IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.22 No.2

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 2 (February 2023)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 2
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the February 2023 Issue

VOLUME 22 NUMBER 2 February 2023
Table of Contents
Sustaining the Integration of Technology Pedagogies in Higher Education after the COVID-19 Pandemic.............1
Sithulisiwe Bhebhe, Luzaan Schlebusch, Schlebusch Gawie
Incorporating Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) into common practices for architects and
building engineers. A case study in Perú and Spain........................................................................................................ 20
Sara Gutiérrez-González, Claudia Elena Coello-Torres, Lourdes Alameda Cuenca-Romero, Verónica Calderon Carpintero,
Alba Rodrigo-Bravo
CLIL in the Online Micro-teaching: Factors Affecting Content and Language Achievement....................................37
I Komang Budiarta, Luh Putu Artini, Ni Nyoman Padmadewi, Putu Kerti Nitiasih
Parents’ Contributions to Vietnamese English as a Foreign Language Students’ Perceptions of Learner Autonomy
.................................................................................................................................................................................................54
Nhu Bich Ho, Tin Tan Dang, Cang Trung Nguyen
The Efficacy of Microteaching in a Teacher Education Programme during the Lockdown at a University in South
Africa ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Nosihle Veronica Sithole
Conceptualising a Liquid Interculturality for Foreign Language Teaching: A Case Study of Higher Education
Teachers in China..................................................................................................................................................................92
Feier Lou
The Effectiveness of Opinion Gaps, Reasoning, and Information Tasks in Improving Speaking Skills ................. 113
Sri Mulyani, Vismaia S. Damaianti, Yeti Mulyati, Andoyo Sastromiharjo
The Role of Adaptive E-Learning Co-Design as Main Solution to Higher Education’s Marketing Performance .131
Mariana Simanjuntak, I Made Sukresna
The Impact of Online Learning Strategies on Students’ Academic Performance: A Systematic Literature Review
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 148
Ramiz Zekaj
Experience of Beauty: Valuing Emotional Engagement and Collaboration in Teacher-Child Storytelling Activities
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 165
Mengyun Xiao, Fadzilah Bte Amzah, Weihan Rong
University Campus Life and Activities Aligned with Students’ Preferences towards Designing Competency
Model Framework .............................................................................................................................................................. 188
Rumpa Roy, Hesham El Marsafawy
“Sometimes I Really Need the School Counselling Service”: Some Aspects of School Counsellor–Teacher
Collaboration....................................................................................................................................................................... 207
Barbara Šteh, Jasna Mažgon, Petra Gregorcic Mrvar

Experiencing Feedback Channels during Online Research Supervision: A Perspective by Preclinical Students..228
Nurfarahin Nasri, Nik Mohd Rahimi, Harwati Hashim, Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri
Fostering Growth Mindset Principles in the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes Through a Narrative Game ............. 244
Ana Raffali, Ratnawati Mohd Asraf
The Role of Entrepreneurship Education in Shaping Students' Emotional and Cognitive Competencies for
Entrepreneurship................................................................................................................................................................ 262
Naniek Krishnawati, Juntika Nurihsan, Dasim Budimansyah, Encep Syarief Nurdin
STEM Productive Learning of Lower Secondary School in Southern Zone, Malaysia.............................................. 281
Mohd Alfouzii Nasir, Rohaya Talib, Adibah Abdul Latif, Mohd Fadzil Abdul Hanid, Haiza Atmareni Harmeni
Contribution of Augmented Reality in Teaching and Learning, in the Midst of COVID-19: Systematic Review.302
Omar Chamorro-Atalaya, Guillermo Morales-Romero, Adrián Quispe-Andía, Shirley Quispe-Guía, Teresa Guía-
Altamirano, Elizabeth Auqui-Ramos, Guillermo Linares-Sánchez, Genaro Sandoval-Nizama, José Antonio Arévalo-Tuesta
Social Media and Academic Performance: A Survey Research of Senior Secondary School Students in Uyo,
Nigeria.................................................................................................................................................................................. 323
Marcellinus Peter Asanga, Uduak Udoh Essiet, Kingsley Eghonghon Ukhurebor, Adenrele Afolorunso, Patrick Hussaini
Teachers' Perceptions of the Barriers to Inclusive Education of Kindergarten Students with Disabilities in Saudi
Arabia................................................................................................................................................................................... 338
Ruwida Aalatawi
Mindful Educators: Compassion, Community, and Adaptability Are Key................................................................ 358
Molly Dunn, Kristine E. Larson
Teaching with Chunking in Synchronous Classes: The Influence on University Students’ Intrinsic Motivation .377
Edgar L. Martínez-Huamán, Carmen Quiza Añazco, Sergio Cuellar Quispe, Blanca N. Gutiérrez-Pérez
Web-Based Design of BIPA Placement Test Instrument for Foreign Speakers .......................................................... 392
Endry Boeriswati, Rahmi Yulia Ningsih, Wardani Rahayu
Future-Teacher Soft Skills Development in the Context of Ukraine’s Integration into the European Higher
Education Area.................................................................................................................................................................... 413
Kateryna Kolesnik, Nataliia Oliinyk, Nadiia Komarivska, Natalia Kazmirchuk, Viktoriia Imber
ICT Integration in Elementary School for Mathematics Subject................................................................................... 432
Analyn M. Gamit
Developing Psychometric Property on the Psychological Capital Scale for Vocational High Schools in Indonesia
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 466
Tri Wrahatnolo, Ekohariadi ., Yeni Anistyasari
The Effect of Socio-Cultural Factors on English Language Learning and the Impact on SSCE Results: The Case of
Private vs Public Secondary Schools in Kano, Nigeria ..................................................................................................483
Sani Yantandu Uba, Julius Irudayasamy, Carmel Antonette Hankins
Female Principals’ Leadership Roles and Their Impact on School Culture Regarding Gifted Students’ Classrooms
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 499
Sultan Al-Mughyirah, Fathi Abunaser, Eman Al-taher, Al-Bandari Al-Otaibi

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 1-19, February 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.2.1
Received Nov 15, 2022; Revised Jan 24, 2023; Accepted Feb 22, 2023
Sustaining the Integration of Technology
Pedagogies in Higher Education after the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Sithulisiwe Bhebhe*
University of Eswatini & Central University of Technology
Schlebusch Luzaan and Schlebusch Gawie
Central University of Technology
Abstract. This study sought to determine the support provided to
lecturers from selected universities in Southern Africa in sustaining the
integration of technology pedagogies to train in-service teachers after the
COVID-19 pandemic era. The study used a multiple case study design
and a qualitative research approach as part of an interpretive research
paradigm. The study was carried out at two Southern African universities
that were conveniently chosen by the researchers as their places of work.
A purposive sample of lecturers in the faculties of education that train in-
service teachers was selected. Data were gathered through the analysis of
documents considered relevant to the study from the studied universities.
A focus group discussion was held with 12 lecturers, an open-ended
questionnaire was completed by 9 lecturers and open-ended interviews
with 6 HODs in the faculties of education were conducted. Data obtained
from the participants and the documents examined were analysed using
thematic analysis. The study's findings reveal that lecturers from both
universities initially had limited knowledge as they were still
transforming from face-to-face teaching pedagogies and needed to be
knowledgeable about integrating technological pedagogies in training in-
service teachers. Findings also show that the universities provided some
internet connectivity for lecturers to use especially when they were on
campus, but internet access was limited when they moved off campus
premises. Institution A failed to give lecturers data for off campus usage,
while institution B gave lecturers data for off campus usage, but load-
shedding (regulated power outages) took a toll in the country where
institution B is situated. The study concludes that lecturers received
support from the universities where they work to enable appropriate
technology pedagogy integration in the preparation of in-service
teachers.
*
Corresponding author: Sithulisiwe Bhebhe; email: sithulisiwebhebhe@gmail.com/sbhebhe@uniswa.sz

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
Keywords: COVID-19; supporting; lecturers; higher education;
technology pedagogies; in-service teachers
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic compelled people to undertake more activities from
home, including learning. As a result, education systems created online learning
policies that were also applied to in-service teacher training programmes at higher
education institutions (Ali & Kaur, 2020; Karma et al., 2021). Notably, the COVID-
19 pandemic pushed education systems to reconsider the most effective teaching
and learning pedagogies in light of the global health challenges experienced
(Peters et al., 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic was a global problem that crippled
economies everywhere also affecting the educational sector. Disruptions in the
education system, which affected national growth, were brought about by the
pandemic (Onoshakpokaiye, 2020). To lessen the negative impact of this
pandemic, education systems moved toward e-learning globally. In particular,
developing nations were faced with the challenge of switching from the
conventional teaching style to online learning (Adeoye et al., 2020) and lecturers
required support in the shift from face-to-face to online learning. This study
explored the support given to lecturers by two selected universities in Southern
Africa to integrate technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers.
Integrating technology pedagogies in in-service teacher training was one strategy
for higher education institutions in Southern Africa to continue teaching and
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and for at least a few months post-
pandemic (Mishra et al., 2020). Initially, most lecturers only used technology to
design instructional materials or deliver lectures but did not effectively integrate
technology into in-service teacher training processes (Gunuç & Babacan, 2018).
Thus, it is important for higher education institutions to support lecturers to
ensure that there is integration of technology pedagogies in in-service teacher
training even after the COVID-19 pandemic era.
The World Health Organization (WHO) set regulations of social distancing
individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. This compelled higher education
institutions to switch quickly to the use of technology in instructional delivery in
the education system worldwide (Prokes & Housel, 2021). The use of technology-
based pedagogies profoundly changed instruction in higher education
institutions (Marcelo & Yot-Domínguez, 2019). Integrating technology in the
teacher training process made it simpler to transition to a student-centred learning
model where the lecturer no longer has entire control of the learning process, but
students are leading in their own learning (Surtees et al., 2021). Learning
management systems (LMSs) are currently a crucial part of the instructional
process for higher education students (Turnbull et al., 2021). The transition from
face-to-face to technology-based pedagogies required an unprecedented
institutional resource commitment, which included buying synchronous web
conferencing software like Zoom, lending hardware and software licences, and
exponentially increasing the use of LMSs (Bass, 2022).
Prokes and Housel (2021) emphasise the importance of integrating technology
pedagogies in higher education instruction for flexibility in situations where

3
learning is disturbed by natural disasters, distressing societal occurrences, or
societal changes. By integrating LMSs, synchronous technologies, and other tools
into their teaching methods, lecturers can adapt the educational process to the
fourth industrial revolution (Xing & Marwala, 2017). During the COVID-19
pandemic higher education institutions switched to the technology pedagogies to
ensure that technology was integrated in in-service teacher training.
University lecturers had to integrate technology pedagogies in in-service teacher
training when millions of students in higher education were forced to attend their
lessons from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic as there was closure of
educational facilities around the world (Jena, 2020). This move emphasised the
need to re-examine discussions about how technology and education interact, as
well as the benefits of using digital resources to improve the education processes
(Selvanathan et al., 2020). The findings of a study conducted in Malaysia by
Henriques et al. (2021) reveal that when lecturers were forced to change their
pedagogies and incorporate technology into their instruction because of the
closure of institutions owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education
institutions had to purchase the appropriate technology tools for teaching and
learning.
A study conducted by Pete and Soko (2020) in three sub-Saharan African
countries, Kenya, Ghana and South Africa, revealed that laptops and cell phones
were more commonly used in the latter two countries while Kenya used desktop
PCs more than laptops and cell phones. According to Mishra et al. (2020), e-
learning platforms that support the use of video, such as Canvas LMS, Moodle,
Mahara, and open EdX, as well as platforms that adhere to certain standards for
content storage, processing, management, and publication, were made available
to lecturers in universities.
To use technology pedagogies in New Zealand higher education institutions
during the COVID-19 epidemic, lecturers had to be trained to come up with
original and creative solutions to integrating technology pedagogies in training
teachers (Thomsen et al., 2021). In their study, Henriques et al. (2021) highlight
the significance of training, as well as the difficulties and important considerations
that come with the integration of technology pedagogies in higher education, as
well as the opportunities provided by a post-pandemic educational reality. To
maintain technology pedagogies even after the COVID-19 epidemic phase,
training is thus one essential support that lecturers in higher education
institutions need.
After the COVID-19 pandemic, blended learning policies saw a resurgence and
began to trickle back into the education system (Bordoloi et al., 2021). Policies
assisted in ensuring inclusivity in the education process. In an Indonesian study
of teachers' use of the internet during the Covid-19 pandemic, Tamah et al. (2020)
found a need to plan for online learning that matches the needs of each student in
order to avoid escalating inequality and social divides. As a result, higher
education institutions may need to support lecturers for the sustainability of
technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers after the COVID-19

4
pandemic. Thus, this study explored the kind of support selected higher
education institutions in Southern Africa put in place to sustain technology
integration after the COVID-19 pandemic era.
2. Statement of the problem and objectives of the study
Many obstacles still prevent lecturers in Southern African universities from
integrating technology pedagogies in the training of in-service teachers
appropriately (Ziphorah, 2014). Universities in Southern Africa were forced to
abruptly switch from face-to-face instruction to online learning during the
COVID-19 outbreak, and it is anticipated that universities will continue to
integrate technology pedagogies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic
(Maphosa, 2021). According to Donnelly and Boniface (2013), lecturers need three
to six years of consistent practice to integrate technology fully in the classroom.
Lecturers had limited time to learn how to integrate technology into the
classroom, to learn how to utilise technology, to develop instructional activities
and to apply them in the classroom (Vrasidas & Glass, 2007). In this light, this
study aimed to explore how universities in Southern Africa support lecturers in
sustaining the integration of technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers
after the COVID-19 pandemic era to promote pedagogy sustainability. As such
the objectives of the study were to:
● Determine what support is given by the selected universities in Southern
Africa to lecturers to integrate technology pedagogies in training in-service
teachers;
● Identify the challenges lecturers have in sustaining the integration of
technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers after the COVID-19
pandemic era;
● Suggest what the universities in Southern Africa may do to sustain the
integration of technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers after the
COVID-19 pandemic era.
3. Literature review
This section reviewed literature related to this study. Literature was reviewed
under the subheadings of technology integration in higher education and
theoretical framework.
3.1 Technology integration in higher education
Finding efficient means of supporting university lecturers in the process of
integrating technology into their classrooms is crucial as access to technology
becomes more common in higher education institutions (Ali, 2020). The COVID-
19 pandemic created a shift in the global higher education community to online
instruction and learning that requires a specific level of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), particularly when it comes to planning and structuring
improved learning experiences and developing unique learning environments
with the aid of digital technology (Mishra et al., 2020). This meant that lecturers
of different ages and backgrounds suddenly had to prepare and deliver their
classes from home, frequently while most of them were without the required
technical support (Hodges et al., 2020). Additionally, a major obstacle for
university lecturers was their lack of the PCK required for online instruction (Ali,

5
2020). There is a need to consider the best ways to support lecturers’ integration
of technology into their lectures as higher education institutions extend access to
and encourage the integration of technology pedagogies in in-service teacher
training post-pandemic (Goh & Sigala, 2020).
The results of a study by Lai and Widmar (2021) in the United States of America
(USA) demonstrate that lecturers teaching in rural-based institutions face
challenges with the internet since they frequently have slower internet speeds and
less reliable internet services. While many countries provide technology support
for educational institutions, there is a need for higher educational institutions to
support lecturers to gain technology knowledge in order for them to integrate
technology appropriately in in-service teacher training (Green, 2017). According
to another study by Dysart and Weckerle (2015) in the USA, while institutions
offer centralised support for lecturers to use technology, there are not many
opportunities for centralised professional development that simultaneously work
to increase lecturers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge
(TPACK) in higher education institutions because it is assumed that since
lecturers are able to use technology, they already know how to incorporate
technology into their lessons. Through centralised assistance for creating TPACK,
Dysart and Weckerle (2015) devised a model for ongoing professional growth that
enables lecturers to use technology effectively in their teaching strategies.
A study conducted by Almaiah et al. (2020) with 31 lecturers from six universities
from Jordan and Saudi Arabia revealed concerns about lecturers' abilities to use
technology pedagogies in higher education as they lack important information
related to pedagogy and content. A study conducted in Canada by Ali (2020)
points out that lecturer readiness, confidence, and motivation play important
roles in integrating technologies in higher education. Ali (2020) also suggested
that lecturers should employ technology and technological gadgets to improve
learning, but did not specify how this may be sustained.
Akram et al. (2021) found that lecturers in Pakistan have a favourable attitude
toward the use of virtual learning environments. The challenges lecturers
encounter that prevent them from providing successful teaching and learning
include their limited experience applying technology-based pedagogies and their
need for a suitable ICT infrastructure to manage the associated technical
challenges. The results of a study by Adeoye et al. (2020) reveals that in the
Nigerian education sector the integration of technology pedagogies in higher
education is challenged by the institutions' different levels of preparedness, a lack
of infrastructure, a lack of resources, and problematic policies. Similarly, a study
conducted by Ifinedo et al. (2020) reveals that in Nigeria three constructs have a
direct impact on technology integration: perceived technological knowledge,
instructors' knowledge, and perceived knowledge for integrating technology. In
Tanzania, a study conducted by Mtebe and Raphael (2018) reveals that lecturers
had a moderate level of trust in all TPACK components while using technology.
In the same study, it was found that lecturers had high levels of confidence in
their content knowledge, pedagogical expertise, and PCK but not with integrating
the knowledge components. Thus, there is a need to ensure a suitable ICT

6
infrastructure for lecturers to use, appropriate resources and knowledge on how
to integrate technology, content and pedagogies as well as support for the
integration of technology in in-service teacher training through well-structured
policies in higher education institutions.
In South Africa, Zhuwao (2017) points out that ICT strategy and the drive for an
outcome-based education (OBE) model of instruction can both be realised with
the adequate use and awareness of technologies and technology pedagogies.
Khoza (2021) points out that higher education institutions in South Africa were
compelled by the COVID-19 pandemic to transition to a digitalised curriculum
(DC). The DC is a strategy for or of education driven by digital technology.
Universities were forced to relocate to a DC in order to finish the 2020 academic
year due to the WHO restrictions that advocated social distancing which led to
closure of the campuses. Khoza (2021) indicated that there was migration to
technology integration in higher education institutions by using WhatsApp,
Facebook, Skype, and Zoom video conferencing technology (ZVCT). The
migration started by fostering societal identity while maintaining professional
identity by utilising Moodle.
3.2 TPACK theoretical framework
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theory guided this
study as it outlines the types of knowledge necessary for a systemic integration of
technology into in-service teacher training (Mishra, 2019). The emphasis in
modern teacher education is on general pedagogical teaching methodologies, as
opposed to the traditional focus on subject matter knowledge or content that
lecturers have (Howard & Milner, 2021). Fernandez (2014) emphasised the value
of teachers' methodological and topic knowledge in the late 1980s in order to
provide a new viewpoint on teaching and learning. The relationship between
lecturers' pedagogical and content knowledge for instructing in-service teachers
in a university context is reflected by Fernandez’s (2014) perspective on PCK.
Effective teaching relies on well-integrated knowledge from several knowledge
domains, despite the fact that it was anticipated that PCK would have the biggest
influence on lecturers' activities in in-service teacher training (Gasteiger et al.,
2020). Technological knowledge is another area of knowledge that has lately
emerged and has to be addressed (Botha et al., 2014). Figure 1 shows the TPACK
diagram.

7
Figure 1: TPACK framework (Adapted from Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 63)
Although it was expected that lecturers in higher education had picked up
technological and pedagogical skills along the way, this may not always be the
case. Before entering the field, lecturers were not necessarily exposed to formal
training in these areas (Oleson & Hora, 2014). The four separate domains formed
by the intersection of the three knowledge domains that make up the TPACK
framework are shown in Figure 1: technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK),
technological content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
and finally technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) are required
by lecturers in higher education. Each of these domains denotes a knowledge base
needed by lecturers to integrate technology successfully into in-service teacher
training (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Using TPACK as the theory guiding this study offered a useful strategy to ensure
the integration of technology pedagogies in in-service teacher training, as TPACK
reflects the space of the three categories of knowledge, technology, content, and
pedagogy, in teaching (Cui & Zhang, 2021). TPACK can direct lecturers to employ
particular technological tools, hardware, and software applications to aid in the
learning of content by differentiating between the three categories of knowledge
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The necessity for teachers to combine their
understanding of material, pedagogy, and technology is also made more apparent
by TPACK (Jiawei & Zuhao, 2021). Therefore, TPACK is commonly considered as
a powerful analytical tool for integration of technology pedagogies in in-service
teacher training.
4. Research methodology
The study used a multiple case study design (Halkias & Neubert, 2020) and a
qualitative research approach as part of an interpretive research paradigm
(Scotland, 2012). The study was carried out at two Southern African universities

8
that were conveniently chosen by the researchers as their places of work
(Mudavanhu, 2017). A purposive sample of lecturers in the faculties of education
that train in-service teachers was taken (Tapala et al., 2021). Data were gathered
through the analysis of documents considered relevant to the study from the
studied universities. A focus group discussion was held with 12 lecturers, an
open-ended questionnaire was completed by 9 lecturers and open-ended
interviews with 6 HODs in the faculties of education were conducted, making a
total of 27 participants (Arving et al., 2014). The open-ended interviews with
HODs were done via the internet. This allowed participants to provide
information while remaining in the privacy of their offices.
A well-designed questionnaire includes question items that are relevant to the
study's research topics and may include lists, brief replies, or long narratives. To
give information needed to answer the research questions, all purposely sampled
lecturers were emailed open-ended questionnaires to complete. However,
generating data from an open-ended questionnaire in this study was a challenge
as the term “in-service teachers” was commonly used in one of the institutions.
The researchers then advocated for a focus group discussion with the participants
who responded well to the call. This was effective as the information needed from
the participants was obtained.
In this study, the lecturers who had not managed to answer the questionnaire
were invited to a focus group discussion that consisted of lecturers from both
higher education institutions under study. Six participants fully attended the
focus group discussion from institution A, while out of the 6 participants from
institution B one left a few minutes before the end of the discussion to attend a
lecture but after significantly contributing to the discussion. Focus group
discussions also assisted triangulation of data collection methods, such as virtual
interviews, questionnaire and document analysis used in the study. Nyumba et
al. (2018) state that focus group interviews generate data for a study in order for
the researcher to better understand the subject. In this study, focus group
interviews confirmed the information obtained from document analysis and
questionnaires completed by lecturers.
Document analysis was utilised in this study, together with open-ended
interviews and open-ended questionnaires, to collect data from the study
participants on how they integrate technology pedagogies in teacher education.
We double-checked the authorship of the documents to ensure that they were
genuine and trustworthy. We were able to determine the state of the documents
by checking their legitimacy. Documents were also checked for credibility. The
credibility of the materials examined in this study was reviewed to ensure that
they were free of errors or distortions. This was accomplished by comparing the
dates of the documents to the activities they detailed. For example, it was
confirmed that the author was present at the events described. Data generated
from the participants and the documents examined were analysed using the
thematic analysis.

9
5. Results of the study
The results in this study on the support given to lecturers for technology
integration in training in-service teachers were presented under the themes:
support through training of lecturers, supporting lecturers through technological
tools, support through policies and support through data provision and
connectivity.
5.1 Support through training of lecturers post COVID-19
Technology requires training and support to be successfully utilised. The
participants were asked if the institutions had supported the lecturers with
technology use in the training of in-service teachers.
In institution B a document from the Centre for e-Learning and Educational
Technology (2022) states that its aim is: “To provide and manage e-learning and
educational technology initiatives for academic staff and students to support teaching and
learning”. This is affirmed by the HOD from institution B who stated: “The
University does provide some kind of training with technology to use these online
platforms for instance, to make sure that lecturers integrate technology pedagogies in
training in-service teachers.” On the same note Lecturer 2 from institution A
revealed: “The university has made efforts to train lecturers to integrate technology
pedagogies and we have support staff who assist us for instance with regards to the Moodle
platform, there is ongoing training that the university offers through the Centre for
Excellence in Learning and Teaching.”
Lecturer 1 from institution B also indicated: “Our faculty has technologists who are
trained in IT and continue to support staff with the use of technology, learning
management system and tools used in integrating technology pedagogies in training in-
service teachers.” Similarly, Lecturer number 3 in a focus group discussion
mentioned: “We also have technicians and administrators who assist with the various
technologies that can be used when one wants to integrate technology in their teaching.”
Similarly, Lecturer 4 from institution A stated: “As lecturers we are currently being
trained in online pedagogies using the university internet connectivity and getting
knowledge on data projection equipment”. Again Lecturer 1 from institution B in the
open-ended questionnaire pointed out: “The University has supported us by
providing ongoing training on technology integration to staff … we really appreciate what
the university is doing.”
HOD2 from institution A stated: “What I do is to encourage the lecturers in the
department to attend workshops on integrating technology into teaching and learning.”
Similarly, the document from the Centre for e-Learning and Educational
Technology in institution B states: “[The Centre] trains and supports lecturers in the
development and implementation of blended and online learning.” HOD3 from
institution A stated: “The lecturers make sure they attend the workshops that the
institution of Distance Education and the Centre for Excellence for Teaching and Learning
organise for training lecturers in integrating technology pedagogies.”
Lecturer 5 from institution A also revealed:“The University has an opportunity
through the Institution of distance learning to organise facilitators from different parts of
the world to give workshops where lecturers are trained on how they can integrate
technologies in their teaching.” In a focus group discussion Lecturer 3 from

10
institution B pointed out: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was this drastic
shift, I had to get some training from the institution, into using the Learning Management
System (LMS) to teach.” HOD4 from institution A also said: “Now some lecturers also
in the department have been trained to use LMSs and can integrate technology into their
teaching. We ask some of those lecturers to assist those that are still struggling in
integrating technology in their teaching.”
The data generated from the research participants reveal that lecturers from both
studied institutions are receiving training in integrating technology pedagogies
in training in-service teachers. Apart from peers assisting each other, support
comes from the different sources in the universities, while universities also get
external support from facilitators organised by the responsible departments in
that university. The participants also revealed that the universities have technical
staff who assist lecturers with technology knowledge that they use in the quest to
integrate technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers.
5.2 Supporting lecturers through technological tools
The participants were asked about the technological tools support they were
received in their universities. The document on Web Services Support in
institution B revealed: “The unit enables staff to perform their duties by ensuring that
staff and students have access to the information they require at all times via their desktop
computers” (ICT Services, 2022). This was confirmed by the HOD from institution
B who mentioned: “Every lecturer has a desktop in our institution and internet for them
to access information, prepare for lectures and provide feedback to the students.” HOD5
from institution A stated: “We have desktops which are connected to the university
internet. We also have a small laboratory with desktops which are accessible to in-service
teachers and these desktops were donated to the department by the Ministry of Education.”
Lecturer 2 from institution A in a focus group discussion confirmed sentiments
from HOD5 that in institution A: “We did get a donation of computers from the
Ministry of Education. I think we got about ten (10) computers from the Ministry of
Education, to help us in that area.” Similarly, Lecturer 4 from institution A said: “We
buy our own laptops.” Lecturer number 2 from institution A also said: “If any
lecturer needs a desktop, a budget is made to buy them a desktop computer, but the
university process of buying is long. The university has never bought us laptops but has
bought us projectors that we share as departments.” On the same note HOD3 from
institution A commented: “The only thing that we have in our offices is just computers-
desktops which were provided by the university…the only thing that I have in this office
is just this desktop and nothing else without even a connection to Wi-Fi. That is how
difficult it has been. So practising or trying out some of the suggestions that we get from
the workshops that we attend is highly impossible.”
Similarly, HOD1 from institution A indicated: “We agree with the university in
principle, that they have to provide us with all the necessary technology like webcams for
instance, in order to teach on Moodle and also the computers as well as laptops that we
need to do this and many other gadgets but unfortunately the university has been very
slow, but they always promised that they are working on it.” On the same note HOD3
from institution A mentioned: “We have not done enough as an institution. The level
of acceptance is very flat. It is like the institution was caught unaware. This is why the
institution is always meandering between face to face and online lesson delivery.

11
Consequently, members of staff don't see the need and the pressure to fully committee
themselves on using technological pedagogies.” HOD2 from institution A concurred
saying: “The University has never supported us with technological tools. We only have
desktops and we also have a TV. Just one TV and it is used by the faculty, but as a
department we sometimes get to use it more especially when our students are presenting
peer teaching, but then we also have a few projectors.” Similarly, HOD4 from
institution A mentioned: “The University has only provided some lecturers with
desktops while some are using outdated desktops that are not user friendly as a
technological tool used in training in-service teachers.” Contrary to the view by HOD4
from institution A, Lecturer 5 from institution B said: “The University has provided
us with desktop computers to ensure that lecturers’ access information at all times. We
also are supported in online tools, like similarity check software and online survey
software.”
Participants in this study revealed that lecturers from both universities received
support from the universities through desktops. While participants from
institution A mentioned that the university has never provided them with laptops
to work away from the institution, participants from institution B mentioned that
they also are supported in online tools, like similarity check software (Turnitin)
and online survey software (QuestionPro) as a way to enhance the integration of
technology pedagogies in in-service teacher training.
5.3 Support through policies
The participants were also asked about policies in the universities that guided the
integration of technology in the training of in-service teachers. The participants
revealed that there are policies that recommend the use of technology in
instructing in-service teachers. HOD1 from institution A noted: “Currently, after
the COVID-19 pandemic the university has advocated for a blended learning policy and
they are nurturing the policy through training staff currently.” Lecturer 1 from
institution B also mentioned that during COVID-19 the institution delivered
classes through e-learning but currently there is blended learning. This view is
confirmed by the document from the Center for e-Learning and Educational
Technology (2022:1) in institution B which points out that the centre is mandated
to: “train- and support- lecturers in the development and implementation of blended and
online learning.” Similarly, the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
(2022:1) in institution A has started to pursue “the goal of shifting the university to
remote delivery.” On the contrary HOD3 from institution A stated: “Currently, we
have a policy that the institution is using blended learning. I think we need to have sound
policies that govern the integration of technological pedagogies in the instructional
process. We also need a strategy of how to implement and that would include getting the
tools ready. We need to have a committee that will look into how the policies set are
implemented. We need to have proper guidance on how to integrate technology pedagogies
in training in-service teachers.”
On support through policies, the participants in this study revealed that both
institutions were now using blended learning as the policy after the COVID-19
pandemic. Institution A is aiming at shifting the university to online learning in
training in-service teachers, while institution B is aiming at using blended
learning and online learning in training in-service teachers. However, participants

12
in institution A still view the policy as not really clear as to how the integration of
technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers should be done.
5.4 Support through data provision, connectivity and challenges experienced
The researchers asked the participants how the universities supported the
lecturers’ connectivity to the internet. The ICT services (2022, p.1) in institution B
are mandated to: “Provide effective network availability and connectivity to ensure
optimal functionality and productivity of employees.” This was confirmed by Lecturer
2 in institution A who stated: “Our university provides us with data to use even when
we are off campus.”
On the contrary Lecturer 4 from institution A described a challenge: “We buy our
data. Sometimes we use our own internet, Wi-Fi gadgets, just to pick up the university
internet when it's weak.” Similar to the view by Lecturer 4 from institution A,
HOD2 from institution A complained: “Some of these computers that we have are not
connected to the internet.” Lecturer 3 from institution A elaborated: “Most of our
offices in this university use the plug-in internet, but some old desktops are not compatible
with the plug-in internet and are not connected. Lecturer 1 from institution A pointed
out another challenge: “There are also very few spots in the university that have WIFI
but most of the areas do not have Wi-Fi. Mine for example is not connected to the
internet.”
On the same note HOD1 from institution A said: “The university has never provided
data to lecturers nor the in-service teachers under training to ensure that there is teaching
and learning online. They just tell us that we can teach from home because the students
are on Class Boycott or most importantly COVID-19 or whatever, but no laptops nor data
provided. They just assume we have our own gadgets and our own data and they expect
us to use our own data." Lecturer 1 from institution B described the problem:
“Connectivity is a challenge because of insufficient internet due to load shedding that has
been implemented in our country. So as much as we want to be effective, but now, the
integration of technology is distracted by unavailability of electricity in some instances.”
Participants in this study revealed several problems experienced in their
institutions regarding the integration of technology pedagogies. The participants
revealed that problems with internet connectivity and data provision. In
institution A, the institution cannot afford to have a wider internet broadband to
cover all campus areas for lecturers and students and lecturers rely on the plug-
in internet. Some lecturers have desktops that are not even connected to the plug-
in internet. Institution A also cannot provide lecturers with data to use off campus,
while institution B has it all but suffers from electricity power cuts.
5.5 Suggestions on how to sustain the integration of technology
Participants in this study were asked to suggest what could be done to sustain the
integration of technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers in their
institutions. HOD3 from institution A stated: “The university should purchase the
correct gadgets smart for integrating technology in teacher education”. HOD2 from
institution A concurred with HOD 3 from the same institution and stated: “I would
like to see the university providing the lecturers with the gadgets that they need. So that
the technology may be appropriately integrated in training in-service teachers.”

13
Lecturer 4 from institution A pointed out: “The university should purchase laptops
for example, for individual lecturers, so that each lecturer has their own projector and
webcams, microphones, speakers, cameras for lectures.” Similarly, Lecturer 1 from
institution A pointed out: “The university should provide data or Wi Fi so that lecturers
may be in a position to effectively make use of technology when they're teaching in and
outside campus.” HOD4 from institution A stated: “I would want to see all teachers
being catered for in the in-service training. Currently, our in-service department is science
oriented. So that leaves out subjects." HOD3 from institution A stated: “The
university should continuously facilitate the training of lecturers so that they are better
able to use these technologies and train trainee teachers in how to actually use those
technologies in the schools. Also, I think that a course for technology integration in
teaching training may be advocated for as a bridging course between undergraduate and
postgraduate teacher training in universities.” On the same note Lecturer 2 from
institution A suggested: “All subjects currently offered in the education system need to
be explored on how to integrate technology in their teaching."
Participants in institution A recommended that the university purchase smart
devices such as projectors, webcams, microphones, speakers, and cameras to
incorporate technology in teacher education. The participants also suggested that
the university furnish the lecturers with the devices they require for integrating
technology pedagogies in training trainee teachers. The participants also
suggested that the university should supply data or Wi-Fi so that lecturers use the
technology to its full potential both within and outside of the university.
Participants also agreed that universities ought to provide ongoing training in all
disciplines for all trainee teachers in order to keep the entire education system up
to date with the integration of technology.
6. Discussion of findings
The findings of this study were discussed against the literature reviewed. The
results of the study reveal that in both the studied universities there was a shift
from the traditional face-to-face teaching as COVID-19 heightened to the use of
technology in training in-service teachers. This finding is in line with the views
from Adeoye et al. (2020) as well as Almaiah et al. (2020) who reveal that the entire
education system shifted to e-learning to mitigate the effects of this pandemic.
In the TPACK theory there are four knowledge bases: technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK), technological content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), and finally technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) that lecturers must possess in order to successfully integrate technology
pedagogies into in-service teacher training (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The results
of this study also showed that lecturers from both of the institutions under study
are receiving training in integrating technology pedagogies in in-service teacher
training. This finding is in line with the views from Thomsen et al. (2021) who
point out that to integrate technology pedagogies in teaching and learning,
lecturers have to be trained to develop innovative and imaginative solutions to
the teaching process. Training lecturers in integrating technology pedagogies in
in-service teacher training highlights the three categories of knowledge,
technology, content, and pedagogy in teaching as represented in TPACK. TPACK

14
highlights the need for lecturers in higher education institutions to combine their
expertise in subject matter, pedagogy, and technology.
The study also reveals that there are some lecturers who despite the training they
go through remain struggling with integrating technologies in their teaching such
that they end up asking their peers to assist in integrating technology pedagogies
in training teachers in the universities under study. This view is reflected by
Koehler et al. (2014) who reveal that in training lecturers for effective technology
integration, higher education institutions concentrate on professionally
developing lecturers to independently apply TPK to their subject areas. Therefore,
providing technical knowledge to lecturers in higher education institutions is not
enough (Schlager & Fusco, 2003) as the issue is in having the four domains of
knowledge in the TPACK complementing each other in successful integration of
technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers in the studied higher
education institutions in Southern Africa.
The TPACK theory advocates for ensuring the three knowledge circles meet in
the integration of technology pedagogies in teaching. This study's findings reveal
that universities have technical staff who provide lecturers with technical
knowledge, which they use in their efforts to integrate technology pedagogies into
the training of in-service teachers. This finding is in contrast to the assertions
made by Dysart and Weckerle (2015) that instructional technologists with limited
subject-matter expertise frequently oversee the training of lecturers in institutions.
Similarly, Koehler et al. (2014) argue that in higher education institutions the
training that lecturers go through is meant for them to gain technology knowledge
(TK). Thus, having lecturers equipped with technology knowledge by the
university technical staff, without the knowledge of how to integrate content
knowledge and technology knowledge is contrary to the expectations of the
TPACK theory of knowledge integration in practice.
In the TPACK theory TK is twined with pedagogy knowledge, thus there is TPK.
In the studied universities lecturers receive support from the universities through
desktops as digital devices to use to integrate technology into in-service teacher
training. This finding is contrary to findings from a study by Pete and Soko (2020)
that revealed that two of the three studied nations in Sub Saharan countries
mainly used laptops and smartphones while one used mainly desktop computers
and minimal laptops and smartphones; moreover, this is not congruent with the
TPACK theory. Notably, the provision of digital tools in the form of desktops,
smartphones and laptops which is technological knowledge should be coupled
with pedagogical knowledge in the integration of technology pedagogies in
training in-service teachers in the studied higher education institutions.
Content knowledge is a component of the TPACK theory. This study revealed
that participants from institution B are supported in online tools, like similarity
check software (Turnitin) and online survey software (QuestionPro) to enhance
the integration of technology pedagogies in in-service teacher training. This is in
line with Mishra et al. (2020) who argue that lecturers in a university may be
supported through the provision of open sources or e-learning platforms which

15
support the use of video like canvas LMS, Moodle, Mahara and open Edx and
platforms that meet certain requirements in higher education institutions. The
support given through provision of software and online survey software is in line
with the requirements of the TPACK theory as the software is meant to check on
the knowledge.
7. Conclusions
The problem identified in this study was that there are still obstacles that restrain
the integration of technology pedagogies in the training of in-service teachers in
Southern African universities. The findings in this study revealed that lecturers
receive support from the universities where they work to enable appropriate
technology pedagogy integration in the training of in-service teachers even after
the COVID-19 pandemic. Lecturers were supported through training, provision
of technological tools, policy formulation and support through data provision and
connectivity. The study concludes that although the higher education institutions
provided support of the lecturers in the integration of technology in in-service
teacher training, some lecturers face difficulties using the latest tech tools and
restricted broadband internet services. The study also concluded that the support
given to lecturers is university wide support where some components of
knowledge domains from the TPACK theory are not twinned to assist in
integrating technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers.
8. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that the higher education
institutions studied in Southern Africa should provide lecturers with ongoing
training on the use of technology tools, software updates and new features of the
sophisticated but requisite digital LMS used to train in-service teachers. This
study also recommends that higher education institutions provide enough
internet coverage in the institutions and provide electricity generators to provide
electricity during power cuts. Furthermore, the support given to the lecturers
should consider the use of all the knowledge domains that would assist in the
integration of technology pedagogies in training in-service teachers. Likewise, the
universities under study should decentralise the support to subject areas so that
lecturers are equipped with knowledge on how to integrate technology
pedagogies in their own subject.
9. References
Adeoye, I. A., Adanikin, A. F., & Adanikin, A. (2020). COVID-19 and E-learning: Nigeria
Tertiary Education System Experience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341574880
Akram, H., Aslam, S., Saleem, A., & Parveen, K. (2021). The challenges of online teaching
in COVID19 pandemic: A case study of public universities in Karachi, Pakistan.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20(1), 263-282.
https://doi.org/10.28945/4784
Alhojailan, M. I. (2012). Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation.
West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 39-47.
https://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/ta_thematic_analysis_dr_moham
med_alhojailan.pdf

16
Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutions: A necessity in
light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16-25.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1259642
Ali, W., & Kaur, M. (2020). Mediating educational challenges amidst Covid-19 pandemic.
Asia Pac. J. Contemp. Educ. Commun. Technol, 6(2), 40-57. https://apiar.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/4_APJCECT_V6_I2_2020_pp.40-57.pdf
Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical
challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19
pandemic. Education And Information Technologies, 25(6), 5261-5280.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y
Arving, C., Wadensten, B., & Johansson, B. (2014). Registered nurses' thoughts on blended
learning in a postgraduate course in cancer care—content analyses of web surveys
and a focus group interview. Journal of Cancer Education, 29(2),278-283.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24338502/
Bass, S. A. (2022). Administratively Adrift: Overcoming Institutional Barriers for College
Student Success. Cambridge University Press.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/administratively-
adrift/C9D727C8CB5CA27A3D35A17DFD1BE9FF
Bordoloi, R., Das, P., & Das, K. (2021). Perception towards online/blended learning at the
time of Covid-19 pandemic: Academic Analytics in the Indian context. Asian
Association of Open Universities Journal, 16(1), 1-11.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAOUJ-09-2020-
0079/full/html
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2014). Coping with continuous change in the business
environment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology.
Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/books/coping-with-continuous-change-in-
the-business-environment/botha/978-1-84334-355-4
Centre for e-Learning and Educational Technology. (2022). E-learning and educational
technology. https://www.cut.ac.za/e-learning-and-educational-technology-elet
Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. (2022). UNESWA Online Training.
https://learn.uneswa.ac.sz/course/view.php?id=31155
Dysart, S. A., & Weckerle, C. (2015). Professional development in higher education: A
model for meaningful technology integration. Journal of Information Technology
Education. Innovations in Practice, 14(1), 255-265.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/174792/
Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK): Some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. Problems of
Education in the 21st Century, 60(1), 79-100. https://oaji.net/articles/2015/457-
1421876658.pdf
Gasteiger, H., Bruns, J., Benz, C., Brunner, E., & Sprenger, P. (2020). Mathematical
pedagogical content knowledge of early childhood teachers: A standardized
situation-related measurement approach. ZDM, 52(2), 193-205.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1251723
Goh, E., & Sigala, M. (2020). Integrating Information & Communication Technologies
(ICT) into classroom instruction: teaching tips for hospitality educators from a
diffusion of innovation approach. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 20(2),
156-165.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15313220.2020.1740636
Green, W. L. (2017). Educator Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Student
Achievement [Doctoral dissertation, University of West Georgia].

17
https://www.proquest.com/openview/d2671c00065fd6411f875776416ca1ec/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
Gunuç, S., & Babacan, N. (2018). Technology integration in English language teaching
and learning. Positioning English for Specific Purposes in an English Language
Teaching Context, 1.
https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/ReferencesP
apers.aspx?ReferenceID=2631171
Halkias, D., & Neubert, M. (2020). Extension of theory in leadership and management
studies using the multiple case study design.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341792866_Extension_of_Theory_in
_Leadership_and_Management_Studies_Using_the_Multiple-
Case_Study_Design
Henriques, S., Correia, J. D., & Dias-Trindade, S. (2021). Portuguese primary and
secondary education in times of covid-19 pandemic: An exploratory study on
teacher training and challenges. Education Sciences, 11(9), 542-553.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/9/542
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27 March.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-
remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2021). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In
Handbook of urban education, 195-211. Routledge.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203094280-
25/teacher-preparation-urban-schools-tyrone-howard-richard-milner-iv
ICT Services. (2022). Web Services and Support. https://www.cut.ac.za/ict-and-
computer-services.
Ifinedo, E., Rikala, J., & Hämäläinen, T. (2020). Factors affecting Nigerian teacher
educators’ technology integration: Considering characteristics, knowledge
constructs, ICT practices and beliefs. Computers & education, 146, 103760.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103760
Jena, P. K. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on higher education in India. International Journal of
Advanced Education and Research (IJAER), 5.
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/jg8fr/download.
Karma, I., Darma, I. K., & Santiana, I. (2021). Blended Learning is an Educational
Innovation and Solution during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International research
journal of engineering, IT & scientific research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348793004_Blended_Learning_is_a
n_Educational_Innovation_and_Solution_During_the_COVID-19_Pandemic
Khoza, S. B. (2021). Exploring the Migration to a Digitalised Curriculum at UKZN.
Education Sciences, 11(11), 682. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1321206.pdf
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The
technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In The Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology, pp. 101-111. Springer, New
York, NY. https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-technological-
pedagogical-content-knowledge-framework
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241616400_What_Is_Technological
_Pedagogical_Content_Knowledge

18
Lai, J., & Widmar, N. O. (2021). Revisiting the digital divide in the COVID‐19 era. Applied
economic perspectives and policy, 43(1), 458-464.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7675734/
Maphosa, V. (2021). Factors influencing student’s perceptions towards e-learning
adoption during COVID-19 pandemic: A developing country context. European
Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 2(2), e02109.
https://www.ejimed.com/article/factors-influencing-students-perceptions-
towards-e-learning-adoption-during-covid-19-pandemic-a-11000
Marcelo, C., & Yot-Domínguez, C. (2019). From chalk to keyboard in higher education
classrooms: Changes and coherence when integrating technological knowledge
into pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(7),
975-988.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1429584
Mishra, L., Araújo, I., Faria, P. M., & Lima, J. E. (2020). A comparison under the RASE
model of open-source e-learning platforms supporting video-streaming. In
Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, ECEL, pp. 31-38.
Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education
during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Educational Research Open, 1, 100012.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374020300121
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an
upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374020300121
Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2018). Eliciting in-service teachers’ technological pedagogical
content knowledge for 21st-century skills in Tanzania. Journal of learning for
development, 5(3), 263-279. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1197522.pdf
Mudavanhu, Y. (2017). Quality of literature review and discussion of findings in selected
papers on integration of ICT in teaching, role of mentors, and teaching science
through science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Educational
Research and Reviews, 12(4), 189-201.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315937590
Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group
discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in
conservation. Methods in Ecology and evolution, 9(1), 20-32.
Oleson, 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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258162674_Teaching_the_way_they
_were_taught_Revisiting_the_sources_of_teaching_knowledge_and_the_role_of
_prior_experience_in_shaping_faculty_teaching_practices
Onoshakpokaiye, O. (2020). Relationship between students’ self–efficacy and their
achievement in senior secondary school Mathematics, Delta Central Senatorial
District, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(8), 33-42.
Pete, J., & Soko, J. (2020). Preparedness for online learning in the context of Covid-19 in
selected Sub-Saharan African countries. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2),
37-47. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1285320.pdf
Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., & Misiaszek, L.
(2022). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-
19: An EPAT Collective Project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(6), 717-760.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655

19
Prokes, C., & Housel, J. (2021). Community college student perceptions of remote learning
shifts due to COVID-19. TechTrends, 65(4), 576-588.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-021-00587-8
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and
communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The
Information Society, 19(3), 203-220.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01972240309464
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating
ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,
interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English language teaching, 5(9), 9-16.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080001.pdf
Selvanathan, M., Hussin, N. A. M., & Azazi, N. A. N. (2020). Students learning experiences
during COVID-19: Work from home period in Malaysian Higher Learning
Institutions. Teaching Public Administration, 0144739420977900.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0144739420977900
Surtees, N., Ismail, R., Rarere-Briggs, B., & Stark, R. (2021). Sailigatomai ma
malamalama’agafa’a-Pasifika—Seeking Pasifika Knowledge to Support Student
Learning: Reflections on Cultural Values Following an Educational Journey to
Samoa. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 269-283.
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/102121
Tamah, S. M., Triwidayati, K. R., & Utami, T. S. D. (2020). Secondary school language
teachers’ online learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic in
Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 803-832.
https://www.jite.org/documents/Vol19/JITE-Rv19p803-832Lie6617.pdf
Tapala, T. T., Van Niekerk, M. P., & Mentz, K. (2021). Curriculum leadership barriers
experienced by heads of department: a look at South African secondary schools.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(6), 771-788.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603124.2020.1740796
Thomsen, P. S., Tuiburelevu, L., Keil, M., Leenen-Young, M., Sisifa, S. P., Müller, K., &
Naepi, S. (2021). Practising Pacific pedagogies during New Zealand's level four
lockdown: Pacific early career academics and COVID-19. Waikato Journal of
Education, 26, 149-161. https://wje.org.nz/index.php/WJE/article/view/754
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Issues in learning management systems
implementation: A comparison of research perspectives between Australia and
China. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 3789-3810.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348883895_Issues_in_learning_man
agement_systems_implementation_A_comparison_of_research_perspectives_be
tween_Australia_and_China
Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2007). Teacher professional development and ICT: Strategies
and models. Teachers College Record, 109(14), 87-102.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016146810710901405?icid=int.sj-
abstract.similar-articles.3
Xing, B., & Marwala, T. (2017). Implications of the fourth industrial age on higher
education. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09643
Zhuwao, S. (2017). Workforce diversity and its effects on employee performance in
Higher Education Institution in South Africa: a case study of University of
Venda [Doctoral dissertation].
Ziphorah, R. M. (2014). Information and communication technology integration: Where to
start, infrastructure or capacity building? Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences,
116, 3649-3658. https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/391215

20
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 20-36, February 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.2.2
Received Nov 19, 2022; Revised Jan 31, 2023; Accepted Feb 22, 2023
Incorporating Collaborative Online International
Learning (COIL) into Common Practices for
Architects and Building Engineers
Sara Gutiérrez-González
University of Burgos, Spain
Claudia Elena Coello-Torres
University of Piura, Perú
Lourdes Alameda Cuenca-Romero , Verónica Calderón Carpintero
and Alba Rodrigo Bravo
University of Burgos, Spain
Abstract. Higher education institutions and educators must provide their
students with the opportunity to have global, intercultural, and
collaborative experiences that will enable them to solve specific problems
in different socio-cultural contexts. Industry 4.0 provides a very suitable
context in which to carry out these experiences from home, thus
contributing to the wider goals of environmental sustainability and global
availability. This work analyzes students’ experiences and engagement
when involved in collaborative online international learning (COIL),
aimed at establishing how pluricultural competence can be digitally
developed in the field of architecture at university level. The experiment
was carried out as part of the assessments for first year undergraduate
students enrolled in a bachelor’s degree in architecture in Piura, Peru and
postgraduate students enrolled in a master’s degree in inspection,
rehabilitation, and energy efficiency in Burgos, Spain. Results show that
the experience motivated participants, with 48% responding that they
were very satisfied, 38% extremely satisfied, and 14% moderately
satisfied. The study’s findings confirm that pluricultural competence
among students can be enhanced by using virtual cooperation. The
learning experience offered participants the chance to boost their
confidence and communication skills and to take part in a new learning
environment as well as to exchange knowledge with international peers,
thereby preparing them to form part of a global environment.
Keywords: architecture; cultural backgrounds; energetic efficiency;
inclusive education; online international learning

21
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic forced the international academic community to explore
new ways of teaching and learning, including virtual and online education (Harris
et al., 2021). This has created an opportunity to rethink education pathways and
integrate e-learning, favoring new intercultural experiences (Cotoman et al., 2022;
Medina-Guillen et al., 2021). Globalization as a process for creating a global
economy that is more integrated and interdependent is one of the factors that will
reduce barriers worldwide (Agnew & Kahn, 2014). Global education and
technology contribute towards students’ experiential learning – if it is well
applied and well used (Nava-Aguirre et al., 2019). At educational level, higher
education is on a global horizon, in which the different actors involved must work
collaboratively to achieve comprehensive academic enrichment (Adefila et al.,
2021). Many universities can integrate new collaboration with international
universities and cooperate in different programs. They hereby take advantage of
technology in students’ motivation and engagement and communication
encouragement in the learning process (Mestre-Segarra & Ruiz-Garrido, 2022) as
well as improve the employability of their students in the job market
(Chandrasekaran et al., 2021).
Collaborative online international learning (COIL) is an innovative pedagogical
methodology providing students with the opportunity to interact with
international peers (Rubin & Guth, 2015). COIL projects typically involve two or
more instructors from different countries and students from different language
and cultural backgrounds, jointly carrying out an activity to communicate and
collaborate online (Ingram et al., 2021; Pouromid, 2019). The initial objective of
this type of initiative (knowledge exchange between students from different
educational systems) is increased by the greater possibilities of educational
internationalization that it provides for the students involved. To facilitate and
promote student involvement in COIL learning activities, the use of e-resources,
such as surveys, forums, etc., is essential. In this way, a second learning process
materializes – that of using the different electronic tools (Cole, 2009; Harandi,
2015). The curriculum vitae of students who take part in this type of international
activities is enriched, now including increased opportunities in the search for
employment (Munoz-Escalona et al., 2022).
Built into the context of internationalization of higher education, COIL can prove
very useful in promoting intercultural competence as well as other perspectives
in the architectural and building engineering sector in other fields. Several COIL
experiences are carried out in the field of higher education in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees. The work of Munoz-Escalona et
al. (2022) in this field is particularly noteworthy. The work analyzes a COIL
activity for second and third year students of mechanical engineering and
industrial design degrees, with the aim of promoting aspects such as global
manufacturing and reverse engineering. In a study carried out by Appiah-Kubi
and Annan (2020), technological engineering students participated in an eight-
week COIL program with materials engineering students from different language
and geographical regions, establishing a standard pattern group to compare
results between the standard methodology and the COIL methodology. For their

22
part, researchers from the Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico and the University
of San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador implemented the COIL methodology in the
subjects of microbiology and biotechnology. They carried out a biotechnological
challenge, in which students put into practice the theoretical knowledge acquired,
their negotiation skills, teamwork, and leadership in a multicultural and
international environment (Álvarez-Barreto et al., 2022). In the field of
architecture, research has been conducted on the integration of construction
technology in architectural design through different virtual, intercultural, and
cooperative learning environments in an architectural project. The research
findings suggest that many students consider the conventional design studio to
be disconnected from reality and that learning with practical application helps to
provide a deeper understanding of construction processes (Kostopoulos, 2022).
In all of the above experiments, the international development of an effective
learning system was noted. This was seen to provide students with an overseas
study experience without them having to leave home, thereby enabling them to
internationalize their curriculum vitae as a tool to promote intercultural
competences and international perspectives while enhancing their abilities to
grow as responsible global citizens. This paper analyzes the experience through a
COIL activity as part of the assessment for undergraduate students of architecture
in Piura, Peru and master’s students in inspection, rehabilitation, and energy
efficiency in Burgos, Spain in the courses of Introduction to Architecture, and
Energy Efficiency, respectively. The selected topic was an assignment on “Energy
Efficiency in Buildings”, where students analyzed technical aspects in buildings
in the two countries: climatology, architectural design, materials, and energy
performance. Specifically, this research addressed the following questions:
• Research Question 1: What impact does the COIL method have on preparing
architecture and building engineering students to be part of a global
environment at the higher education level?
• Research Question 2: How did the Spanish and Peruvian students perceive the
online communication experience and relate it to the development of
pluricultural competence and motivation?
• Research Question 3: What are the benefits of COIL in degrees in the field of
architecture?
2. Methodology
2.1 Methodological Approach
The aim of creating an international learning experience was to provide students
from different universities and countries with cultural competence and to offer a
global perspective in the field of architecture and sustainable building
engineering. The COIL approach was used as a key element to meet the study
objectives (Engeness, 2021). This interactive social learning reduces potential
barriers to learning, including institutional affiliations, sociocultural background,
and individual learning limitations (Polyakova & Galstyan-Sargsyan, 2021).
The learning objectives of the COIL experience were to:
1. Facilitate an understanding and appreciation of cultural differences
between Peru and Spain.
2. Build intercultural communication skills via interviewing.

23
3. Acquire digital communication competences by connecting students from
one country with a different culture.
4. Develop cultural sensitivity so as to better understand individuals from
another culture and thereby attain cultural competence.
5. Learn about architectural techniques and to understand energy efficiency
in different countries that have a sharp contrast in terms of their
climatology.
2.2 Project Participants
In this work, two lecturers from Spain and Peru met to create and design a COIL
experience in the fields of architecture and energy efficiency. Emphasis was
placed on the student collaborative process aimed at creating shared experiences
as well as understanding of architectural and construction aspects in very
differing locations. A total of 43 students from the two institutions participated
during the spring of 2021. Of these participants, 40 were undergraduate students
from the University of Piura, Peru and 3 were graduate students from the
University of Burgos, Spain (Table 1).
Table 1: Number of undergraduate and postgraduate students involved in the study
Participants (n)
Module Piura (Peru) Burgos (Spain)
Introduction to Architecture (Degree) 40
Energy Efficiency (Master’s degree) 3
The lecturers developed a collaborative project where students would use
technology to communicate and exchange cultural and experiential aspects while
they process and move through the learning material together.
2.3 COIL Program Implementation
The experience was carried out in three different stages: icebreaker, comparison
and analysis, and collaboration (Meza Morón, 2018). Each stage lasted two weeks,
with the whole program lasting a total of six weeks (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Program planning
2.3.1 Project tools and contents
Due to the time difference between the two participating countries (seven hours),
and since it was not possible for all participants to work at the same time, an
asynchronous mode of communication was chosen. The IT tools employed to
carry out the experience were the Miro: The Visual Collaboration Platform for
ICEBREAKER
-Personal.Hobbies
-Academic. Similarities and
Differences
-Compilation of the information
for the Association
COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
-Strand of the Module
-Objectives
-Learning outcomes
COLLABORATION
-Syllabus or classroom workplan
WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 WEEK 6

24
Every Team online collaborative platform (Tucker et al., 2021) and the Zoom video
call platform due to its efficacy, convenience, and immediate feedback. During the
first stage (icebreaker), the Miro online collaborative platform was used as a
working tool. In addition to the Miro platform used in the first stage, an online
virtual classroom form was used at each university for the second and third stages
(comparison and analysis; collaboration). Students at the University of Piura
(Peru) used the Udep virtual platform and students at the University of Burgos
(Spain) used the UBU virtual platform, of which the content management system
(CMS) is Moodle.
The topic selected for the activity was an assignment on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings, where students had to analyze and discuss four different aspects of this
topic in buildings located in the two different countries. The four aspects were: i)
climatology, ii) architectural design, iii) materials, and iv) thermal energy
performance. Students of the Energy Efficiency module at the University of
Burgos (Spain) focused specifically on analyzing the energy performance of
buildings at the two locations. Conversely, students of the University of Piura
(Peru) had to recognize in these two buildings the concepts learned in the
Introduction to Architecture course, finding similarities and convergences.
The actions to be carried out were established through periodic coordination. The
aim was to gain student development in the collaborative construction of
knowledge concerning the analysis of architectural and energy-related aspects
that responded to the specific context of each city – Burgos, in Spain and Piura, in
Peru. Each task responded to the academic level of the group in question and was
carried out asynchronously, ending with a presentation in which the results were
presented via video call. A challenge arose when implementing the COIL
program in the two courses, due to the considerable difference in age and level of
knowledge of the two student groups.
2.3.2 Limitation of the COIL program implementation
From the beginning of the project, certain limitations had to be considered in its
implementation. The first was the age difference between the two student groups.
The course in Energy Efficiency at the University of Burgos is taken in the first
year of the master’s degree, while the course in Introduction to Architecture is
taken in the first year of the bachelor’s degree. The second limitation was the
significant difference between the number of students in Piura and Burgos (40:3).
The third limitation was the day on which the course is taught (which is different
at the two institutions).
2.3.3 Workplan and goals of the different stages of the program
Data collection methods: The data collection method is shown in the workplan
through the definition of the learning outcomes in the different stages of the
project. The workplan and goals of the different stages of the program (see
Table 2) were coordinated by the lecturers of the two courses. All the activities
were available to students through Moodle. This offered a log-in history with user
tracking and provided students with feedback on the process at all times.

25
Once the experience was completed, a simple, voluntary, and anonymous survey
was carried out, which required all students to answer five questions. In four of
the questions, the Likert scale was used, consisting of five response options, of
which two are negative, one intermediate, and two positive.
Table 2: Workplan and goals of the program
Stage
Week
Task/activity Learning outcomes
1.
Icebreaker
1
Students introduce themselves
and get to know each other
- Understanding the structure of
working groups
- Handling and working on the
platform
2
Students answer questions of a
more academic and professional
nature from their peers
- Boosting trust between students
- Recognizing similarities and
differences between the two student
profiles
2.
Comparison
and
analysis
3
Sharing of local knowledge or
realities on the chosen topic
- Understanding the convergences and
parallels with respect to the
architectural aspects of each location,
putting into practice the concepts
reviewed in class: context, technique,
and architectural typologies
4
Analysis of the information
obtained in week 3
- Summarizing the information needed
to develop the final product, following
a pre-established presentation format
3.
Collaboration
5
Joint product development and
final delivery
- Presenting a final document in which
students reflect on the relationship
between the concepts learnt, applied to
the architectural aspects of each
locality
- Answering questions on the video
made by students of the other
university
6 Sharing intercultural experience
- Sharing the results of the experience
– collected in the form – between the
two institutions
The first stage – icebreaker – was aimed at integrating the groups of students and
their interaction. The objective was to build trust between the students so as to
recognize similarities and differences between the different profiles present. To
achieve this, the students – guided by their lecturers and motivated by the type of
work to be done – put forward their proposal in a dynamic of communication and
association that represents a real socio-communicative experience. Each student
answered specific questions indicating what they do in their free time, why they
chose this profession, where they would like to work in the future, which
university class they belong to, and what expectations they have concerning this
intercultural experience. This stage also served as an introduction to mastering
and using the Miro platform. This digital platform served as a flexible space for

26
shared information, and allowed feedback from students by their being able to
access it in real time or asynchronously (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Screenshot of the first stage (icebreaker) on the Miro platform
The second stage – comparison and analysis – corresponding to the third and
fourth weeks, involved understanding and sharing the convergences and
parallels with respect to the architectural aspects of each locality. Students from
Piura put into practice the concepts reviewed in class, such as context, technique,
and architectural typologies, while students from Burgos sought to learn about
the construction techniques and energy solutions used in Piura (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Screenshot of the second stage (comparison and analysis) on the Miro
platform
The specific goals of this second stage were for students to learn about and
differentiate the climatology of the Piura area from that of Burgos, and to analyze
the most common architectural typologies in the area and the materials used in
the building of envelopes. To do this, students from the two countries answered
specific questions to help them gather information. After information was
collected, the information obtained in week 3 was analyzed in order to summarize
the information needed to develop the final product, following a pre-established
presentation format.

27
The third and last stage of the experience was the collaboration stage. The
architectural and energy inferences of the study carried out were jointly drawn
up. These inferences were expressed in a final document in which the students
reflected on the relationship between the concepts learnt, applied to the
architectural aspects of each locality. These were presented orally in a virtual
meeting via Zoom (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Screenshot of the third phase (collaboration) on the Zoom platform
Evaluation: Evaluation of the learning outcomes was carried out through the
findings obtained in the third stage by appraising a final document which reflects
on the relationship between the concepts learnt and applied to the architectural
aspects of each locality. Additional appraisal was conducted by interpreting the
responses to the questionnaires addressing student satisfaction.
3. Results
3.1 Results from the Findings Obtained in the Third Stage
For the students taking the Introduction to Architecture course, a former student
of the University of Piura Program in Architecture oversaw the preparation of the
exposition. In the presentation, each of the concepts learned during the semester
was shown, and which focus on providing students with learning tools of
analytical and project value. For this, the most representative works of each
concept applied to the analysis of an architectural work, were shared.
The topics dealt with included order and architectural system, scale and
proportion, geometry, and structure, among other topics. However, the topic in

28
which the students carried out the most in-depth analysis was construction
techniques. Local constructions were taken as reference architecture, prominent
among which were the vernacular and typical construction technique of the town
of Piura, which, due to its geographical location, is subject to a desert climate, high
temperatures, and rainy season.
One of the constructions analyzed was the San Lucas de Colán Church, the oldest
preserved church in all of the Americas, and which is in an area where the desert
and ocean converge. It consists of some Solomonic columns that were at first made
up of two towers covered with thatch. The gabled roof is supported by a uniform
framework of sticks in the form of trusses. The low ceiling is woven from totora
reeds and tied with wild cane. On the outside, it is covered with mud cake, which
is a mixture of clay, earth, rice straw, guano, and water. The structure of the
building is made with limestone quarry, a common material in the area where the
building is located. The students concluded that with local techniques it is
possible to achieve architecture that transcends time and which responds to the
area’s climatic conditions.
Another construction analyzed was the Casa Hacienda Sojo, located in the
province of Sullana, Peru. The building is built with materials such as wood and
plaster. Reed, adobe, and marble are also used throughout its construction.
Quincha is used as a construction system – a typical construction technique of the
area. Quincha is a traditional technique used to execute partition walls. It consists
of a structure formed by a framework of wood or reed, with a filling of earth
mixed with vegetable fibers. This technique responds to the high temperatures
that are characteristic of the Piura desert and provides thermal comfort, which is
essential in the area.
The technique used to construct schools in the urban area of the city of Piura was
also analyzed. Schools built in the traditional way were chosen, with a
construction system of concrete columns and beams, brick partitions, and
tarrajeadas (plastering with cement mortar). The block configuration is of the
pavilion type with large longitudinal windows that allow cross-ventilation, and
which are strategically located so that the sun does not hit directly. On the roofs,
clay tiles are installed in the direction of the rainfall that allow the rain to run off
in the rainy seasons. What the students learnt was how, through the configuration
of the building blocks, the direction of the wind can be used to ventilate the rooms
and to illuminate them without high radiation impacting the interior.
A sustainable-housing module was also studied. This is a project proposed by
students from the University of Piura. The project very accurately reflects the
coexistence and harmony of technical, handmade, and traditional
self-construction techniques in Piura together with modern construction
techniques. Materials typical of the area are used, such as thatch, cane, mats,
eucalyptus wood, mud, and ruminant manure for impermeability, and above all,
the local people themselves participate in constructing the housing. It was
important for the students to highlight how the local construction technique can
be used as a response to the city’s climate problems, such as the Fenómeno del

29
Niño Costero, a climate phenomenon produced by the anomalous heating of the
sea due to the weakening of the cold air currents that run from south to north
along the coasts of the South Pacific.
Other constructions analyzed were the typical beach houses that abound in the
coastal zone of Peru, and in which wood, brick, and other light materials are used
for the freshness they generate inside. In addition, straw is used for the roof, which
gives it an aesthetic that matches the area where it is located. These constructions
are raised on large wooden structures, which safeguard the houses against rising
tides.
All of these local references that were seen – in addition to the national and
international references studied in the course – helped the students to enhance
their capacity for analysis and response to local reality. In their position as future
architects, they must respond to the needs, problems, and conditions that exist in
their environment. The project results were reflected in the drawings by students
that showed the themes analyzed in the chosen architectural works.
The work carried out by the students at the University of Burgos consisted of
comparing the energy efficiency of a building system located in Piura and the
same system located in Burgos. They worked with the LIDER/CALENER Unified
Tool Software (HULC) of the Spanish Government Ministry for Ecological
Transition and Demographic Challenge. For this, two buildings were modelled,
one for Piura and one for Burgos, defining the materials that made up the different
construction elements of the thermal enclosure, indicating the installation system
(see Figure 5). The buildings modelled consisted of a single-family, two-story
house with four bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bathroom.
Figure 5: University of Burgos students’ building model using HULC software
To obtain information about the materials of the Piura building, the students at
the University of Burgos posed a series of questions and doubts to the students of
the University of Piura, through Miro. The Piura lecturer acted as moderator to
ensure that the technical aspects were properly detailed. The climate typologies
of each building were then identified. Given that the program is for national use
in Spain, a climatology was sought which resembled Santa Cruz de Tenerife in the
Canary Islands, which corresponds to a climate zone α3. One key aspect of the

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 2 February 2023