Designing Digital Technologies for Deeper Learning

  • Jürgen BuderEmail author
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
Living reference work entry


Higher education in academic fields is often quite disconnected from professional practice. Deeper learning approaches aim at closing the gap between the way that students learn and the affordances of complex problems in their environment. This chapter deconstructs the term deeper learning, identifying its focus on problems, on declarative knowledge, on scientific inquiry skills, on skills in self-regulation, and on skills in collaboration. Moreover, the role of digital technologies is discussed: how their progress lent them the potential to become “cognitive interfaces” mediating between individuals and their environment and how they can support deeper learning. Based on a distinction between information design and interaction design, six principles are derived that aim at the development of skills in scientific inquiry, self-regulation, and collaboration. Information design can support the development of scientific inquiry skills through the use of multiple external representations, the use of group awareness technologies, and the creation of cognitive conflict. In contrast, interaction design can support the development of self-regulation and collaboration skills through designing for intuitive interaction, designing for exploration, and designing for collaboration.


Deeper learning Interface design Information processing Problem solving 



This work was funded through the Leibniz ScienceCampus Tübingen “Informational Environments.”


  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodemer, D. (2011). Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1079–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where are we today? International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman, D. A., Wineman, J., Hodges, L., & Allison, D. (1999). The educational value of an information-rich virtual environment. Presence, 8, 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The world within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buder, J., Buttliere, B., & Ballmann, A. (2015). Cognitive conflict in forum discussions on scientific topics. In Work-in-progress poster proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2015) (pp. 4–6). Hangzhou, China.Google Scholar
  12. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehler-Zufferey, J., Bodemer, D., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2011). Partner knowledge awareness in knowledge communication: Learning by adapting to the partner. Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 102–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D., & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 949–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, G. (2001). Articulating the task at hand and making information relevant to it. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 243–256.Google Scholar
  20. Fogarty, R. (1994). How to teach for metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, E. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: Toward a generic framework for learning analytics. Educational Technology and Society, 15, 42–57.Google Scholar
  23. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hewlett Foundation. (2013). Deeper learning competencies. Retrieved from
  26. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoogerheide, V., van Wermeskerken, M., Loyens, S. M. M., & van Gog, T. (2016). Learning from video modeling examples: Content kept equal, adults are more effective models than peers. Learning and Instruction, 44, 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 Higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirtley, C., & Tatler, B. W. (2016). Priorities for representation: Task settings and object interaction both influence object memory. Memory & Cognition, 44, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levin, J., Levin, M., Glasman, L., & Nordwall, M. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Inglewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. National Institute for Health. (2005). Doing science: The process of science inquiry. Retrieved from
  38. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Oestermeier, U., Mock, P., Edelmann, J., & Gerjets, P. (2015). LEGO music: Learning composition with bricks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15) (pp. 283–286). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Ray, D. G., Neugebauer, J., Sassenberg, K., Buder, J., & Hesse, F. W. (2013). Motivated shortcomings in explanation: The role of comparative self-evaluation and awareness of explanation recipient’s knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renkl, A., Skuballa, I. T., Schwonke, R., Harr, N., & Leber, J. (2015). The effects of rapid assessments and adaptive restudy prompts in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 185–198.Google Scholar
  43. Schwind, C., Buder, J., Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Preference-inconsistent recommendations: An effective approach for reducing confirmation bias and stimulating divergent thinking? Computers & Education, 58, 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Truong, G., Chapman, C. S., Chisholm, J. D., Enns, J. T., & Handy, T. C. (2016). Mine in motion: How physical actions impact the psychological sense of object ownership. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 375–385.Google Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut für WissensmedienTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations