Education instruction experienced a paradigm shift in thinking about learning during the 1990s (Land, Hannafin & Oliver 2012) whereby the constructivist paradigm provided possibility for more social and learner-centred opportunities as opposed to traditional teacher-led learning methodologies reminiscent of many early learning experiences of students. A similar trend has been observed within the learning technology environment where a shift appeared from a behaviourist approach to that of constructivism (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver 2010). It suggests a movement away from knowledge transmission from an expert to a learner to a more co-constructed approach to learning (Land et al. 2012). Social constructivism explores a social component to learning, offering insight into learning that occurs in the classroom as well as outside the classroom setting (Kim 2001). Such a paradigm makes the case for the prominence and value of parents, teachers, the community, peers and so forth to create a learning opportunity that is socially engaging (Patel et al. 2011).

According to Vygotsky, it is through social and cultural interaction that learning and knowledge realities are constructed (Mills 2010). When learners are given the opportunity to actively explore learning with the mediation of other role-players, they begin to construct new understanding by building onto and reorganising previously constructed and assimilated knowledge, skills and understanding, within a specific learning frame referred to as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Gould 2012; Newman & Newman 2008). Vygotsky (1978) referred to the ZPD as:

That is, the learner will likely reach a ceiling of understanding when learning without assistance, and in order to push beyond this conceptualisation ceiling, interaction with more knowledgeable others (MKOs) is necessary for personal learning development. The MKO refers to any source of knowledge that holds more understanding and/or experience of a particular topic, and which can provide the necessary facilitation for the learner to renegotiate his or her own ZPD (Koenig & Sabbagh 2013). The required support can be provided in the form of scaffolding, which involves individual guidance to deconstruct topics into smaller manageable concepts for the learner (Crosby Bergin & Bergin 2014). Within such a paradigm, teaching with technologies requires skills, knowledge and a deep level of understanding of how learning technologies could potentially aid the learning experience. Effective use of scaffolding, the role of the MKOs and the seamless facilitation of the learning experience within the digital age pose many opportunities and challenges to teachers.

We attempted to include the above-mentioned principles in our course design by placing emphasis on the value of social and cultural interaction of the course participants. We paid particular attention to the value of MKOs which included not only facilitator experience and knowledge, but also tapping into the diverse levels of digital skills of the participants. Throughout the design of the course, scaffolding was used to gradually include those participants who had limited knowledge and/or experience of digital tools and devices.

Teaching with learning technologies requires the development of certain knowledge domains in order to seamlessly and effectively integrate such tools within a specific curriculum. It is expected of teachers to understand and continuously develop and adapt between different cases, classrooms and disciplinary environments (Koehler & Mishra 2009). Learning technologies afford the opportunity to begin to address learning barriers experienced by the full spectrum of learners, especially those with disabilities and those at risk (Benton-Borghi 2013). Learners learn how to access a plethora of information and how to engage with each other to negotiate and create unique knowledge (Edyburn 2005; Englert, Manalo & Zhao 2004). Within this complexity, teachers are expected to demonstrate multifaceted knowledge structures. Drawing on the work of Koehler and Mishra (2009), the authors underline three intersecting knowledge domains as those imperative in developing skills and attributes in the use of learning technologies in the classroom. The TPACK model is made up of technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. To productively integrate technologies in teaching, all three domains as well as the inter-related knowledge between them need to be considered and developed. As such, a well-balanced understanding of subject matter, as well as discerning use and further development of effective teaching tools and strategies, forms part of the successful teacher training (Koehler et al. 2014). The framework extends Shulman’s (1987) notion of pedagogical content knowledge and ‘… emphasizes the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology’ (Koehler & Mishra 2009:1025).

Content knowledge refers to the subject matter and the disciplinary content that should be taught to students, and encompasses theories, frameworks and different approaches to learning. Pedagogical knowledge represents a deep level of understanding of theory and practices associated with the art of learning and teaching, as well as an appreciation and working understanding of different teaching methodologies. Lastly, technological knowledge seems to be more complex to describe because of its ever-changing evolution. This requires teachers to access, develop and include novel technologies and resources that complement their subject content knowledge to engage learners in their learning (Martinovic & Zhang 2012). It is suggested that, within an educational context, technological knowledge moves beyond the basic digital literacy skills of users, and includes not only an understanding of the potential but also possible constraints in achieving learning goals (Tyner 2014). It is suggested that users develop deeper levels of understanding between the alignment of affordances of tools, connections and constraints of tools and different approaches. It, furthermore, requires users to develop transferable skills and to adjust with time and new technologies. It, therefore, assumes an ability to adapt and develop skills related to technologies – irrespective of the type of tool (Mishra & Koehler 2006). However, challenges do arise; for instance, Unwin (2005:121) expressed concern that emphasis was placed on ‘getting [African] school’s connected’ so as to meet the New Partnerships for Africa’s Development (NEPAD’s) e-School initiative of increasing learners’ technological skills, ahead of developing teacher praxis to support such use. These findings are further corroborated by the work of Krönke (2020) who emphasised the clear differences of digital readiness of learners in African schools. Because of the exponential growth and development of emerging technologies, increased needs therefore arise in terms of assisting teachers in identifying the potential, challenges and affordances of such tools within a complex framework of different social, cultural and economic variables (Chai, Koh & Tsai 2010; Koehler & Mishra 2009).

However, the effective integration of learning technologies in the classroom goes beyond the mere understanding and acknowledgement of the three knowledge domains (i.e. content, pedagogical and technological), requiring an approach to embrace an emergent form of knowledge that moves beyond the three separate domains to a more integrated approach. It requires teachers to develop an appreciation of the integration of pedagogical techniques and approaches appropriate for a particular learning experience, sufficient content knowledge and working knowledge and understanding of appropriate technologies that could contribute to or enhance a particular learning experience (Mishra & Koehler 2006).

Despite the complexities surrounding the inter-relatedness of such knowledge domains, it also remains imperative to understand the nature of knowledge associated with such practices. For those involved in education, it remains important to extend pedagogy and learning beyond the exact context of the learning activity. It is aspired to equip students with the ability to build on previous knowledge and to apply and transmit it to other relevant contexts (Maton 2014). Within a social constructivist paradigm, such practices could be associated with collaborative knowledge building. As such, opportunity is created for distributed or collective knowledge building where all the knowledge of the individuals in the community is aggregated (Bernstein 2000; Maton 2009).

It is within this theoretical paradigm that the pilot digital literacy short course was conceptualised. The need to create a learning opportunity whereby a formal course could translate into the practical and operational needs of a work environment posed interesting challenges and guided the authors towards a pedagogical model rooted in authentic learning (Herrington et al. 2010). The true nature of authentic learning is not to provide a traditional instructional design approach, but rather to create a learning opportunity that speaks about real-life challenges and whereby outcomes are valued and where it contributes to the collaborative creation of useful artefacts and resources (Herrington 2015). By adopting such a framework, it is argued that knowledge created is more accessible to problems within real-world situations. Often, learning at HE institutions is separated by ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’, which often provides challenges when access to such knowledge is really needed (Herrington et al. 2010:4).

Authentic learning and then also authentic tasks consist of an authentic context that reflects a real-world context where knowledge will be applied. In such a learning context, ill-defined tasks that are applicable to real-world situations and challenges guide the learning process. To guide students through such an approach, learning takes place with the aid of experts and modelling of required skills and processes. It remains important that students develop the skills to critically investigate the environment from all possible angles and therefore multiple roles and perspectives are encouraged. An important element of authentic learning and tasks is also the co-construction of knowledge whereby students are granted the chance to collaborate on the design of tasks. In order to provide a meaningful learning opportunity, students are encouraged to reflect on their learning and also to develop the ability to articulate whereby groups or individuals are able to defend a position or to create a public presentation of a particular case. The teacher or facilitator provides students with the necessary coaching or scaffolding to accommodate, assimilate and build new knowledge structures. And finally, an authentic assessment whereby students demonstrate knowledge and are provided with an opportunity to display or share their new products or skills set, the scene for a learning opportunity differs from the traditional mode of instruction (Herrington 2015; Reeves, Herrington & Oliver 2004). Table 1 presents the key learning dimensions related to authentic learning and how it translated to the conceptualisation of the short course.

To further our understanding, we were also guided by the approaches and lessons learnt from other institutions. By investigating various pre-service training programmes, challenges and triumphs were scrutinised for the influence they may have in the current digital literacy short course. What was evident is that the authors could not find explicit reference to such a short course of similar nature within the South African context. Internationally, Martinovic and Zhang (2012) discovered that limited access and unmet expectations to use learning technologies in schools, poorly modelled and unjustified use of learning technologies both in schools and in the teaching programme, insufficient and inadequate learning experiences in the programme and a lack of confidence with which participants felt they could use the tools in schools were challenges experienced by the research participants inherent in their pre-service teaching programme at the University of Windsor. In addition, Zhou, Zang and Li’s (2011) study at a Chinese university discovered that participants did not feel prepared to utilise their new skills following their inclusion in the programme, as well as identified the challenges of outdated software and disparate access to learning technologies which marred the course. Finally, Goktas, Yildirim and Yildirim (2009) utilised participant perspectives to delineate these challenges to categories of barriers to overcome, as observed in their Turkish study, that is extrinsic (including training, resources, technical support and time) and intrinsic barriers (teachers’ and instructors’ beliefs, visions for technology use and conceptualisations about teaching and learning).

As a result of our approach discussed above, we conceptualised the digital literacy short course by focusing on the areas as mentioned in Table 2.

With the purpose to improve the pilot short course at a conceptual and operational level, participants’ opinions on the perceived value of the course were investigated. Being situated within a qualitative paradigm, it is understood that individuals have an active role to play in the construction of social reality (Boeije 2010). According to Nagy Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011:4), qualitative research seeks to discover ‘the social meaning people attribute to their experiences, circumstances and situations …’. As such, researchers and participants are co-authors of the research, as it is through the eyes of the participants that researchers are able to make sense of phenomena (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey 2011). This study utilised a qualitative research so as to speak about the constructivist paradigm, fully harnessing the participants’ perceptions of the value of the course.

Ethical clearance was obtained from Stellenbosch University. Authors followed the standard ethical guidelines by gaining informed consent from participants, protecting the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, gave the participants the right to withdraw at any stage of the research process and did not use deception in any form during the process.

The participants referred to the specific value of the course assignments because of the real-life application value of it, equipping them for the 21st century classroom and in preparation of lifelong learning. Within this particular theme, participants did not distinguish between the tasks given to them and the final assignment, but rather viewed it as a collective in terms of formative and summative assessment. For the purpose of this article, reference to assignments will include both the tasks and final assignment.

The way in which knowledge was created during this course calls for consideration and exploration. Participants referred to the process of learning and how new knowledge was acquired. What was highlighted was the fact that cumulative knowledge building in terms of learning technologies often creates discomfort and challenge. However, in terms of the value of a partner or peer, such a process was experienced of particular value.

What was of interest is the different ways by which participants explained their reasons for attending the course and their perceptions regarding the purpose of the course. Of course, there are many potential reasons for such different views, such as the way by which the course was promoted (during lectures and online advertisements), the way in which participants communicated with each other as to why they considered attending the course and so forth. For the authors, the essential message is that role-players should be aware of the various individual needs and individual differences when conceptualising such courses or training opportunities. The three main sub-themes that emerged from the focus groups were preparing 21st century teachers for the world of work, at a more technical level the enhancement of current technological skills and also addressing the fear associated with technology use.