Advertisement

Strong Technology-Enhanced Learning Concepts

  • Luis P. PrietoEmail author
  • Hamed Alavi
  • Himanshu Verma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10474)

Abstract

Although not unheard of, there is a scarcity of intermediate-level concepts (not as generalizable as theories, but with an applicability wider than a single technology or intervention) in technology-enhanced learning (TEL) research. In this paper we propose ‘strong TEL concepts’, as intermediate-level bodies of design knowledge that are both grounded in research evidence from multiple technologies and contexts, and have clear theoretical connections. We describe the main features of this kind of concepts, along with a practical method for developing them as valuable research contributions. We also propose ‘purposeful disengagement’ as an example of strong TEL concept, to ignite the dialogue in our community about the necessity and benefits of this kind of knowledge to support both TEL design and theory advancement.

Keywords

Learning technology Design research Design-based research Intermediary-level knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.

References

  1. 1.
    Barab, S., Squire, K.: Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. J. Learn. Sci. 13(1), 1–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalsgaard, P., Dindler, C.: Between theory and practice: bridging concepts in HCI research. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1635–1644. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Design for classroom orchestration. Comput. Educ. 69, 485–492 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dillenbourg, P., Jermann, P.: Designing integrative scripts. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., Haake, J.M. (eds.) Scripting Computer-supported Collaborative Learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 6, pp. 275–301. Springer, Boston (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Do-Lenh, H.S.: Supporting reflection and classroom orchestration with tangible tabletops. Ph.D. thesis, IC, Lausanne (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Do-Lenh, S., Jermann, P., Legge, A., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P.: TinkerLamp 2.0: designing and evaluating orchestration technologies for the classroom. In: Ravenscroft, A., Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C.D., Hernández-Leo, D. (eds.) EC-TEL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7563, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dror, I.E.: Technology enhanced learning: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragm. Cogn. 16(2), 215–223 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ericsson, K.A.: The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games. Psychology Press, Hove (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo, P.J., Kim, J., Rubin, R.: How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, pp. 41–50. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Höök, K., Löwgren, J.: Strong concepts: intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Inter. (TOCHI) 19(3), 23 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreitmayer, S., Rogers, Y., Laney, R., Peake, S.: From participatory to contributory simulations: changing the game in the classroom. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 49–58. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mor, Y., Winters, N.: Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Inter. Learn. Environ. 15(1), 61–75 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mor, Y., Winters, N.: Participatory design in open education: a workshop model for developing a pattern language. J. Inter. Media Educ. (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 249–256. ACM (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prieto, L.P., Alavi, H., Verma, H.: From interventions to theories: two literature analyses of knowledge creation in TEL design-based research. Zenodo, June 2017. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.816223
  17. 17.
    Sharma, K., Alavi, H.S., Jermann, P., Dillenbourg, P.: Looking THROUGH versus looking AT: a TEL strong concept. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference in Technology-Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., Shernoff, E.S.: Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. Sch. Psychol. Q. 18(2), 158 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, F., Hannafin, M.J.: Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Develop. 53(4), 5–23 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational SciencesTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.CHILI LabEPFLLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Human-IST Research CentreUniverstiy of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations