• Michael Flavin
Part of the Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)


The introduction to Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning sets out the book’s main area of enquiry, namely the use and misuse of technology enhanced learning in higher education. The chapter also introduces the three theoretical lenses applied in the book, namely Disruptive Innovation; Activity Theory and expansive learning; and the Community of Practice theory. By way of scene setting, the chapter also outlines the current position of technology enhanced learning in higher education.


Technology enhanced learning Higher education Disruptive Innovation Activity Theory Expansive learning Community of Practice 


  1. Baer, L., & Campbell, J. (2012). From metrics to analytics, reporting to action: Analytics’ role in changing the learning environment. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies. Louisville: Educause.Google Scholar
  2. Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with “technology enhanced learning”? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Mountain View: Center for American Progress and Innosight Institute. Retrieved from
  8. Cohen, A., & Nachmias, R. (2006). A quantitative cost effectiveness model for web-supported academic instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colon-Aguirre, M., & Fleming-May, R. A. (2012). “You just type in what you are looking for”: Undergraduates’ use of library resources vs. Wikipedia. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. The Journal of Product Information Management, 21, 246–258.Google Scholar
  11. Danneels, E. (2006). From the guest editor: Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries. The Journal of Product Information Management, 23, 2–4.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from
  13. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, R., Clow, D., Macfadyen, L., Essa, A., Dawson, S., & Alexander, S. (2014). Setting learning analytics in context: Overcoming the barriers to large-scale adoption. LAK14: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 251–253).
  15. Flavin, M. (2016). Technology-enhanced learning and higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 632–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gasevic, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let’s not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends, 59(1), 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies: Technology-enhanced learning. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  19. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today’s college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved from
  20. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2015a). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015a.1007946.
  22. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015b). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2009). Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology: A revised approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  24. Hillis, K., Petit, M., & Jarrett, K. (2013). Google and the culture of search. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Horrigan, J.B. (2016). Lifelong learning and technology. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  26. Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). The use of digital technologies across the adult life span in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 338–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. JISC. (2009). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced learning and teaching. Bristol: JISC.Google Scholar
  28. Jisc. (2011). Emerging practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced institutional innovation. Bristol: Jisc.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, L., Adams-Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. Mc Connell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, N., Blackley, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace! Computers and Education, 54(3), 776–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is “enhanced” and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. Higher Education, 54, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24.
  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawton, W., Ahmed, M., Angulo, T., Axel-Berg, A., Burrows, A., & Katsomitros, A. (2013). Horizon scanning: What will higher education look like in 2020? The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
  38. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality (trans. Hall, M.J.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  40. Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the Gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker, 90(17), 30–36.Google Scholar
  41. Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: A review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly. Retrieved from
  45. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf
  46. Rienties, B., Boroowa, A., Cross, S., Kubiak, C., Mayles, K., & Murphy, S. (2016). Analytics4Action evaluation framework: A review of evidence-based learning analytics interventions at the Open University UK. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  47. Selwyn, N., & Gorard, S. (2016). Students’ use of Wikipedia as an academic resource – Patterns of use and patterns of usefulness. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siemens, G., & Gasevic, D. (2012). Guest editorial – Learning and knowledge analytics. Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 1–2.Google Scholar
  49. Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., Fitzgerald, E., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Means, B., Remold, J., Rienties, B., Roschelle, J., Vogt, K., Whitelock, D., & Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating pedagogy 2015. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, P., Rao, L., & Thompson, S. (2013). Towards developing a cost-benefit model for learning management systems. CONF-IRM 2013: International Conference on Information Resources Management. Retrieved from
  51. Timmis, S. (2012). Constant companions: Instant messaging conversations as sustainable supportive study structures amongst undergraduate peers. Computers and Education, 59, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. (2014). 2014 survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). (2016). 2016 Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. (1930). The socialist alteration of man. In R. Van Der Veet & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 175–184). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yeap, J. A. L., Ramayah, T., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016). Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education. Electronic Markets. doi: 10.1007/s12525-015-0214-x.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Flavin
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations