Principles of Learner Learning-Centred Didactic in the Context of Technology-Enhanced Learning

  • Irēna ŽoglaEmail author


The article seeks to update views on didactic practices in the rapidly changing field of education and addresses the timely problem of paradigm transition when shifts in deliberate education have been imposed upon by at least three factors: increased access to digital technologies in the learners’ everyday life and teaching-learning; reform of educational content towards the acquisition of competencies valid for the twenty-first-century social developments; and, in response to these, appropriate changes in teachers’ professional competence to maintain a learner’s learning-centred didactic with learners who, if compared to those of 25 years before, cooperate and communicate differently, are mobile and like taking matters into their own hands. The conceptual core of the didactic principles has been updated in the context of teacher didactical competence to allow for the existence of a deliberate process of teaching-learning that is penetrated, challenged and enhanced by the digital technologies. The didactic principles are described to help teachers maintain the congruity of a dynamic didactic process and remind teachers that they may have achieved a good level of digital readiness but they might reveal limited activities due to their inconsistent conceptualisation of digital competencies. These principles are focused on the teacher competently maintaining learner learning-centred processes.


Didactic principles Learning-centred didactic Digital learner Challenges for education Teacher didactical competence Possibilities of didactic improvements 


  1. Afanasyev, A., Afanasyeva, T., Bochkov, S., & Voit, N. (2018). Application of virtual reality technology in the learning process. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 10220–10225). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  2. Åkesson, M., & Thomsen, M. (2018). Designing an educational curriculum for the digital future: An international master in “digital service innovation”. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 6317–6323). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  3. Aliev, Y., Kozov, V., Ivanova, G., & Ivanov, A. (2017). 3D augmented reality software solution for mechanical engineering education. In CompSysTech’17 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (pp. 318–325). Ruse, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  4. Armour-Thomas, E., & Gordon, E. W. (2012). Toward an understanding of assessment as a dynamic component of pedagogy. Retrieved from
  5. Ball, A. F. (2012). To know is not enough: Knowledge, power, and the zone of generativity. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2007). Wallace foundation distinguished lecture: What makes education research ‘educational’? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becta. (2015). Improving learning through technology. Retrieved June 2015, from
  8. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2012). What will it mean to be an educated person in mid-21st-century. Retrieved from
  9. Blayone, T. J. B., van Oostveen, R., Mikhailenko, O., & Barber, W. (2017). Ready for digital learning? A mixed-methods exploration of surveyed technology competencies and authentic performance activities. Retrieved from Scholar
  10. Cardoso, T., & Bastos, G. (2018). Mobile learning in higher education: The case of Universidade Aberta (Portugal). In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 529–534). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  11. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  12. Chand, S. T. (2018). Cities as connected learning ecosystems: Pittsburgh’s remake learning network. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference, Plenary report (p. 11288). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  13. Dingli, A., & Seycehll, D. (2015). The new digital natives: Cutting the chord. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eşi, M.-C. (2010). The didactic principles and their applications in the didactic activity. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(81), 24–31.Google Scholar
  15. European Governance. (2001). A white paper. Brussels. Retrieved from
  16. Furlong, J., & Whitty, G. (2017). Knowledge traditions in the study of education. In G. Whitty & J. Furlong (Eds.), Knowledge and the study of education – An international exploration (Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 27(1), pp. 13–57).Google Scholar
  17. Furlong, M., Whipple, A. D., Jean, G. St., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, A. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallardo-Echenique, E. E., Marqués-Molías, L., Bullen, M., & Jan-Willem Strijbos, J.-W. (2015). Let’s talk about digital learners in the digital era. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3). Retrieved from
  19. Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to engage the net generation. Paper presented at EDUCAUSE, Australasia. Retrieved from
  20. Glendinning, S. (2018). A new rootedness? Education in the technological age. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37(1), 81–96. Retrieved from Scholar
  21. Hamilton, D. W., & Torraco, R. J. (2013). Integrative review of the literature on adults with limited education and skills and the implications for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 308–328. Scholar
  22. Klafki, W. (1971). Didaktic (Didactic). In H.-H. Groothoof & M. Stallmann (Eds.), Neues pädagogisches lexicon (New pedagogical lexicon). Stuttgart: Kreutz.Google Scholar
  23. Kuliga, S. F., Thrash, T., Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C. (2015). Virtual reality as an empirical research tool – Exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 5, 363–375. Retrieved from
  24. LearnUpon. 36 essential eLearning tools you need now. Retrieved from
  25. Lee, S. (2013). Can speaking activities of residents in a virtual world make a difference to their self-expressions. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 254–262.Google Scholar
  26. Mazur, E. (2018). Getting every student ready for every class. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference, Plenary report (p. 11287). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  27. McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in the context of current educational reform. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mennecke, B. E., Triplett, J. L., Hassal, L. M., Conde, Z. J., & Heer, R. (2011). An examination of a theory of embodied social presence in virtual worlds. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 413–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills. Education 2030. Retrieved from
  30. Oungrinis, K. A., Liapi, M., Christoulakis, M., Paterakis, I., & Manoudaki, N. (2018). Hybrid Environmental Projection Platform (HEPP). An enhanced-reality installation that facilitates immersive learning experiences. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 8215–8224). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  31. Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved from
  32. Parvathy, S. (2017). Principles of curriculum. Retrieved from
  33. Penfold, S. (2016a). What are the characteristics of a modern learner? Retrieved from
  34. Penfold, S. (2016b). Profile of the modern learner – Helpful facts and stats (infographic). Retrieved from
  35. Pinar, W. F., Reinolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubmann, P. M. (2004). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Rapetti, E., & Cantoni, L. (2010). Exploring the added value of digital technologies and eLearning in higher education from learners’ perspective: A research informed by a systematized literature review. In L. Gómez Chova, D. Martí Belenguer, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Edulearn 10. International Conference on Education and New Learning Technology (pp. 1403–1412). Barcelona, Spain: International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED).Google Scholar
  37. Rapid Learning Institute. Retrieved from
  38. Rebenitsch, L., & Owen, C. (2016). Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality, 20(2), 101–125. Retrieved from Scholar
  39. Renz, J., & Meinel, C. (2018). Improving mobile and worldwide performance through image optimization and distributed content delivery. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 5983–5991). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  40. Robb, A., White, C., Cordar, A., Wendling, A. L., Lampotang, S., & Lok, B. (2015). A comparison of speaking up behavior during conflict with real and virtual humans. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robson, L., & Clow, C. (2018). Making innovation in education happen – How to meet student-led demand for technology and keep the faculty on board. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference (pp. 6311–6316). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  42. Rubene, Z. (2018). The portret of a contemporary child and youngster in the global education space. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 9(3), 17–26. Retrieved from Scholar
  43. Saballe, C., Le, H., & Dirin, A. (2018). Experience changes the perception and feelings: A case study on MVR application in educational context. In Proceedings of the EDUlearn18 Conference, Plenary session (pp. 10204–10213). Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Retrieved from
  44. Sawyer, S. (2003). Conceptual errors and social externalism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  46. Schachl, H. (2013). Neuroscience and didactic principles and implications of brain-based teaching and learning. Acta Technologica Dubnicae, 3(2), 55–65. Retrieved from Scholar
  47. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. The Gordon Commission. (2012). Final report: To assess, to teach, to learn: a vision for the future of assessment. Retrieved from
  49. Thomson, P. M. (2012). The popular profile of digital learner. Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
  50. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. Scholar
  51. UNESCO. (2016). A conceptual framework for competencies assessment. Retrieved from
  52. Virtual Reality Society. (2018). What is virtual reality? Retrieved 2018, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations