Despite the integration of technology into many aspects of our modern lives, the use of technologies to augment veterinary teaching remains surprisingly minimal. Why do so many veterinary teaching faculty avoid using technology? There are no doubt many reasons. However, after a decade of working in veterinary academia, we have noticed that many faculty who eschew technology do so out of fear and misconceptions about the role of educational technologies in teaching. The goal of educational technologies is not to replace faculty, but rather to augment their capacity to teach. Like any successful teaching effort, teaching with technology requires an understanding of and adherence to pedagogical principles. Nevertheless, all too often educational technologies are applied to courses indiscriminately. Such approaches typically lead to disappointing results, causing many faculty to give up on technology altogether.

Dr. Turner is a veterinary oncologist who teaches small animal oncology to third-year veterinary students. Originally he was allotted seven hours for his oncology lectures in a team-taught small animal medicine course. Over the past decade, the knowledge base for oncology has expanded significantly and, after numerous requests to the curriculum committee, Dr. Turner was eventually granted an additional six hours to teach oncology. At first he was delighted, since he thought he would finally have time to cover everything that students needed to know about oncology. However, he quickly realized that despite the expanded contact time, the students continued to struggle to recall the material on clinical rotation.

After reviewing the third-year student evaluations, Dr. Turner noticed that many students complained that he went through his lectures too quickly. He had to admit that he did talk fast; after all, there was so much important material to cover. Determined to help his students be successful, he decided to turn to technology to fix the problem. He had recently heard about a new lecture-capture system installed at the college. He decided that he would videotape his lectures and post them online for students to watch after class. This solution seemed ideal, because he would not have to eliminate any material from his lectures. Meanwhile, the students could watch his lectures as many times as necessary to master the concepts.

The lecture-capture solution was implemented; however, much to Dr. Turner’s surprise, students continued to struggle in applying the oncology lecture material to patients on clinical rotation. Based on this experience, he concluded that using technology in his class did not enhance student learning. What was really needed, he decided, was simply more lecture time to prepare the students adequately for clinical rotation. He resolved to go back to the curriculum committee yet again and argue for an increase to 20 hours of lecture time. He knew that it would not be easy to convince the committee to allot him more time. These days, it seemed that everyone wanted more time to teach their subject matter.

Do you identify with any aspects of Dr. Turner’s story? Most veterinary faculty have grappled with the problem of how to present a growing body of material in the same amount of time. After all, new medical discoveries add more knowledge, but unfortunately not more hours in the day. Likewise, the struggle to help students bridge the gap between theory and practice is a universal challenge across many professional schools, including veterinary medicine. Maybe you serve on a curriculum committee and bear witness to the never-ending pleas from faculty for more time to cover their material. Perhaps, like Dr. Turner, you have attempted to use technology to solve an educational problem in your class, only to be disappointed with the results. In this chapter, we will show you how to design, build, and deliver technology-enhanced learning activities successfully to enhance your courses.

As you begin your journey learning how to utilize technology to teach more effectively, let us examine some common mistakes. In our experience working with many groups to develop technology-enhanced educational programs, we have observed eight common stumbling blocks resulting in suboptimal student learning outcomes (see Box 11.2). As you review this list, recall the story of Dr. Turner and see how many mistakes you can recognize.

Now that we have introduced some common mistakes to avoid when using technology in teaching, let us analyze Dr. Turner’s story more closely. You will recall Dr. Turner’s observation that students on his clinical rotation had difficulty remembering the lecture material that he had taught them the previous year. In our experience, short-term retention of material from one class to the next is a problem that engenders more frustration among teaching faculty than any other. Often, we hear instructors make comments such as: “If only students would believe me when I tell them that this material is important and they need to remember it after the test.” Unfortunately, many instructors, like Dr. Turner, fail to recognize the underlying cause of students’ apparent forgetfulness. Thus, any course improvements that are implemented to correct the problem are unlikely to achieve the desired outcomes.

In this section we will explore a series of three case studies that demonstrate the successful integration of content, pedagogy, and technology in teaching. These cases range from simple techniques that are easily implemented in any classroom, to more complex learning activities that require extensive planning and production. In each case, you will see that all three TPACK elements were considered in equal measure from the project’s inception, ensuring good results.