Developing digital pedagogy through learning design: An activity theory perspective

Abstract

Learning design is growing in importance but is not yet widely adopted by teachers. This paper describes the development of a scenario‐led learning design process, divided into two stages, which was implemented with over 500 teachers altogether from 15 European countries. Activity theory is used to explore the contradictions that arose when such changes were introduced into the established activity system of lesson planning. Data were collected through interviews and questionnaires from a small sample of participants including national coordinators (stage 1: n = 8; stage 2: n = 13) and teachers (stage 1: n = 13; stage 2: n = 23). These participants perceived that the scenario‐led learning design process, involving a wide range of stakeholders, was collaborative, supportive and innovative (compared to previous lesson planning practices). However, a number of contradictions were identifiable between: (1) the shift to collaborative learning design from teachers preparing their lessons alone; (2) the new tools and the existing rules of the national/regional education systems; (3) the time required to both understand and implement learning design, and the impact of competing demands. This paper discusses the challenges faced when attempting to scale‐up European school teachers’ development of digital pedagogy. The structured (yet flexible) approach was welcomed and the tools promoted teacher reflection but, as commonly noted, the complexity and time‐constraints were major issues.

Technology‐mediated learning theory

“…Activity Theory is important in so far as it highlights this important mediating role that digital technologies can play when participants attempt to achieve desired learning outcomes within social learning contexts. However, while Activity Theory has been used as a theoretical referent in many technology‐enhanced learning research studies (see for example Carvalho et al , ; Lewin, Cranmer, & McNicol, ; Zurita & Nussbaum, ), it was not specifically designed for educational technology settings, and can in fact be equally applied to any goal‐directed collaborative context such as corporate production initiatives. Moreover, according to Activity Theory, “tools” not only refers to technologies, such as digital technologies, but any resources that can be used in transformation processes, such as cognitive resources, like heuristics.…”

The impact of AI and robotics on physical, social‐emotional and intellectual learning outcomes: An integrated analytical framework

“…Regarding the inclusion of other innovative approaches to the use of technologies such as AI and robotics, Beetham and Sharpe (2020) stated the importance of including other types of learning outcomes (eg, physical and social-emotional), and help learners to develop new skills. Additionally, Lewin et al (2018) emphasized the learning design approach because it provides practitioners with a detailed guidance on how they could integrate technology and change their practices.…”

“…Learning design or the "design for learning" is a holistic process as well as a framework for describing learning activities and learning environments that can be shared and re-used (Beetham & Sharpe, 2020;Conole, 2013;Lewin, Cranmer & McNicol, 2018). Learning design involves moving the focus from learning content toward learning through activities.…”

Teachers as designers of TEL interventions

“…A new dawning in learning design research may, as before, encourage and utilise specific design approaches and tools (Boloudakis, Retalis, & Psaromiligkos, ; Garreta‐Domingo, Sloep & Hernández‐Leo, ; Laurillard et al, ; Lewin, Cranmer, & McNicol, ; Michos, Hernández‐Leo, & Laia Albó, ; Molina et al, ). But the consequence should also be the promotion of the learning design mindset, and the areas of competence identified by Mishra and Koehler () in their TPACK model: technological, pedagogical and content knowledge, as well as knowledge of their interrelations.…”