Deepening the Digital Divide: CSAM as a Complement to TPACK in Mobile Learning and Beyond

As a graduate student immersed in the nuances of Innovative Digital Pedagogies at Ontario Tech University, this week's readings have provided a crucial lens through which to examine the practicalities of integrating technology into teaching. Specifically, Power's (2018) chapter, "Supporting Mobile Instructional Design with CSAM," offers a valuable framework that addresses some of the recognized shortcomings of the widely accepted Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. Additionally, insights from a blog post by Power on increasing technology integration and the article by Power, Kay, and Craig (2024) on the effects of COVID-19 on higher education teaching practices offer a comprehensive view of the challenges and opportunities in this landscape. This reflection will synthesize these contents, emphasizing how the Collaborative Situated Active Mobile (CSAM) learning design framework can bridge gaps in teacher preparedness for mobile instructional design and promote broader technology integration.

The TPACK framework, developed by Koehler and Mishra, demonstrates a strong understanding across technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge domains. While acknowledged as foundational for teacher professional development (Gur & Karamete, 2015; Koh, Chai, & Lim, 2016), TPACK has faced criticism for its lack of specific guidance on how to achieve these competencies. Critics, such as Perk (2009) and Unwin (2007), also point to TPACK being teacher specific and failing to adequately consider the learner's role in pedagogical decisions and technology appropriateness. This absence of practical direction, particularly regarding mobile learning strategies, can negatively impact a teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy and confidence in integrating such resources into their practice (Ally et al., 2013; Kenny et al., 2010; Power, 2015).

A significant challenge in technology integration is moving past the "Early Adopters" phase of the Diffusion of Innovation model (Power). The core issue often isn't the perceived usefulness of technology, but rather the "Perceived Ease of Use" (Power). Teacher preparation programs frequently fall short in adequately preparing educators for current technology, leading to a lack of comfort and self-efficacy in using digital tools (Power). Addressing self-efficacy directly is crucial as it can increase the intention to use technology (Power). While teachers typically possess strong Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge, a notable gap often exists in their Technical-Pedagogical Knowledge (Power). This highlights the need for professional development that prioritizes pedagogical decisions over tool selection, emphasizing meaningful technology use and sound instructional design (Power). Increased teacher confidence ultimately drives greater technology integration (Power).

It is within this context that Power (2013, 2015) introduced the CSAM learning design framework, a tool designed to provide scaffolding for instructional design decisions involving mobile technologies and reusable learning objects. CSAM emerged from a qualitative analysis of mobile learning case studies and aims to offer more targeted guidance on pedagogical decision-making for mobile learning than frameworks like FRAME (Koole, 2009), which provide context but not specific pedagogical direction.

The CSAM framework is built upon four core pedagogical elements: Collaborative, Situated, Active, and Mobile. It emphasizes that mobile learning should facilitate collaboration, be situated in realistic and meaningful contexts, encourage active learning that results in the creation of artifacts, and leverage the capabilities of mobile technologies to afford learners spatial and temporal mobility. A meta-analysis of mobile learning literature found that a high percentage of mobile reusable learning object examples either explicitly or implicitly included these four CSAM elements in their instructional design (Power, 2015).

Power's (2015) research demonstrated that professional development focused on the CSAM framework can positively impact teachers' self-efficacy with mobile learning strategies. A four-week micro-MOOC, which included an overview of mobile learning concepts, CSAM principles, and the development of mobile reusable learning object prototypes, showed increased confidence in "Instructional Strategies" and "Student Engagement" domains (Power, 2015). Participants in this study highlighted the benefit of CSAM in helping them focus on critical pedagogical components, ensuring that learning activities were meaningful and fostered active knowledge development. The research also underscored the importance of an "informal community of practitioners" as a key support for teachers learning to integrate new technologies, even more so than formal institutional support or face-to-face training.

Power (2018) argues that CSAM effectively complements TPACK by providing the specific, missing guidance on how to achieve technological and technological pedagogical knowledge competencies within a mobile learning context. CSAM presumes existing content and pedagogical knowledge and offers a framework for deploying mobile learning strategies to create collaborative learning environments that consider the characteristics and needs of learners. This approach helps teachers move their holistic instructional design into the central TPACK domain, allowing them to progressively expand their use of technology with the support of peers and communities of practice.

The experiences of higher education institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic further underscore the importance of such frameworks. As Power, Kay, and Craig (2024) highlight, the rapid shift to online teaching led to widespread innovation in digital tool use and pedagogical practices. While initial challenges included comfort with breakout rooms and students' understanding of their role in online learning, most instructors became comfortable with tools like learning management systems and virtual meeting applications. The pandemic also accelerated the co-creation of learning spaces and the democratization of learning, where students actively participated in developing digital literacy (Power, Kay, & Craig, 2024). The lasting impact includes increased use of digital tools in future in-person teaching, structural reorganization of classes, and a renewed appreciation for both digital and physical learning environments (Power, Kay, & Craig, 2024). The pandemic highlighted that the focus should shift from merely using technology to thoughtfully reconceptualizing how activities can be undertaken using these tools as a moderating or a facilitating kind of force (Power, Kay, & Craig, 2024, p. 35). This aligns perfectly with CSAM's emphasis on pedagogical decisions and meaningful integration.

In conclusion, Power's (2018) work on the CSAM framework, supported by his broader insights on technology integration and the lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (Power, Kay, & Craig, 2024), provides a vital addition to the discourse on digital pedagogies. By offering clear pedagogical guidance for mobile instructional design and demonstrating its positive impact on teacher self-efficacy, CSAM serves as an effective tool to bridge the gap left by more conceptual frameworks like TPACK. For graduate students and practicing educators, understanding and applying CSAM can be instrumental in confidently and effectively integrating mobile technologies to foster truly innovative and engaging learning experiences, both online and in person.

References

Ally, M., Farias, G., Gitsaki, C., Jones, V., MacLeod, C., Power, R., & Stein, A. (2013). Tablet deployment in higher education: Lessons learned and best practices. Panel discussion at the 12th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2013), Doha, Qatar.

Kenny, R. F., Park, C. L., Van Neste-Kenny, J. M. C., & Burton, P. A. (2010). Mobile self-efficacy in Canadian nursing education programs. In M. Montebello, V. Camilleri, & A. Dingli (Eds.), Proceedings of mLearn 2010, the 9th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Valletta, Malta.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 109(6), 1017-1054.

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge.

Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 25-47). AU Press.

Perk, J. (2009, September 6). Where is the learner? A TPACK framework critique. Pedagogical Reflections.

Power, R. (2013). Collaborative situated active mobile (CSAM) learning strategies: A new perspective on effective mobile learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2).

Power, R. (2015). A framework for promoting teacher self-efficacy with mobile reusable learning objects. (Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University).

Power, R. (2018b). Supporting mobile instructional design with CSAM. In S. Yu, M. Ally, & A. Tsanikos (Eds.), Mobile and ubiquitous learning: An international handbook (pp. 193-209). Springer Nature.

Power, R. (n.d.a). Increasing technology integration in teaching and the curriculum. Power Learning Solutions.

Power, R., Kay, R., & Craig, C. (2024). The effects of COVID-19 on higher-education teaching practices. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 38(2), 1-47.

Unwin, A. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), a conceptual framework for an increasingly technology driven higher education? Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 1(1), 237-247.