Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Entangled eclecticism: a sociotechnical-pedagogical systems theory approach to learning experience design

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the adoption of an entangled eclecticism perspective in Learning Experience Design (LXD), integrating a sociotechnical-pedagogical systems approach. It emphasizes the significance of considering the sociocultural, technological, and pedagogical dimensions of learning as a cohesive, interconnected ecology to design effective learning experiences. The authors discuss the implications of this perspective on learning outcomes, methodologies, and the selection of relevant theories for design. The aim is to guide the creation of learning experiences that are not only effective, efficient, and appealing but also deeply empathetic, culturally sensitive, and responsive to the evolving dynamics of learning environments. Concluding that LXD is a complementary approach to traditional learning design, the paper underscores its evolution, drawing from multiple traditions to offer a holistic framework for educational design and technology. This approach strives for learning experiences that are not just effective and efficient, but also culturally sensitive and empathetic, adapting to the dynamic nature of learning environments. Broader implications of this approach and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramenka-Lachheb, V. (2023). Theory-driven and practice oriented perspectives on instructional design and learning experience design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 12(3), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695–713). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. In S. C. Tan, H. J. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Lachheb, A., Bae, H., Ergulec, F., Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari, A., & Techawitthayachinda, R. I. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, K., Forssell, K. S., & Rosier, S. (2020). Theories of change in learning experience (LX) design. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books .

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A. A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Chellman, A., Cuyar, C., & Breman, J. (1998). User-design: A case application in health care training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00313.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cillers, P. (2000). Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, N., Marra, R. M., & Howland, J. L. (2018). Meaningful online learning: Integrating strategies, activities, and learning technologies for effective design. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1998). The essential Dewey, volume 1: Pragmatism, education, democracy. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrijević, S., & Devedžić, V. (2021). Utilitarian and experiential aspects in acceptance models for learning technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 627–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09970-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirksen, J. (2015). Design for how people learn. New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earnshaw, Y., Jahnke, I., Schmidt, M., & Tawfik, A. (2021, June 14). Understanding the complexity of learning experience design. UX of EdTech. https://medium.com/ux-of-edtech/understanding-the-complexity-of-learning-experience-design-a5010086c6ee

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The past, present, and future of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books.https://edtechbooks.org/ux/lx_theories_of_change

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4, 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Herrmann, T. (2011). Socio-technical systems: A meta-design perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 3(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.4018/jskd.2011010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenberger, C. (2019). Entanglement HCI the next wave? ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 27(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M. (2020). Paradigms of knowledge production in human-computer interaction: Towards a framing for learner experience (LX) design. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books.https://edtechbooks.org/foundations_of_learn/also_32_media_method

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., & Boling, E. (2023). Learning experience design in the light of design knowledge and philosophy. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 12(3), 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Parsons, P., Toombs, A. L., Rasche, N., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2020). Designing an aesthetic learner experience: UX, instructional design, and design pedagogy. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i1.26065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldane, V., Koh, J. J. K., Srivastava, A., Teo, K. W. Q., Tan, Y. G., Cheng, R. X., Yap, Y. C., Ong, P.-S., Van Dam, R. M., Foo, J. M., Müller-Riemenschneider, F., Koh, G.C.-H., Fong, P. S., Perel, P., & Legido-Quigley, H. (2019). User preferences and persona design for an mHealth intervention to support adherence to cardiovascular disease medication in Singapore: A multi-method study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. https://doi.org/10.2196/10465

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience: A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Basic Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in industrial design (pp. 11–24). Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2009). Transmergent learning and the creation of extraordinary educational experiences. Educational Technology, 49(1), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: Pick any two? The influence of learning domains and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9396-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2020). The instructional theory framework appears lost: Isn’t it time we find it again? Revista De Educación a Distancia. https://doi.org/10.6018/red.405871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). To prove or improve, that is the question: The resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2023). How do we solve a problem like media and methods? In R. E. West & H. Leary (Eds.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology (2nd ed.). EdTech Books https://edtechbooks.org/foundations_of_learn/also_32_media_method

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Sink, D. L. (2012). The practice of eclectic instructional design. Performance Improvement, 51(10), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I. (2015). Digital didactical designs: Teaching and learning in CrossActionSpaces. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I., Schmidt, M., Earnshaw, Y., & Tawfik, A. (2022). Theoretical considerations of learning experience design. In H. Leary, S. P. Greenhalgh, K. B. Staudt Willet, & M.-H. Cho (Eds.), Theories to influence the future of learning design and technology. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/theory_comp_2021/toward_theory_of_LXD_jahnke_earnshaw_schmidt_tawfik

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I., Schmidt, M., Pham, M., & Singh, K. (2020). Sociotechnical-pedagogical usability for designing and evaluating learner experience in technology-enhanced environments. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux/sociotechnical_pedagogical_usability

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1909). The meaning of truth. Longmans, Green & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Hennon, R. J., Ondrusek, A., Samouilova, M., Spaulding, K. L., Yueh, H.-P., Li, T., Nouri, V., DiRocco, M., & Birdwell, D. (1997). Certainty, determinism, and predictability in theories of instructional design: Lessons from science. Educational Technology, 37(1), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1996). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Fearon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamed, C. (2015). Visual design solutions: Principles and creative inspiration for learning professionals. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. T., Williams, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. TechTrends, 61, 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0212-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Westerberg, T. J. (2023). Learning experience design as an orienting guide for practice: Insights from designing for expertise. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 12(3), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Yanchar, S. C. (2020). Towards a view of originary theory in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 633–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09734-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLellan, H. (2000). Experience design. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2018). Using the First Principles of Instruction to make instruction effective, efficient, and engaging. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/LDTfoundations/using_the_first_principles_of_instruction

  • Merrill, M. D. (2021). First principles of instruction revisited. In J. Zumbach, D. Bernstein, S. Narciss, & G. Marsico (Eds.), International handbook of psychology learning and teaching (pp. 1–33). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. CHI ‘94: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computer systems (pp. 152–158). ACM.

  • Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–62). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokelainen, P. (2006). An empirical assessment of pedagogical usability criteria for digital learning material with elementary school students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.9.2.178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, J. L., & West, R. E. (2023). A recent history of learning design and technology. TechTrends, 67, 781–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00883-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2019). Chaos theory and the sciences of complexity: Foundations for transforming educational systems. In M. J. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology (pp. 1–12). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2023). What’s the difference between learning experience design and instructional design? Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 12(3), 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, S. (2019). Learning experience design. In J. J. Walcutt, & S. Schatz (Eds.), Modernizing learning: Building the future learning ecosystem. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., & Huang, R. (2022). Defining learning experience design: Voices from the field of learning design & technology. TechTrends, 66, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00656-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., Lu, J., Luo, W., Cheng, L., Lee, M., Huang, R., Weng, Y., Kichler, J. C., Corathers, S. D., Jacobsen, L. M., Albanese-O’Neill, A., Smith, L., Westen, S., Gutierrez-Colina, A. M., Heckaman, L., Wetter, S. E., Driscoll, K. A., & Modi, A. (2022). Learning experience design of an mHealth self-management intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 2171–2209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10160-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., & Tawfik, A. A. (2022). Activity theory as a lens for developing and applying personas and scenarios in learning experience design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 11(1), 89.https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_11_1/activity_theory_as_a

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., Tawfik, A. A., Jahnke, I., & Earnshaw, Y. (Eds.). (2020a). Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books.https://edtechbooks.org/ux

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., Tawfik, A. A., Jahnke, I., Earnshaw, Y., & Huang, R. (2020b). Introduction to the edited volume. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, K. L., & Barab, S. A. (2008). From philosophy to pedagogy: Exploring relationships. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 67–82). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2019). How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 199–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shernoff, E. S., Von Schalscha, K., Gabbard, J. L., Delmarre, A., Frazier, S. L., Buche, C., & Lisetti, C. (2020). Evaluating the usability and instructional design quality of Interactive Virtual Training for Teachers (IVT-T). Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 3235–3262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09819-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. L. (1993). Instructional design. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. H. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st Century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/174809.174813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J. (2020). The utility of design thinking to promote systemic instructional design practices in the workplace. TechTrends, 64, 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00453-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Gatewood, J., Gish-Lieberman, J. J., & Hampton, A. J. (2022). Toward a definition of learning experience design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09482-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Schmidt, M., & Hooper, C. P. (2020). Role of conjecture mapping in applying a game-based strategy towards a case library: A view from educational design research. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(3), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09251-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. (2010). Intra- and inter-cultural usability in computer-supported collaboration. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(4), 172–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2008). The learner-centered paradigm of education. Educational Technology, 48(5), 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • You, Y. (1993). What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297355

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, Athens, USA

    Matthew Schmidt

  2. Kennesaw State University, Marietta, USA

    Yvonne Earnshaw

  3. University of Technology Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Isa Jahnke

  4. University of Memphis, Memphis, USA

    Andrew A. Tawfik

Authors
  1. Matthew Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yvonne Earnshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isa Jahnke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew A. Tawfik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Schmidt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmidt, M., Earnshaw, Y., Jahnke, I. et al. Entangled eclecticism: a sociotechnical-pedagogical systems theory approach to learning experience design. Education Tech Research Dev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10353-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10353-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation