furnish the environment
which stimulates responses and directs the learner’s course” (Dewey, 1916, p.
212). During Katie’s project, the teacher provided the tools and the environ-
ment to ask questions and let work become play. In this case, providing that
environment set Katie up to explore independently and eventually find her
own mentor in high school and a group of collaborators.
As for Tamara, the role of her experienced mentor after shaped her percep-
tions of Genius-Hour. The role of the mentor mirrors Dewey’s interpretation of
the instructor role. The interview transcript indicates that her mentor introduced
the standards of design and recognized the possibilities that Tamara had to make
her own creations. In fact, the teacher or mentor role should be focused on the
students’ needs and capabilities rather than the subject matter at hand (Dewey,
1916). This was the case with Tamara as her mentor met with her to help her reach
her goals in her own original design by providing guidance tailored to the student.
The artifact in Figure 10.3 is indicative of the influence of Tamara’s mentor
on supporting her design capabilities.
figure 10.3
Tamara’s “Scout” dress on a model
5.4 Student Motivation

Student motivation and the connection to learner development was a third
theme that came forth through the study. For both students, Genius Hour was
a project that was fueled by a desire to learn something relevant to their own
interests, regardless of prior knowledge. This theme came forward through the
interviews conducted with the student participants.
Katie did not know a lot about art going into the project but was motivated
by enjoyment and engagement in the classroom.
Katie: …usually that’s the first thing I wanted to do because I was into it
and really liked it and it was fun.
Katie’s motivation to complete her artwork during Genius Hour showed

how she developed as an artist and a learner still today.
Katie: It was something to fill my time, and it was fun. I do that a lot with
projects nowadays too. I like start it and I finish it, and that’s all I want to do.
Before the project began, Tamara had some foundation level knowledge
when it came to sewing and design.
Tamara: I knew how to sew and had already created a couple of pieces
of garments, but I wanted to expand my knowledge in the fashion world
and create more challenging pieces of clothing.
Through learning additional skills and engaging in her weekly Genius-Hour

time, Tamara was able to develop as a designer, entrepreneur, and a learner.
Tamara: A successful Genius-Hour project would challenge a person’s

abilities but also allow them to learn about a subject that they had much
interest in and may not have known or had much experience with before.
This challenge motivated Tamara as a learner as is evident in the excerpt

that follows.
Tamara: I was very motivated to complete this project. I had never done
anything like this before and how to come up with a way to show who this
character was a two-garment piece.
When students are able to engage their “natural impulses” and play, school
is a positive experience and motivation to learn and work increases (Dewey,
1916, p. 229). Children, by nature, have a natural instinct to play (Gray, 2013).
While traditional schooling often requires work before play, Genius-Hour
offers the opportunity to link work to play. Even though the work was chal-
lenging, the ability to explore and experience learning without constraints
motivated both students to finish their projects.
Genius-Hour 169
Activities that involve play and hands-on work, as in these Genius-Hour

projects, are motivating because of their usefulness outside the classroom
(Dewey, 1916). The key principles of motivation: autonomy, mastery, and pur-
pose are reflected in our participants’ perceptions of Genius-Hour (Pink, 2011).
First, both students had an autonomous desire to find their own direction and
style before working with a mentor. In addition, Tamara stated that she wanted
to improve her skills and expand her knowledge. This motivation pointed to
mastery as a key principle in motivation and the desire to improve her skill set.
Finally, both students found a greater purpose through their projects. Their
perceptions of Genius-Hour through the interviews and future experiences
show that they have continued pursuits in art (Katie) and business (Tamara).
6 Conclusion
Findings from this study can be used to design the next iteration of Genius-
Hour in the secondary classroom to support 21st-century learning. The find-
ings from this initial study answer the question, “What are students’ perceptions
of participating in Genius Hour in the classroom?” and show that for some
students the experiences during Genius-hour can be life-altering, initiating
careers and opening avenues for personal growth. Since the study was com-
pleted with two students who had already participated in a year-long imple-
mentation of Genius-Hour, their success stories and growth are an example of
education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The students used their own
initiative and interest to create a new path, in doing that they learned how to
harness their own motivation to learn and develop. Both students started the
project with little to no knowledge of their topics of interest. Now, both are
continuing to pursue their initial inquiries. Katie refers to art as her “career”
now. Tamara chose a path outside of fashion but found opportunities and
connections during the project that led her to an entrepreneurial field in con-
struction management. Within the study, the students interviewed wanted to
find their own interests and work on their own before being introduced to a
mentor. This theme, need for independence before mentorship highlights the
need for initial time for exploration and play before formal instruction in a
trade or career field.
The themes emerging from the study included: the need for independence
before mentorship, need for collaborators and support, and student moti-
vation and the connection to learner development. Next steps in the study
include finding additional avenues to reach out to community mentors for
students in different interest areas. After exploring their own passions through
independent learning and research, students will be connected with mentors

to strengthen the Genius-Hour experience. The authors have explored avenues
through LinkedIn groups, community partnerships, and social media connec-
tions. These avenues will be implemented in the next iteration of the study.
Participants utilized technology to pursue their interests further, even
before formal mentorship. Teachers can use Genius-Hour in the 21st-century
to help their students embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Studying top-
ics relevant to career interests or simply exploring ideas that enhance learning
will help students transition into a new digital age of collaboration, student-
centered acquisition of knowledge, and asynchronous learning that extends
outside the classroom walls.
We suggest that further instrumental case studies as well as design studies
regarding the impacts of Genius-Hour with in-person mentors may be con-
ducted and used to support expanding these practices.
References
Babchuk, W. A., & Badiee, M. (2010, September 26–28). Realizing the potential of qualita-
tive designs: A conceptual guide for research and practice. Paper presented at Midwest
Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2016). 30 Essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. D.C. Heath and Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of educa-
tion. Macmillan.
Gray, P. (2013). Free to learn: Why unleashing the instinct to play will make our children
happier, more self-reliant, and better students for life. Basic Books.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional
design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and devel-
opment. Prentice-Hall.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and imple-
mentation. Jossey-Bass.
Oguz-Ünver, A., & Arabacioglu, S. (2011). Overviews on inquiry-based and problem
based learning methods. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 303–309.
Genius-Hour 171
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathemat-
ics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(2), 124–139.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation [Video]. Ted.com. http://www.ted.com/talks/
dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en
Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.
Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., Batchelor, J., O’Steen, B., & Angelo, T. (2012). Evaluating
student perceptions of learning processes and intended learning outcomes under
inquiry approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 57–72.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Sage.
Glossary
21st-century classroom The 21st-century classroom is student-centered, where

teachers are the facilitators of learning. The learning milieu incorporates the use
of technology-based tools.
21st-century skills skills, abilities, and learning dispositions that have been identified
as being required for success in 21st-century society and workplaces by educators,
business leaders, academics, and governmental agencies. The four skills, namely,
communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity, are essential
inside the 21st-century classroom.
21st-century teacher a person who facilitates the teaching and learning process to
enable students to become useful to themselves and society. He/she is the one
who makes classroom interactive through the use of ICT and other technologies.
Affordances the possibilities that a technological tool offers to a user to make sense
of a concept or to make inferences.
Algorithm a step-by-step procedure or sequence of instructions for solving a problem.
Apps applications that are available via the e-store for download on smart devices
and tablets.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) when robots/machine can mimic human behavior.
Automation automatically controlled operations.
Big data very large structured and unstructured data sets that are analyzed using
computers to reveal trends.
Blended learning a method of learning in which students learn through the use
of technology-based tools and the traditional teaching methods, for example,
‘chalk and talk’.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) a concept where people are allowed to bring and
use their own portable devices such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, etc. to
work/institution and access the network instead of the work/ institution sup-
plying a device.
Case study activities short, structured tasks, linked to real-life examples of techno-
logical challenges in the society or community. They allow for the application of
theory to solve a practical problem.
Coding the programming of algorithms using a computer language.
Computational thinking involves problem-solving skills encompassing screen-
based coding, digital tangibles and off-screen algorithms.
Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) a mathematical software that can manipulate
algebraic expressions and equations.
Crackers a person who identifies defects in security systems with the intent of mali-
cious harm.
174 Glossary
Cyberbullying an electronic form of bullying or harassment. Such bullying takes

place online, and teenagers are common victims of such crime.
Deep learning a subsection of machine learning that is associated with AI. Deep
learning is also known as a deep neural network, consists of networks that are
capable of learning unsupervised and unstructured data.
Differentiated instruction a philosophy of teaching which considers and accommo-
dates students’ diversity in terms of their readiness to learn.
Digital learning a style of learning that is complemented by technology or by a ped-
agogy that makes use of technology-based tools. It incorporates different types
of learning, including: blended and flipped learning.
Digital tools tools that are characterized by electronic or computerized technologies,
for example, cell phones, computers, laptops, iPads and so on.
E-learning generally platforms or environment that are created online enabling dis-
tance education.
Embedded systems a computer system with a dedicated function.
Fourth Industrial Revolution usually called Industry 4.0 or 4IR, is the current and
developmental transformation in the ways human function, which is as a result
of technologies and trends such as, the Internet of Things (IoT), virtual reality
robotics and Artificial Intelligence(AI). The Fourth Industrial Revolution char-
acterizes new ways in which technology becomes embedded within our society
and our bodies.
Genius-hour a specific inquiry-based learning project in which students have
approximately one hour a week (minimum) to research, create a product, and
share their research. The timeline for Genius-Hour is infinite. Students may con-
tinue to work on their Genius-Hour project after leaving the course.
Graphical User Interface (GUI) visual components on software such as labels, but-
tons, drop-down menus, etc.
Hackers a person who identifies defects in security systems and works to improve
the system.
Identity theft the impersonation of a person online and provides credible informa-
tion about that person.
Inquiry-based learning project project in which the student chooses an effective
question to guide their own research, design, and presentation. Teachers act as
instructional guides.
Internet of things (IoT) a networked world of connected devices, objects, and peo-
ple that are aligned to the needs of individuals and society as it was created to
make life easy, and information more accessible. The IoT refers to the trend
whereby all sorts of objects and devices are increasingly being connected to one
another via the Internet.
Glossary 175
Internet troll an individual who distracts people by starting arguments, quarrels

and upsets people on the Internet.
Machine Learning (ML) learning about statistical models and algorithms that com-
puter systems use to achieve a precise task. This type of learning does not require
explicit instructions but relies on patterns and inferences. It is considered a part
of Artificial Intelligence.
m-learning a form of education and training delivered and conducted via the Inter-
net using mobile devices, such as tablets and smartphones. It is designed to be
flexible, allowing access to education anywhere, anytime.
Post-Digital Age the Digital Age or Information Age started around the 1970s with
the introduction of the personal computer. Before this was the pre-Digital Age
and in the midst was the mid-Digital Age. Therefore the post-Digital Age would
include the current period we live in.
RAM the primary memory that stores data temporarily.
Sensor a device that provides information about the state of the robot and its
environment.
Simulation mathematical techniques for imitating the behavior of situations.
Visual manipulative images, objects or other symbolic artefacts that can be manip-
ulated either physically or mentally.
Visual mediators images, objects or other symbolic artefacts that stimulate the mind
into thinking concretely about a specific concept or idea.
Visual-analytic thinking analytical reasoning supported by interactive visual images,
objects and artefacts.
Index
21st-century classroom vii–ix, 5, 72–74, 77, mathematics viii–x, 13–26, 34, 35, 40,

78, 82, 83, 92 42, 54–56, 58, 68, 71, 75, 82, 119–121,
21st-century curriculum vii, viii, 4 125–127, 132, 140
21st-century skills ix, 7, 8, 72, 90–92, 94–96, m-learning 121, 122, 175
98, 99, 107, 112, 117, 140, 152
21st-century student 7, 8, 74, 159 pre-service teachers 2, 106, 116, 119–121, 123,
21st-century teacher ix, 4, 6, 8, 89, 91–93, 125
96, 98, 100
science x, 6, 25, 39, 40, 42, 59, 60, 61, 68, 107,
applications (Apps) x, 4, 17, 19, 26, 36, 37, 139–144, 149, 150, 152, 160
44, 45, 60, 75 Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2, 15, 17, 19, 31, 41, Technology (STEM) 16, 17, 22, 25,
45, 107 35, 40,
automation 16, 24, 173 simulation 19, 24, 41, 60, 62, 108, 175
student vii–xi, 2–8, 14, 16–19, 21–25, 30–39,
blended learning 5, 73, 82, 173 41–45, 65, 72–75, 79–83, 90–101, 107–
110, 113–115, 120–122, 127–132, 140–145,
coding viii, 18, 24, 30–33, 39, 42, 44, 45, 77, 147–152, 157–170
83, 110, 111, 126 student-centered teaching 89, 94
computational thinking 15, 18, 24, 39, 40,
42, 44 teacher vii–xi, 2–8, 14, 15, 18–21, 26, 31–35,
Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) 14, 173 37, 41, 42, 44–46, 54–57, 66, 71–75,
cyberbullying 35, 39, 45 77–80, 82, 83, 89–101, 106–108, 110,
111, 114–117, 119–133, 140–142, 149, 150,
digital learning 15, 72 158–160, 162–167, 170
digital tools 72–74, 80 teaching vii–xi, 1–8, 14, 17–24, 31, 32,
34, 53–55, 61, 66, 72–74, 76, 78–82,
educational technology 32, 139 90–99, 101, 106–111, 113, 115–117,
e-learning 44, 45, 122, 174 119–123, 125–132, 139–142, 149, 150–152,
embedded systems 174 158–160
technological pedagogical content knowledge
Fourth Industrial Revolution vii–ix, 1, 2, (TPACK) 95, 96, 123–125, 130, 132,
6–8, 13, 15, 19, 22, 30, 31, 44, 45, 53, 55, 133
71–74, 76–78, 83, 89, 90, 101, 106, 117, technology vii, ix, x, 2–7, 14, 16–18, 21, 22,
119–121, 140, 157, 159, 160, 169, 170, 174 26, 32, 35–36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54–57,
60, 63, 67, 68, 71–83, 90–92, 95, 96,
Internet of Things (IoT) ix, 2, 15, 16, 19, 21, 101, 106–108, 110, 117, 119–124, 125–127,
24, 26, 31, 32, 34, 107, 108, 110–117, 174 130–132, 139, 140, 149–151, 160, 161,
170
learning vii–xi, 1–8, 14–26, 31–37, 39, technology education ix, 3, 36, 62, 108, 110,
41, 44–46, 54, 55, 57, 61, 63, 65–66, 119, 120, 121, 125–127, 131, 132
71–75, 78–83, 90–101, 106–117, 119–132,
139–142, 149, 150–152, 157–161, 163–165, visualization ix, 17–19, 53, 56, 57, 59–61,
167–170 63–68, 107

Teaching and Learning in The 21st Century - Embracing The Fourth Industrial Revolution-Brill (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching and Learning in The 21st Century - Embracing The Fourth Industrial Revolution-Brill (2021)

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

Teaching and Learning in The 21st Century - Embracing The Fourth Industrial Revolution-Brill (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the main topics discussed in the book?

What are some of the main topics discussed in the book?

How does the book discuss preparing students for the 21st century?

How does the book discuss preparing students for the 21st century?

Bharath Sriraman (The University of Montana, USA)

International Advisory Board

Don Ambrose (Rider University, USA)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/aiie

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Naidoo, Jayaluxmi, editor.

Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 Exploring Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century 1

2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for School Mathematics 13

3 Embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution by Developing a More

4 Visualizing as a Means of Understanding in the Fourth Industrial

5 Transforming the Classroom Context: Mathematics Teachers’

6 Teaching and Assessment Skills Needed by 21st-Century Teachers:

7 Pre-Service Technology Teachers’ Learning Experiences of Teaching

8 Pre-Service Teacher Educators’ Experiences of Using Mobile

9 Teaching and Learning Science in the 21st Century: A Study of Critical

10 Genius-Hour: Student-Led Learning in the Fourth Industrial

It is exciting to live in the 21st century amidst transformation and adaptation

has prompted educational institutions globally to introduce these fields into

Asheena Singh-Pillay and Jayaluxmi Naidoo reflect on a South African case

questions, Genius-Hour expands project-based/problem-based learning to

Any findings, thoughts or conclusions described in this edited volume is that of

3.1 Piaget’s stages of cognitive development integrated with educational robotics

Ajit Kumar Gopee

Reginald Gerald Govender

Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin

Henri Tin Yan Li Kam Wah

Exploring Teaching and Learning in the 21st

Within the Fourth Industrial Revolution, society is transforming rapidly. Technology

In recent years novel technologies have led to substantial transformations to

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2021 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004460386_001

For professionals involved in education, there is a need to embrace this

2 The Fourth Industrial Revolution

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is explained as the assimilation of the phys-

this growth in technology, education ought to adapt as fast as the demand

3 Teaching and Learning in the 21st Century

environments also requires curriculum reforms. Curriculum material ought to

3.1 The 21st-Century Curriculum

3.2 The 21st-Century Classroom Environment

the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Moreover, the classroom environment needs

3.3 The 21st-Century Teacher

workshops to share 21st-century pedagogic strategies with other teachers and

3.4 The 21st-Century Student

Ramakrishnan, N., & Priya, J. J. (2016). Effectiveness of flipped classroom in mathematics

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for

Ajay Ramful and Sitti Maesuri Patahuddin

In this reflective chapter, we undertake a mapping exercise from the anticipated

What is taught and learnt at schools, is to a considerable extent dictated by the

© koninklijke brill nv, leideN, 2021 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004460386_002

artifacts and ways of operating add to the fabric of humankind. In particular,

2 Industry 4.0 and Related Work in Mathematics Education

We first circumscribe a workable boundary around the essential constituents

3 Cyber-Physical Systems and the Internet of Things