Abstract
The usage of educational technologies does not necessarily imply the adoption of the pedagogical approaches they are designed to support. Existing works analysing learning design practices often focus on the usage metrics of the authoring platform, the authoring process or structural aspects of the designs themselves. While such usage metrics are useful to understand technology adoption, to understand pedagogical adoption we need to take into account the content of the designs created by practitioners as well. For example, in the case of inquiry-based learning, such content-related aspects include whether the learning designs scaffold the inquiry, promote engagement and collaboration. This paper proposes a concrete content-oriented design analysis approach for inquiry-based learning, which can be applied to digitally-authored inquiry designs. To illustrate its application and usefulness, we have applied this framework to learning designs created within Go-Lab (an initiative to promote inquiry learning in primary and secondary school). More concretely, we manually analyzed 44 learning designs published by Estonian practitioners using content analysis. Despite the small scale of the illustrative case study, the results from the content analysis show the potential of our analytical approach to inform teacher training and the development of authoring tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Note that “interactive engagement” refers to dialogues (between humans or a human and a computer agent) where both partners’ utterances are constructive, and there is a sufficient degree of turn taking [3].
- 2.
- 3.
IPAC framework: http://www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/app-rubric1.html.
- 4.
Go-Lab repository: https://www.golabz.eu.
- 5.
Go-Lab authoring tool: https://graasp.eu.
- 6.
Complete list of published learning designs: https://www.golabz.eu/spaces.
References
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Ploetzner, R.: Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32(3), 349–377 (2010)
Biggs, J.B.: Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. McGraw-hill Education, England (2011)
Chi, M.T., Wylie, R.: The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 49(4), 219–243 (2014)
Dagnino, F.M., Dimitriadis, Y.A., Pozzi, F., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Rubia-Avi, B.: Exploring teachers’ needs and the existing barriers to the adoption of learning design methods and tools: a literature survey. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 49(6), 998–1013 (2018)
Dillenbourg, P.: Orchestration Graphs. EPFL Press, Lausanne (2015)
Hattie, J.A., Donoghue, G.M.: Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. npj Sci. Learn. 1(1), 1–13 (2016)
Hernández-Leo, D., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Pardo, A., Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A., Rodríguez-Triana, M.J.: Analytics for learning design: a layered framework and tools: analytics layers for learning design. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 3, 153 (2018)
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G., Chinn, C.A.: Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ. Psychol. 42(2), 99–107 (2007)
de Jong, T., et al.: Understanding teacher design practices for digital inquiry–based science learning: the case of Go-Lab. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 69(2), 417–444 (2021)
Kali, Y., Linn, M.C.: Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In: Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 145–161 (2008)
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E.: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41(2), 75–86 (2006)
Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002)
Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., Hakkarainen, K.: Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: a national case study. Comput. Educ. 45(3), 337–356 (2005)
Ley, T., Maier, R., Thalmann, S., Waizenegger, L., Pata, K., Ruiz-Calleja, A.: A knowledge appropriation model to connect scaffolded learning and knowledge maturation in workplace learning settings. Vocat. Learn. 13(1), 91–112 (2019)
Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., Toetenel, L.: Unravelling the dynamics of instructional practice: a longitudinal study on learning design and VLE activities. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, pp. 168–177 (2017)
Pedaste, M., et al.: Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educ. Res. Rev. 14, 47–61 (2015)
Pishtari, G., et al.: Learning design and learning analytics in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a systematic review. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51(4), 1078–1100 (2020)
Pishtari, G., Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Prieto, L.P., Ruiz-Calleja, A., Väljataga, T.: How practitioners design for learning in mobile learning environments: two in-the-wild case studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. (under review)
Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Prieto, L.P., Ley, T., de Jong, T., Gillet, D.: Social practices in teacher knowledge creation and innovation adoption: a large-scale study in an online instructional design community for inquiry learning. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 15(4), 445–467 (2020)
Schleicher, A.: Pisa 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing (2019)
Schneider, M., Preckel, F.: Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 143(6), 565 (2017)
Schuster, D., Cobern, W.W., Adams, B.A., Undreiu, A., Pleasants, B.: Learning of core disciplinary ideas: efficacy comparison of two contrasting modes of science instruction. Res. Sci. Educ. 48(2), 389–435 (2018)
Seymour, E., Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., DeAntoni, T.: Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Sci. Educ. 88(4), 493–534 (2004)
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J., Paas, F.G.: Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10(3), 251–296 (1998)
Toetenel, L., Rienties, B.: Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision making. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 47(5), 981–992 (2016)
Van Merriënboer, J.J., Kirschner, P.A., Kester, L.: Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 5–13 (2003)
Von Glasersfeld, E.: Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In: Matthews, M.R. (ed.) Constructivism in Science Education, pp. 11–30. Springer, Dordrecht (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5032-3_2
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially funded by the European Union in the context of CEITER (Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, grant agreements no. 669074). The authors would like to thank the rest of the coding team (Aleksandr Trofimov, Jaanika Lukk, Katariina Vainonen, and Mariell Miilvee) for their contribution to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rodríguez-Triana, M.J., Prieto, L.P., Pishtari, G. (2021). What Do Learning Designs Show About Pedagogical Adoption? An Analysis Approach and a Case Study on Inquiry-Based Learning. In: De Laet, T., Klemke, R., Alario-Hoyos, C., Hilliger, I., Ortega-Arranz, A. (eds) Technology-Enhanced Learning for a Free, Safe, and Sustainable World. EC-TEL 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12884. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86436-1_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86436-1_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86435-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86436-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)