From Traditional Pedagogy to Digital Pedagogy

Paradoxes, Affordances, and Approaches
  • Craig Blewett
Part of the Constructing Knowledge: Curriculum Studies in Action book series (CKCS)


However inherent in this thinking is the supposition that traditional approaches are inferior to newer approaches and that “cutting-edge strategies” will invoke different and innovative pedagogies. A key part of the problem relates to the perception of technology as a tool rather than a system or set of affordances.


Technology Acceptance Model Traditional Pedagogy Online Environment Online Learning Environment Learning Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2, 15–44.Google Scholar
  2. Appleseed, J. (2013). Social media: Analyse affordances, not features. Retrieved October 9, 2013, from Scholar
  3. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 19–27.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, S. C. (2010). Gamers as designers: A framework for investigating design in gaming affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 69–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in schools. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heider, K., Laverick, D. A., & Bennett, B. (2009). Digital textbooks: The next paradigm shift in higher education? AACE Journal, 17, 103–112.Google Scholar
  9. Heisenberg, W. (1990). Theory, criticism and philosophy: 1968 lecture. In A. Salam (Ed.), Unification of fundamental forces: The first of the 1968 Dirac Memorial lectures (pp. 85–124). Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howland, J. L., Moore, J. L., & Caplow, J. (2015). Sizzling innovation in online teaching and design. In Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 55–67). Missouri, MO: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Kelly. M. (Ed.). (1994). Critque and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Facebook as learning platform: Argumentation superhighway or dead-end street? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 621–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  14. Lim, T. (2010). The use of Facebook for online discussions among distance learners. Turkish Journal of Distance Education, 11, 72–81.Google Scholar
  15. Lindner, M. (2006). Use these tools, your mind will follow. Learning in immersive micromedia and microknowledge environments (pp. 41–49). Paper presented at the The next generation: Research proceedings of the 13th ALT-C conference, The Association for Learning Technology, Scotland.Google Scholar
  16. McCarthy, J. (2013). Learning in Facebook: First year tertiary student reflections from 2008 to 2011. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McLuhan, M. (1967). Questions from the floor. In R. Stern (Ed.), Technology and world trade proceeedings of a symposium. 16–17 November 1966. (Miscellaneous Publications. 284: Issue 1967). Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce and National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  18. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era (pp. 664–675). Paper presented at the Information Communcations Technologies (ICT) Conference. Theme: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite: Singapore.Google Scholar
  19. Mello, D., & Less, C.A. (2013). Effectiveness of active learning in the arts and sciences. Humanities Department Faculty Publications & Research. Paper 45. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from
  20. Meyer, D. (2010). Math class needs a makeover. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from Scholar
  21. Mitrou, L., Kandias, M., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). Social media profiling: A panopticon or omniopticon tool? Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the Surveillance Studies Network, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  22. Monea, A. (2012). Guattari’s on Facebook?! affects, refrains and the digital cloud. Selected Papers of Internet Research, (12.0).Google Scholar
  23. Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), 402–413.Google Scholar
  24. Oxford. (n.d.). Definition of homeostasis in English. Retrieved December 31, 2013, from
  25. Phillips, M. (2015). Digital technology integration. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 318–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pimmer, C., Linxen, S., & Gröhbiel, U. (2012). Facebook as a learning tool? A case study on the appropriation of social network sites from mobile phones in developing countries. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 726–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR and TPCK: An introduction. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from Scholar
  28. Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1628–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robninson, K., & Aronica, L. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schrock, K. (2015). Resources to support the SAMR model. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from Scholar
  32. Selwyn, N. (2010). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Turkle, S. (2006). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication and social change. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 144–166.Google Scholar
  35. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems (MIS) Quarterly, 1, 425–478.Google Scholar
  37. Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorising IT-associated organisational change processes. Management Information Systems (MIS) Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.Google Scholar
  38. Wang, J., Lin, C.-F. C., Wei-Chieh, W. Y., & Emily, W. (2013). Meaningful engagement in Facebook learning environments: Merging social and academic lives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.Google Scholar
  42. Zywica, J., Richards, K. A., & Gomez, K. (2011). Affordances of a scaffolded-social learning network. On the Horizon, 19(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Blewett
    • 1
  1. 1.Discipline of Information TechnologyUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations