The diminished sense of initial perezhivanija and its accompanying mislenija led to the participants doing, reflecting on, and indeed, knowing how to apply the software in their established practices. They were working in groups, exchanging information, and they would
show one anotherthings about the program, its functions and how it worked. They collectively reflected on how to apply the software in the university classroom and in their school workplaces for different activities. The collaborative culture of the university classroom enabled the teachers to exchange ideas, knowledge and skills about the applications. The teachers were learning from each other and from those in their social and professional networks, simultaneously. On returning to the university classroom, they often brought new information and they taught each other how to apply the software for different activities both in this university classroom and in their established practices.
This social milieu encouraged collaboration, interdependency and co-construction of knowledge. Collectively, the participants were making sense of their new learning (Vygotsky 1987). Within this study, this collective mislenija enabled the teachers to support and cooperatively assist the construction of each other‘s understanding of ICT. They drew on their
mutual knowledge and complemented their learning and teaching about ICT through social interaction (Vygotsky 1975).
They formed a buddy system: Ashley and some of the other teachers found this approach challenged them to cooperate and to collaborate in their quest to apply the software. For example, Ashley showed David the morphing program, which he considers great for the preppies, but David thinks he can‘t apply it for his group of students. However, David and Ashley commented on this sharing of knowledge and skills, that they would have never learned this way before.A transformation in the way that they learned when compared to their previous university experience was occurring.
The participants all commented that this university environment was different from their previous experiences of university education. Here, they grouped together (Penelope, Patrick and Patricia): socialising and showing each other how to do things. Collective sense making and interaction, and the doing of activities allowed the teachers to exchange ideas; to observe
and reflect on the activities; and to become ICT literate, as they immigrated into the ICT environment. Collective mislenija involved the assistance of others to create opportunities to think and reflect within a sociocultural experience (Vygotsky 1999; 1987). Ashley commented that although FrontPage was a nightmare, he still learned how to zip files, he started to hyperlink (linearly and in text form) and he really learned new things with the help of everyone here and I‘m still learning! …He further stated that the best thing that I‘ve done for myself and my students was to enrol into this course.
He explained to his colleagues about the interaction – the doing thing that occurred in this sociocultural setting that enabled him to develop strategies to transfer his skills into his established practice. Through collective mislenija, Ashley, in his collaboration and sharing of knowledge (McLoughlin 2008) especially with David, was no longer a ‗lone ranger‘ (Douglas 1976) in the way he was learning about ICT. He shifted from figuring things out by himself to working with David. He desperately wanted to succeed … and learn how to use this technology
stuff. He also asked other participants: how do I use it? … meaning ―How do I apply the software?‖. Simultaneously, he showed them how to do it.
Vygotsky (1999) links the idea of collaborative work and perezhivanija at the beginning of each activity with the practical shift in a new learning environment. He underlines the tension and emotion involved in collaborative work when learners are confronted with a new activity. In this research, that tension and emotion, centred on the learning of the applicability of new software, brought about a perezhivanija somewhat different to initial perezhivanija. Perezhivanija at this moment of learning comprised a curiosity concerning the participants‘ quest to know how do I use it to construct and share knowledge amongst their peers, rather than being transmitted to them by an authoritative figure such as the teacher educator.
The dialogue between the teachers and the teacher educator had changed in comparison to that of the traditional university classroom, as they confronted problems contextualised in real world activities. Dorothy‘s kids had shown her how to use Internet banking and one evening in class, she explained the process to the group…who asked questions. In the meantime, the teacher educator looked on. Nevertheless, as the questions from the teachers proceeded, he also asked questions that allowed the teachers to predict the following steps in their learning. Collectively and collaboratively, they developed strategies that questioned, summarised, clarified and predicted the workings of ICT.
The teacher educator did not give answers to the teacher learners‘ questions himself. Rather, as Philomena commented, though hecertainly knows a lot… he makes you figure things out...The teacher educator created an atmosphere (Laird 1985) that encouraged teachers to construct and understand their own learning; they were able to develop and transform from previous learning states and experiences. This type of learning and teaching was crucial for teachers in generating and articulating their newfound knowledge and its application to their potential pedagogical approach.
The teacher educator frequently asked questions and the teachers themselves asked each other questions, especially: how did you do it? in order to clarify their own understanding of the ICT activities. The structure and ambience of this university classroom allowed the teachers to interact, ask questions and do the activities on the screen. In this cultural setting, the teachers asked questions about the ICT devices to construct a learning process previously unfamiliar to them in a university environment (Rizzo 2003). Their continuous and dynamic learning reconstruction in this interactive and supportive environment allowed them to confer, do and come to an understanding of the ICT concrete experience that the teacher educator had initially introduced and which he facilitated. The teacher educator maintained an authoritative presence in the room. He would bring the class together to explain the features of the program. The teachers would actively experiment, confer with each other to confirm what the teacher educator has shown them… and whether they understood what he said… Ultimately though, the teacher learners and the teacher educator collectively reflected on and made sense of the new knowledge and skills.
In addition to interpreting, perceiving, experiencing and making sense of their learning about ICT, the participants also, and immediately, taught others. They reinforced their new knowledge and skills and increased their desire to know how to use this technology stuff. Penelope found that in sharing her new knowledge with her school class, she also learned from her students and
it certainly was a different way of learning. On returning to the university classroom, the teachers frequently demonstrated some of the new things they were doing in their classrooms. At this point, they also found that they felt less threatened that their students knew more than them, as Penelope pointed out to her colleagues. Their learning and teaching had certainly changed since they began the course.
Mislenija
These teacher learners were trying to understand the learning environment in which they were immersed and the devices of technology employed there: they were trying to make sense –
1999) arising from the interpersonal (collective mislenija) interaction with the participants and their intrapersonal (individual mislenija) reflection on learning (Vygotsky 1999; 1987). Making sense of ICT encouraged teachers to interact further, and to experiment and to reflect in order to solve their learning challenges.
As Ashley began to use ICT more frequently, his confidence, knowledge and skills increased. Additionally, ICT began to make sense to him. He not only experimented with it, he also reflected and talked about what he had learned. He would try most of the programs that the teachers used in the university classroom. One evening after class, he commented that:
as a group, tonight, in class we learned how to search the web smarter. We had a go at google.com and I found this to be effective and ‗idiot proof‘. To think I can have a play with this and not go wrong was positive.
The following week, he commented on his independence: Hooray, I actually got the web site of the week to the bulletin board … In that bulletin board script he made recommendations to other teachers on how to use that particular site in their own teaching.
The participants discovered that mislenija about ICT application and context built on previous teaching and learning situations. Text-based storybooks took on a new life and text-based portfolios became eportfolios, as evidenced by Phoebe in her school workplace. Phoebe employed eportfolios with her grade one students and her principal asked her to show her school community the children‘s work. Patricia reorganised her school literacy program, while others like Patrick enhanced his art classes by introducing paintings from the Louvre via the Internet.
Perezhivanija
As a result of the teachers making sense of ICT, perezhivanija was transformed into a healthy curiosity to know how to do this stuff. The participants lost their initial anxieties about the technology and the fear that they might break something. Their apprehension or perezhivanija
pointed out that you start to realise how little you know and how much you have to learn. Patricia agreed stating yeah, but you also lose confidence in your own learning because she was uncertain in her own learning of particular elements of the technology. Patrick remarked, yeah... but that makes you feel, that you need to learn more... Penelope replied, with a sense of irony,
yeah right… and then the group started tolaugh.
As the teachers learned about a new program, apprehension reappeared, although in a fashion unlike the initial perezhivanija. Further into the year perezhivanija was concerned with the new knowledge, experiences, learning situations and processes, and the application of ICT in their immediate context. Additionally, they were unsure of their skills, lacked confidence and were not fully comfortable with the technology. They experienced deep tensions of apprehension and even fear (Vygotsky 1978; 1962) connected with living through or living over a new and unfamiliar experience, as they immigrated to the information age.
The participants realised, however, that they could ask for assistance, and Ashley wrote in his journal: besides the preppies didn‘t really know much… He became excited about doing a PowerPoint presentation; nonetheless, his perezhivanija concerned whether the slide transition would work… this is something the other grade children can do… Ashley had seen the grade six students at his school do all sorts of things with PowerPoint and he wanted to show his preps how to do similar activities. Perezhivanija was centred on the practical application of new knowledge and prompted the question how do I do that? rather than thinking ―I am afraid of it!‖. The practical application of doing in turn led the teachers to a collective mislenija.
Collective Mislenija
The teachers cherished each other‘s interactive contribution to their learning. Ashley initially relied on David and Duncan, and he would also write everything down just in case he might miss something. Similarly, Delia remarked that the group‘s been great… the way we can get together… even at lunchtimes at school; we would meet and talk about what we did in class… or how to do something. At this point, they realised that through their ICT experience, they were
not alone in their learning. Instead, in the collective mislenija, they collaborated, worked out the program, its functions and how it worked. There was a social thinking:
Patrick and Patricia worked together and showed each other different strategies to achieve their goals and what they learned. Their collaboration had certainly increased their knowledge and skills as far as they were concerned. Both felt that they are collaborative learners, using visual cues and reinforcing orally what they were learning and confirming their knowledge. They wanted to confirm their skill acquisition and learning strategies by interacting with each other and other teachers in the classroom.
These teachers made sense of technology through social interaction (Vygotsky 1975; 1962). They supported each other and cooperatively constructed an understanding of ICT. They drew on their mutual knowledge and complemented each other‘s understanding of the new insights and achievements.