Skip to main content
  • Special Issue: New Learning Scenarios from a Transformative Perspective. From Global Approaches to Local Proposals
  • Open Access
  • Published:

Recent Developments in Technology-Enhanced Learning: A Critical Assessment

Avances en el aprendizaje enriquecido con la tecnología: una evaluación enriquecida

Abstract

Our societies are considered knowledge societies in which lifelong learning is becoming increasingly important. At the same time, digital technologies are entering almost every aspect of our lives and now play an important role in education. The last decade has seen numerous new developments in the field of technology-enhanced learning. In 2004, George Siemens presented connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age. His ideas inspired the creation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which have recently received a great deal of attention. Theoretical works on the use of digital devices for learning have focused on the affordances users perceive in these devices. Design research has also shown us that learning environments enriched by digital technologies are extremely complex and should be viewed as learning ecologies. The discussions on connectivism and MOOCs, affordances of digital devices, and design research have taken place in different discourses that have paid hardly any attention to each other. It is important to point out, however, that the developments in technology-enhanced learning not only can but need to be related to each other.

Resumen

Nuestras sociedades son consideradas sociedades del conocimiento, donde el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida obtiene cada vez más importancia. Al mismo tiempo, las tecnologías digitales forman parte de casi todos los aspectos de nuestra vida y juegan un papel importante en la educación. En la última década se han visto numerosos avances en el ámbito del aprendizaje enriquecido por la tecnología. En 2004, George Siemens presentó el conectivismo como teoría del aprendizaje para la era digital. Sus ideas inspiraron la creación de cursos online masivos abiertos (MOOGs), que han sido objeto de gran atención recientemente. La literatura científica relacionada con el uso de dispositivos digitales para el aprendizaje se ha centrado en las potencialidades que los usuarios perciben de estos dispositivos. La investigación del diseño también nos ha mostrado que los entornos de aprendizaje enriquecidos por la tecnología son complejos y deben ser vistos como ecologías de aprendizaje. Las discusiones sobre conectivismo y MOOGs, las potencialidades de los dispositivos digitales y la investigación del diseño han aparecido en diferentes discursos observados de manera aislada. En este sen tido, es importante señalar que los avances en el aprendizaje enriquecido por la tecnología no solo pueden sino que deben mostrarse relacionados entre sí.

References

  1. Alraimi, K.M., Zo a, H., & Ciganek, A.P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(Jan./Feb.), 16–25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong, L. (2013). 2013- the year of ups and downs for the MOOCs. Changing Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.changinghighereducation.com/2014/01/2013-the-year-of-the-moocs.html

  5. Bannan, B., Cook, J., & Pachler, N. (in press). Reconceptualizing design research in the age of mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments.

  6. Bartolomé, A. R., & Steffens, K. (2015). Are MOOCs promising learning environments? Comunicar, 44. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-10

  7. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis — matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980701847115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D.T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25. Retrieved from: http://www.rpajournal.com/studying-learning-in-the-worldwide-classroom-research-into-edxs-first-mooc/

    Google Scholar 

  9. Champaign, J., Fredericks, C., Colvin, K., Seaton, D., Liu, A., & Pritchard, D. (2014). Correlating skill and improvement in 2 MOOCs with a student’s time on task. Paper presented at Learning@Scale Conference, Atlanta, GA. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566250

  10. Chiappe-Laverde, A., Hine, N., & Martínez-Silva, J. A. (2015). Literature and Practice: A Critical Review of MOOCs. Comunicar, 44, 9–17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In: R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 135–152. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113–124. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0968776042000216183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.l467-8535.2009.01038.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Jong, T., & Pieters, J. (2006). The design of powerful learning environments. In: P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 739–754, 2nd. ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory? The International HETL Review, Special Issue, 4–13. Retrieved from https://www.hetl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview2013SpeciallssueArticle1.pdf

  17. Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2013). Preliminary summary SJSU+ Augmented Online Learning Environment pilot project. Retrieved from: http://www.sjsu.edu/chemistry/People/Faculty/Collins_Research_Page/AOLEReport -September 10 2013 final.pdf

  18. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaseric, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is the research on open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC research initiative. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 134–176.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In: R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds). Perceiving, Acting and knowing: toward an Ecological Psychology, pp. 67–82. Michigan: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In: J. Van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design Research, pp. 17–51. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC. BIS Research Paper Number 130. London: Department for Business, nnovation and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: expectations and reality. Full report. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY. Retrieved from: http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jona, K., & Naidu, S. (2014). MOOCs: emerging research. Distance Education, 35(2), 141–144. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.928970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karsenti, T. (2013). The MOOC. What research says. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10(2), 23–37. http://ritpu.org/IMG/pdf/RITPU_v10_n02_23.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y (Eds). (2008). Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education Innovations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Learning and Teaching. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 257–274. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070500095689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in Massive Open Online Courses. Depth. Educause Review (http://goo.gl/DEJzxZ).

  29. Kolowich, S. (2013). MOOCs are largely reaching privileged learners, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/moocs-are-reaching-only-privileged-learners-survey-finds/48567

  30. Kolowich, S. (2015). The MOOC Hype Fades, in 3 Charts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/the-mooc-fades-in-3-charts/55701

  31. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103

  32. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lajoie, S., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In: P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 803–821, 2nd. ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Li, Z. (2014). Rethinking the relationship between learner, learning contexts, and technology: a critique and exploration of Archer’s morphogenetic approach. Learning, Media and Technology. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.978336

  35. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: a systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14(3), 202–227. Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455

    Google Scholar 

  36. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–33. doi: http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martin, F. G. (2012). Will Massive Open Online Courses change how we teach? Communications of the ACM, 55(8), 26–28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2240236.2240246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not? TechTrends, 55(6), 42–48. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0540-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Norman, D. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Norman, D. (1999). Affordances, conventions and design, Interactions, May/June 1999, pp. 38–43. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168

  42. OpenupEd (b. d.) retrieved from http://www.openuped.eu/openuped-temp/61-welcome

  43. Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010) Mobile Learning: Structures, Agency, Cultural Practices. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pappano, Laura. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-onlinecourses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html

  45. Reimann, P. (2013). Design-based research: Designing as research. In: R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. Underwood, J., & N. Winters (Eds.) Handbook of Design in Educational Technology, pp. 44–52. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sandoval, W. (2013). 21 st century educational design research. In: R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, J. Underwood, J., & N. Vinters (Eds.) Handbook of Design in Educational Technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 65–73. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Selwyn, N. (2012). Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: The role of sociological theory. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 81–96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shah, D. (2013). MOOCs in 2013: Breaking down the numbers. https://www.edsurge.com/n/2013-12-22-moocs-in-2013-breaking-down-the-numbers

  50. Sharpies, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In: B. Bachmair (Ed). In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen, pp. 87–99. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

  52. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Retrieved from www.knowingknowledge.com

  53. Siemens, G. (2012). What is the theory that underpins our moocs? ElearnSpace, 3/6/2012 (http://goo.gl/NV72pe).

  54. Traxler, J. (2013). Mobile learning: Shaping the frontiers of learning technologies in global context. In R. Huang, J. M. Kinshuk, and M. Spector (Eds.) Reshaping Learning: Frontiers of Learning Technology in a Global Context. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  55. UNESCO (2013). Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation? Policy Brief Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002238/223896e.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  56. Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Retrieved from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793

  57. Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in Massive Open Online Courses. (http://goo.gl/FyZjlX).

  58. Yeager, C., Hurley-Dasgupta, B., & Bliss, C. A. (2013). cMOOCs and global learning: an authentic alternative. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(2), 133–147. http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/12%20CMOOCS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20LEARNING_0.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zapata-Ros, M. (2014). Los MOOC en la crisis de la Educación Universitaria: Docencia, diseñoy aprendizaje. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

  60. Zemsky, R. (2014). With a MOOC MOOC here and a MOOC MOOC there, here a MOOC, there a MOOC, everywhere a MOOC MOOC. Journal of General Education, 63(4), 237–243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.2014.0029

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl Steffens.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steffens, K., Bannan, B., Dalgarno, B. et al. Recent Developments in Technology-Enhanced Learning: A Critical Assessment. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 12, 73–86 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i2.2453

Download citation

Keywords

  • affordances
  • connectivism
  • design research
  • digital technologies
  • MOOCs
  • technology-enhanced learning

Palabras clave

  • potencialidades
  • conectivismo
  • diseño de investigación
  • tecnología digital
  • MOOGs
  • aprendizaje enriquecido con la tecnología