Smart Pedagogy for Technology-Enhanced Learning

  • Linda Daniela


The progress of technology has raised challenges to the educational environment, so it is necessary to search for answers to the questions: How can one teach better? How can one scaffold the student in the learning process? What kind of competencies should be developed? What competencies do teachers need? What kind of technology should be used or not be used? This chapter analyses the role of pedagogy for education and outlines the risks for cognitive development that may result from the introduction of technology without an understanding of pedagogical principles. These risks are defined as a centrifugal effect that can be mitigated by integrating technology into the educational process using the principles of Smart Pedagogy.

The idea of Smart Pedagogy for technology-enhanced learning is defined, and the author explains why the term ‘Smart’ has been chosen to define the pedagogical aspects of TEL. In addition, a conceptual model of the educational process in which Smart Pedagogy is the driving force of technology-enhanced learning is developed. There is outlined the necessity for predictive analytical competence, which is emerging for TEL.


Smart Pedagogy Technology-enhanced learning Conceptual model of technology-enhanced learning Predictive analytical competence Technology 


  1. Ajero, M. (2014). Music learning today: Digital Pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. American Music Teacher, 64(2), 46–48.Google Scholar
  2. Alker, Z., & Donaldson, C. (2016). Digital Pedagogy in and beyond the classroom. Journal of Victorian Culture, 21(4), 548–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Apple Museum. Apple history. Retrieved from:
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basso Aranguiz, M. S., & Badilla Quintan, M. G. (2016). ICT resources to improve learning in higher education. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research, 7(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  10. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017). Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’ mobile learning practices. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caldirola, E., Fuente, A. J., Aquilina, M., Gutiérrez, F., & Ferreira, R. M. (2014). Smart mobility and smart learning for a new citizenship. Vocational Education: Research & Reality, 25, 202–216.Google Scholar
  12. Černochová, M., Voňková, H., Štípek, J., & Černá, P. (2018). How do learners perceive and evaluate their digital skills? International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society, 9(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chun, S., Kim, J., Kye, B., Jung, S., & Jung, K. (2013). Smart Education revolution. Seoul, Korea: 21st Books.Google Scholar
  14. Churches, A. (2007). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from:
  15. Computer Hope. Dictionary. Retrieved from
  16. Daniela, L., Kalniņa, D., & Strods, R. (2017). An overview on effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning (TEL). International Journal of Knowledge Society Research, 8(1), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniela, L., Strods, R., & Kalnina, D. (2018). Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) in higher education: Where are we now? In M. Lytras, L. Daniela, & A. Visvizi (Eds.), Knowledge-intensive economies and opportunities for social, organizational, and technological growth. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  18. Dosaj, A. (2004). Digital kids, learning in the new digital landscape. Retrieved from:
  19. Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eggen, A. B. (2011). Agency as the ability and opportunity to participate in evaluation as knowledge construction. European Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P. (2005). The emergence of a networked learning community: Lessons learned from research and practice. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online learning. Personal reflections on the transformation of education (pp. 113–127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Graham, E. R., & Zengin, S. (2011). Issues to consider for using e-learning effectively: Smart Learning in law enforcement contexts. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 15(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  24. Herro, D. (2015). Sustainable innovations: Bringing digital media, games and emerging technologies to the classroom. Theory Into Practice, 54(2), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Igoe, D., Parisi, A., & Carter, B. (2013). Smartphones as tools for delivering sun-smart education to students. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association., 59(1), 36–38.Google Scholar
  26. Jang, S. (2014). Study on service models of digital textbooks in cloud computing environment for SMART Education. International Journal of U- & E-Service, Science & Technology, 7(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, C., & Binhus, S. (2011). The Net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher education. York, UK: Higher Education Academy Scholar
  28. Junghwan, L., Hangjung, Z., & Hwansoo, L. (2014). Smart learning adoption in employees and HRD managers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1082–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 5(4), 50–55.Google Scholar
  30. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  31. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinshuk, C., Chen, N.-S., Cheng, I.-L., & Chew, S. W. (2016). Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klichowski, M., Bonanno, P., Jaskulska, S., Smaniotto Costa, C., de Lange, M., & Klauser, F. R. (2015). CyberParks as a new context for Smart Education: Theoretical background, assumptions, and pre-service teachers’ rating. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12A), 1–10.Google Scholar
  34. Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., & van Buuren, H. (2014). Predicting teachers’ use of digital learning materials: Combining self-determination theory and the integrative model of behaviour prediction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT). In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 425–435). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leijen, Ä., Admiraal, W., Wildschut, L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). Pedagogy before technology: What should an ICT intervention facilitate in practical dance classes? Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewin, D., & Lundie, D. (2016). Philosophies of Digital Pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35(3), 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mancillas, L. K., & Brusoe, P. W. (2016). Born digital: Integrating media technology in the political science classroom. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(4), 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  40. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  41. Migdley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mills, K. L. (2016). Possible effects of Internet use on cognitive development in adolescence. Media and Communication, 4(3), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Engaging teachers in emancipatory knowledge construction. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. Perusse, P., Décamps, E. A., & Pécot, F. (1980). Utilisation conjointe du milieu et des ressources technologiques pour la formation des maîtres (Joint use of environment and technological resources for teacher training). Revue ATEE Journal, 3, 119–133.Google Scholar
  46. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raghunath, R., Anker, C., & Nortcliffe, A. (2018). Are academics ready for smart learning? British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rothman, R. (2007). City schools: How districts and communities can create smart education systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the third space. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 426–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stephen, C., & Edwards, S. (2018). Young children playing and learning in a digital age. A cultural and critical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Sykes, E. (2014). New methods of mobile computing: From smartphones to Smart Education. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(3), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tin, T. B. (2000). Writing, knowledge construction and idea framing. RELC Journal, 31(1), 96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tofade, T., Khandoobhai, A., & Leadon, K. (2012). Use of Smart Learning objectives to introduce continuing professional development into the pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(4), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Toledo, S. A., & Dubas, J. M. (2016). Encouraging higher-order thinking in general chemistry by scaffolding student learning using Marzano’s taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner, D. (2017). The learning wheel: A model of digital pedagogy. Social Work Education, 36(8), 959–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turney, C. M., Robinson, D., Lee, M., & Soutar, A. (2009). Using technology to direct learning in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Soubeman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ying-Tien, W., Huei-Tse, H., Fu-Kwun, H., Min-Hsien, L., Chih-Hung, L., Guo-Li, C., et al. (2013). A review of intervention studies on technology-assisted instruction from 2005–2010. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 191–203.Google Scholar
  61. Žogla, I. (2017). Pedagoģija and educational sciences: Competing traditions in the study of education in Latvia. In G. Whitty & J. Furlong (Eds.), Knowledge and the study of education: An international exploration. Oxford: Symposium Books. / Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 27(1), 101–122.Google Scholar
  62. Zoughbi, S., & Al-Nasrawi, S. (2015). Regional development getting smarter with ICT. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (3rd ed., pp. 6525–6533). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Daniela
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Psychology, and ArtUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations