University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role as Developers of

Technology-Rich Learning Environments

Kirsi Heinonen

, Päivikki Jääskelä

and Hannakaisa Isomäki

Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Keywords: University Teacher, Technology-Rich Learning Environment, Conception, Phenomenography.

Abstract: This phenomenographic study examines how a diverse group of university teachers conceptualised their role

as developers of technology-rich learning environments at one university in Finland. The research findings

illustrate a variety of conceptions. Five qualitatively different ways of understanding teachers’ roles

regarding the development of technology-rich learning environments were found: 1) innovator, 2) early

adopter, 3) adaptive, 4) sceptic and 5) late adopter. In order to connect the whole set of interconnected roles

to a theory of change, Everett Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory was exploited in the last phase of

analysis. Finally, hierarchically structured categories were created along with five evolutionary themes of

expanding intensity. These findings can be used as an assessment tool among teachers to identify their role

in educational reform.

1 INTRODUCTION

The rapid digitalisation of society has raised

expectations regarding the use of modern

information and communication technologies (ICT)

in universities. Higher education policy calls for

flexible possibilities for studying that do not require

a student to be in a particular place at a given time

and that are available throughout the whole year. In

response to this call, new kinds of learning

environments utilising ICT have been developed. In

addition, researchers have introduced pedagogical

arguments regarding the promotion of student

learning (Kirschner et al., 2009). Various problems

related to students’ cognitive construction of

knowledge, motivation to study and collaborative

work have been pointed out by studies examining

ICT-based learning environments (Häkkinen et al.,

2010). Thus, there is demand for innovations

relating to ICT use in higher education teaching and

learning that support students’ flexible studying as

well as their competence development.

During the past 20 years, much research has

focused on the use of ICT in teaching environments

(e.g. Means et al., 1995; Kozma, 2003; Garrison and

Kanuka, 2004; Häkkinen et al., 2017). Numerous

pilot studies aiming to renew traditional teaching

practices and construct technology-supported

learning environments have been conducted (e.g.

Cavus and Ibrahim, 2009; Hämäläinen et al., 2006;

Chu et al., 2010). However, efforts concerning the

adoption of technology in learning and teaching

environments have not been sufficient (Beetham and

Sharpe, 2013). One comparative study on the use of

ICT in school education (Survey of schools 2013)

reviewed the differences between countries, finding

that some countries, such as Finland, lagged behind

others in the EU. In addition, technology-enhanced

learning experiments in higher education have not

innovatively transformed the learning environments

or pedagogy (Kirkwood and Price, 2006).

The successful use of digital technology depends

not only on teachers’ technical skills but also their

perceptions, beliefs and attitudes related to ICT use

in teaching and learning. These attributes lay the

foundation for development of technology-rich

learning environments and reflect the practical

implications of teachers’ work (Mama and

Hennessy, 2013; Prestidge, 2012). Thus, it is

important to gain knowledge about teachers’

thoughts and conceptions regarding the use of

technology in an educational context and their own

work as well as the adoption and effective

integration of technology in their teaching.

Heinonen, K., Jääskelä, P. and Isomaki, H.

University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role as Developers of Technology-Rich Learning Environments.

DOI: 10.5220/0006267301810187

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 2, pages 181-187

ISBN: 978-989-758-240-0

181

The effects of university teachers’ thoughts,

beliefs and perceptions of their approaches to

teaching in higher education contexts have received

considerable attention (see e.g. Bowden and Marton,

2004, Hativa et al., 2001; Prosser et al., 1994;

Prosser and Trigwell, 1997; Samuelowicz and Bain,

1992; Åkerlind 2004). Further research has extended

the knowledge related to this phenomenon and

reported findings on technology-rich learning

environments by investigating the conceptions of the

e-teaching among university teachers (González,

2012), teachers’ perceptions of blended learning and

teaching (Ellis et al., 2006) and approaches to

teaching using virtual learning environments

(Lameras et al., 2008). However, research has

tended to focus on academic teachers’ beliefs and

conceptions of teaching or e-teaching rather than the

conceptions of their own role as developers of

higher education.

Thus, the following two research questions were

defined:

1) How do university teachers perceive their role

as developers of technology-rich learning

environments?

2) What are university teachers’ beliefs regarding

the advantages and disadvantages of

technology in higher education?

2 METHOD

The research method merges with the principles of

phenomenography (Marton, 1981; Bowden, 1994;

Marton and Booth, 1997; cf. Åkerlind, 2011). The

central principles are second-order perspective,

contextuality, intentionality, and the inspection of

the essence of phenomena as collective habits of

conceptualization (Isomäki 2002, pp. 58-60). In

phenomenography, the second-order perspective

defines the object of research: the investigation is

oriented towards humans’ thoughts or conceptions

of the surrounding world, not the world itself. A

conception forms the relation between an individual

and the surrounding world.

In phenomenography, people’s conceptions are

not detachable, either from their context or from the

task at hand (Marton, 1981). Intentionality of

conceptions is seen with respect to two intertwined

aspects, which signify the qualitative differences

among conceptions and render conceptions

contextual: the what- and how-aspects that reveal the

meaning of a conception. The what aspect indicates

the object of thought whereas the how aspect refers

to the mental quality of the mental act (Marton and

Booth 1997, 84).

In order to understand the whole mental act, we

have to examine both the what and how aspects of a

conception. The inspection of the essence of

phenomena as collective habits of conceptualization

mean that, on the one hand, conceptions include

socially constructed features, and on the other hand,

phenomenography aims at relating individual

conceptions to a collective way of seeing

phenomena (Engeström, 1986). By building this

relation between individual and collective

conceptions phenomenography discloses the essence

of phenomena through the variation of the

informants’ different ways of seeing phenomena.

2.1 Context of the Study

The data were collected within the context of a

multidisciplinary network project at the University

of Jyväskylä, which is one of the largest research

universities in Finland. The university has seven

faculties, approximately 2,500 employees and

approximately 15,000 students. This annual project

brings together university teachers from various

disciplines who are interested in developing focused

teaching methods. The aim of the network is to

develop pedagogically high-quality and technology-

rich teaching and learning environments. The

university teachers participating in this network

project are required to design a pilot course and

implement technology that is applicable to their

teaching.

During 2016 nine pilot courses were executed

throughout the University of Jyväskylä. A one-year

project offered collective support for teachers to

create shared developmental tasks. In addition,

teachers are supported in their developmental work

by, for example, expert lectures, technological and

pedagogical guidance and research on the

experiences of teachers and students during

developmental interventions. After the project, the

teachers are expected to disseminate the developed

novel practices both in their own departments and

the university as a whole.

The integration of technology in teaching and

learning is an aim of the university. The teachers

themselves define the final aims, technological tools

and methods of this pedagogical development. Thus,

the network project is based on a ‘bottom-up’ policy

that values the teachers’ expertise and autonomy.

2.2 Data Collection and Participants

The data were collected from reflective writings

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

182

from 14 university teachers who participated in the

network project during 2016. Writing tasks were

voluntary. The teachers represented four disciplines:

the natural sciences, humanities, sport and health

sciences and educational sciences. Four of the

participants were male, and ten were female. The

participants’ age ranged from 26 and 58 years

(missing data for two participants), and they had

between 2 and 35 years of experience as university

teachers (missing data for one participants).

The teachers worked on their writings when they

first joined the network, when they still had not

developed concrete steps to implement their

initiatives. They were asked to reflect on their own

attitudes regarding change in higher education as

well as their role in teaching reform, especially

related to the integration of ICT in teaching and

learning.

2.3 Analysis

In phenomenographic research, common

characteristics of different conceptions are defined

during data analysis and are used to identify to an

outcome space (Marton, 1986; 1994). The unit of

our analysis was meaning, and thus, our

interpretative framework was the structure of

meaning (Marton and Booth, 1997). This means that

in our iterative analysis (Åkerlind, 2003) we

identified both what and how aspects of teachers’

conceptions.

We first explored the data by reading the whole

data several times in order to familiarise ourselves

with it and compose an overview of all respondents’

conceptions. During repeatedly reading, the

similarities and differences in meanings were

identified across data by comparing for what and

how the respondents described their own role and

their relation to technology in higher education. The

purpose of this initial data analysis was to draft

range of categories for the collective understanding

(Åkerlind, 2012).

In the second phase of analysis, we considered

the features of each category and ensured that all

meanings in the data relevant to research questions

could be identified and classified into the

appropriate categories. At this stage, the features of

the categories were compared to each other, and the

variation of common themes concerning university

teachers’ ways of perceiving their roles in the

development of technology-rich learning

environments were recognised (Marton and Booth,

1997). These critical attributes of variation were

utilised for developing a hierarchical structure in

terms of the logical connections between the

categories. Further, while reconsidering the

categories identified by the data-driven iterative

analysis in a more conceptual way, Everett Rogers’

(2003) innovation diffusion theory was exploited by

mirroring the logic of the categories to the

theoretical view of technological diffusion. In this

way hierarchically structured categories and five

evolutionary themes of logically expanding intensity

were created.

3 RESULTS

Five qualitatively different conceptions of teachers’

role in the development of technology-rich learning

environments were identified in this study:

innovator, early adopter, adaptive, sceptic and late

adopter (Table 1). Each category is described in

detail below with a brief overview and relevant

fragments of the written responses to show the

essential aspects of each category. However, no

single quotation can wholly represent a category. In

the outcome space, the categories compose

hierarchical structure of the roles in which the first

category includes teachers with the strongest desire

to participate in educational reform to integrate ICT

into teaching and learning. These categories were

compared in terms of five critical attributes of

variation: ICT use in digitalisation of teaching,

relative advantage of learning technology,

compatibility of learning technology, complexity of

learning technology and observability of learning

technology.

3.1 Category A: Innovator

The university teachers in this category realised their

role as innovators in the use of ICT for the

digitalisation of university teaching. These

university teachers are very attracted by digital tools,

eager to try new technologies and characterise

themselves as ‘technofreaks’. For example:

The learning technology was originally one of the

biggest reasons why I became enthusiastic about

teaching, and I’m still eager to reform learning

technologies.

Innovator teachers understand the relative advantage

of learning technology and believe that digital

technologies are very compatible with university

education. Teachers in this category are excited for

new technologies and don’t perceive digital

technologies as complicated. They also believe that

University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role as Developers of Technology-Rich Learning Environments

183

Table 1: University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role to Develop Technology-Rich Learning Environments.

ATTRIBUTES OF

VARIATION

CATEGORIES: ROLES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY-RICH

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Category A:

Innovator

Category B:

Early adopter

Category C:

Adaptive

Category D:

Sceptic

Category E:

Late adopter

ICT use in digitalisation of

teaching

Technofreak

Visionary

Pragmatist

Conservative

Technophobic

Relative advantage of

learning-technology

Very useful

Considerable

Adaptable

Necessary evil

Not useful

Compatibility of learning-

technology

Very

compatible

Enabling

Appropriate

Suspicious

Not compatible

Complexity of learning-

technology

Excited

Curious to

test

Cyclical

Desire for

simple

solutions

Avoid learning

Observability of learning-

technology

Inspire others

Catalyst

Collectivist

Individualistic

Criticise users of

learning-

technology

learning technologies have a high level of

observability. Inspiring other teachers to try new

digital technologies is seen as an essential element

of their role as innovators. For example:

I have always been the one who try to encourage the

others to explore, test and to become enthusiastic.

3.2 Category B: Early Adopter

This category includes teachers who are early

adopters of ICT in learning environments. Teachers

in this category understand their role as visionaries

in educational reform aiming to create digitalised

learning environments. For example:

I’m pretty daring to pilot new. For example, I am

happy rejoice about my decision to put the learning

environment into operation in our project although it is

still in its infancy.

Within this category, it is assumed that university

teachers gain a considerable advantage from digital

technologies. Learning technologies are seen as

enabling elements in the learning process since they

offer new and flexible approaches to delivering

information. For example:

I see that instructional technology works best when,

for example, it can be used to plan learning

assignments, which are difficult or impossible to

implement without technology.

These teachers believe that the observability of

learning technology inspired them to be catalysts for

educational reform of digital learning environments.

For example:

I do not like to boast about my doings, but if the

reforms I developed achieved good results, I’ll gladly

accept my role as a promoter of the reforms.

3.3 Category C: Adaptive

The role of an adapter involves the pragmatic

development of technology-based learning

environments. Such development is meant to support

rational and practical technology-enhanced learning

solutions. Teachers within this category are

circumspect developers who have an adaptive

understanding of the relative advantage of learning-

technologies. They determine the compatibility of

learning technologies based on their appropriateness

for teaching. For example:

I’m not a technofreak, but new platforms and tools

inspired me based on what they enable me to do and

how they will benefit my pedagogical thinking at that

moment.

In this category, teachers admit to the complexity of

educational technology and understand the

development of technology-enhanced learning

environments to be a cyclic process. In addition,

they believe that technology is difficult to control

and favour simple technical solutions. For example:

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

184

I have been involved to the promotion of learning

technologies for years, or rather for decades, but I’m

not willing to get involved in the cycle of reform

emphasizing technology. But I consider closely the

additional value of different media for learning and

know-how point of view.

Teachers within this category consider the

observability of educational technologies from a

social point of view. They mentioned that

collegiality played a highly significant role in the

integration of technology into their teaching. For

example:

I definitely want to hold on to the current

collaborative/collegial planning and implementation of

the teaching, and consider students as human beings in

learning situations, not as a spinning credit top or item

of expenditure.

3.4 Category D: Sceptic

In this category, the developer role of technology-

based teaching is seen as an activity that represents

sceptical and critical meanings towards digital

learning-technologies. For example:

My attitude towards technology is slightly

contradictory. I’m slightly sceptical on that score; is e-

learning promoted only for cost reasons, or do we

really want to develop flexible learning solutions?

The role is understood by university teachers to

be conservative in terms of its approach to teaching

and learning. They do not recognise the relative

advantage of learning technologies, and view the use

of digital technologies for teaching purposes as

something unpleasant that nevertheless must be

accepted. Teachers within this category are

suspicious about the compatibility of technology

with teaching and learning methods and favour

simple solutions. For example:

However, flexibility should not drift into a situation in

which teaching is tailored for every student according

to his or her individual schedules and needs. In some

circumstances, it now comes to my mind that

individualism has become synonymous with

selfishness when a student determines what dates are

suitable for his or her shifts and hobbies.

In addition, these people’s developmental focus is

individualistic and they concentrate in their own

work. For example:

Currently I’m doing development work in my sphere

of responsibility.

3.5 Category E: Late Adopter

This category includes late adopters who are

technophobic and believe that there are barriers to

the integration of ICT in teaching and learning. For

example:

If technology is seen exclusively as a tool for

intensification of studying and an enabler of ‘the flow-

through’, it isn’t too easy to look on it positively.

These teachers recognise very few relative

advantages and many negative effects of learning

technologies. They engaged in passive resistance to

the compatibility of digital technology for teaching

and learning. For example:

Development of more flexible university studies, for

example, by means of technical solutions, may not

ease that contradiction since students will pick even

more to study as the quality of their learning falls.

Technology-enhanced e-learning offers a frightening

opportunity to make students more passive than

before. Technology creates opportunities to move

work that is unavoidable and required for learning.

They perceive technology as complicated to use

and express a desire to avoid learning how to use

modern learning technologies. The university

teachers within this category criticise their

colleagues’ rash usage of learning technologies. For

example:

Therefore, I should myself learn to rustle up these

videos and to edit them, but I don’t have enthusiasm or

enough time to do that. So, I welcome reforms of

education, but the requirements of the digital leap

don’t appeal to me. There are many digital

applications that are cumbersome, slow to learn, not

motivational or out of date when they implement

them.

4 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

This study aimed to identify university teachers’

conceptions of their role as developers of

technology-rich learning environments and how they

value the integration of technology in higher

education. The study was performed during a

multidisciplinary network project that gathered

teachers who are willing to pilot new teaching

methods that apply technology. The results revealed

that the teachers fulfill very different roles in the

development of technology-based learning

environments. We identified five distinct roles:

innovator, early adopter, adaptive, sceptic and late

University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role as Developers of Technology-Rich Learning Environments

185

adopter. In addition, the teachers’ attitudes regarding

the integration of technology in higher education

were widely varied. When the study’s context is

taken into account, the results of this study are rather

surprising: not all the teachers who developed pilot

courses utilising ICT during the network project are

active supporters of ICT in teaching.

In this study, Everett Rogers’ innovation

diffusion theory (2003) was utilised to reflect the

logic of data-driven categories in a more conceptual

way. In line with this theory, we identified a

dominant characteristic of each of the five different

roles within the social context. If the aim of

educational development in higher education is

wider diffusion of innovations concerning the

digitisation of teaching in an evolving university

community, these different roles in the integration of

learning technologies need to be identified and

exploited.

The findings of this study can be used by

teachers to assess their role in educational reform

and categorise their perceptions of ICT. However,

deeper knowledge about the various roles, including

the beliefs behind the conceptions, is needed. Also,

ways to support university teachers’ transition

between the different stages of innovation (in

Rogers’ diffusion model) should be developed. We

propose that these kinds of tools offer opportunities

to support and speed up the diffusion of modern

learning technologies in educational organisations.

A limitation of this study is that our analysis of

teachers’ conceptions is based on a rather small

amount of data (n=14). Sandberg (2000) suggests

that around 20 informants would be a sufficient

amount in order to reach the saturation in

phenomenographical studies. Additionally, the data

in this study were collected from reflective writings,

which may not have reached all the potential

respondents. Further research should thematically

interview all the teachers that participated in the

multidisciplinary project to develop digital learning

environments. This will offer an opportunity for

these teachers to identify and evaluate their

conceptions and thus obtain deeper knowledge about

them. In addition, it is important to further study

possible changes in teachers’ conceptions during the

network project and the effect of various network

activities on their attitudes regarding ICT.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their gratitude to the University

of Jyväskylä for supporting the development of

teaching in higher education.

REFERENCES

Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy

for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning.

Routledge.

Bowden, J. A. (1994). Experience of phenomenographic

research: A personal account. In Bowden, J. A., &

Walsh, E. (Eds.). (1994). Phenomenographic

Research: Variations in Method. The Warburton

Symposium. Royal Melbourne Institute of

Technology: Melbourne, 44-55.

Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (2004). The university of

learning. Psychology Press.

Cavus, N. and Ibrahim, D. (2009). m‐ Learning: An

experiment in using SMS to support learning new

English language words. British journal of educational

technology, 40(1), 78-91.

Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., and Tseng, J. C.

(2010). A two-tier test approach to developing

location-aware mobile learning systems for natural

science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618-

1627.

Ellis, R. A., Steed, A. F., and Applebee, A. C. (2006).

Teacher conceptions of blended learning, blended

teaching and associations with approaches to design.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,

22(3).

Engeström, Y. (1986). The concept of content in

phenomenography and dialectics. In P.D. Ashworth,

A. Giorgi and A.J.J. de Koning (Ed.), Qualitative

research in psychology, 47–75. Pittsburgh: Duquesne

University Press.

Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning:

Uncovering its transformative potential in higher

education. The internet and higher education, 7(2),

95-105.

González, C. (2012). The relationship between approaches

to teaching, approaches to e-teaching and perceptions

of the teaching situation in relation to e-learning

among higher education teachers. Instructional

Science, 40(6), 975-998.

Hativa, N., Barak, R., and Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary

university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding

effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The

Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699-729.

Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M., Hämäläinen, R., & Pöysä, J.

(2010). Scripting computersupported collaborative

learning: A review of SCORE studies. In B. Ertl (Ed.),

E-collaborative knowledge construction: Learning

from computer-supported and virtual environments

(pp. 180–194). New York, NY: IGI Global.

Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A.,

Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-

students for twenty-first-century learning practices

(PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative

problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

186

and Teaching, 23(1), 25-41.

Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., Järvelä, S., and Häkkinen,

P. (2006). Learning to collaborate: Designing

collaboration in a 3-D game environment. The Internet

and Higher Education, 9(1), 47-61.

Isomäki, H. (2002). The prevailing conceptions of the

human being in information systems development:

Systems designers' reflections. Tampereen yliopisto.

Kirkwood, A. and Price, L. (2006). Adaptation for a

changing environment: Developing learning and

teaching with information and communication

technologies. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distributed Learning, 7(2).

Kirschner, P., Sweller J. and Clark, R. 2006. Why minimal

guidance during instruction does not work: An

analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based

teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2): 75–86.

Lameras, P., Paraskakis, I., and Levy, P. (2008).

Conceptions of teaching using virtual learning

environments: preliminary findings from a

phenomenographic inquiry. In 6th International

Conference on Networked Learning, May (pp. 5-6).

Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom

practices: An international study. Journal of Research

on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14.

Mama, M. and Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a

typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning

classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education 68,

380–387.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing

conceptions of the world around us. Instructional

science, 10(2), 177-200.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—a research

approach to investigating different understandings of

reality. Journal of thought, 28-49.

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography'in T. Husen and T.

N. Postlethwaite. The international encyclopedia of

education, 4424-4429.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and

awareness. Psychology Press.

Means, B., Olson, K., and Ruskus, J. A. (1995).

Technology's role in education reform: Findings from

a national study of innovating schools. SRI

International.

Prestidge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that

influences their ICT practices. Computers &

Education, 58: 49-458.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., and Taylor, P. (1994). A

phenomenographic study of academics' conceptions of

science learning and teaching. Learning and

instruction, 4(3), 217-231.

Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between

perceptions of the teaching environment and

approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 67(1), 25-35.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th

edition, New York, USA, Free Press.

Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of

teaching held by academic teachers. Higher

Education, 24(1), 93-111.

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at

work: an interpretative approach. Academy of

management journal, 43(1), 9-25.

Survey of Schools: ICT in education 2013. Retrieved

October 16, 2016, from.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-

agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a

university teacher--variation in meaning. Studies in

higher education, 28(4), 375-390.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding

university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education,

9(3), 363-375.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2011). Separating the ‘teaching’from the

‘academic’: Possible unintended consequences.

Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 183-195.

Åkerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in

phenomenographic research methods. Higher

Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115-127.

University Teachers’ Conceptions of Their Role as Developers of Technology-Rich Learning Environments

187