Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prompting Deep Learning with Interactive Technologies: Theoretical Perspectives in Designing Interactive Learning Resources and Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Learning in a Digital World

Part of the book series: Smart Computing and Intelligence ((SMCOMINT))

Abstract

Deep content learning requires learners to think about content. Interacting with digital resources and interactive technology-based instructional environments does not guarantee engagement in content thinking. Formal and informal instructional activities and environments are being inundated with opportunities for learners to interact in multiple ways with content through emerging interactive technologies. Questions are being raised as to whether these interactions are leading to critical thinking and deeper content learning. It is not enough to merely interact or “play with” technology resources, rather learners must cognitively manipulate, think about, and reflect on content purposefully, in multiple and flexible ways, throughout these interactions to reach deeper knowledge. This chapter provides a conceptual description of learning and argues for a set of common guidelines to design learning resources and learning environments that integrate interactive technologies in ways that support learners in making meaningful content connections. This set of guidelines was drawn from a synthesis of overlapping tenets defined in generative learning, cognitive-flexibility, and reflection theories and is supported by a multitude of research investigations. Examples of these guidelines in-use, directly integrated into resources or through supporting instructional resources, show how learners can benefit from physical interactions that prompt thinking to achieve deeper content knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note: This review is not intended to be a full analysis of all recent research. Rather, it is a starting point in unpacking relationships among technologies and learning.

References

  • Akdemir, O., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Investigating the relationships among instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1451–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alimisis, D. (2016). Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. In Paper published in 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education, Prague (pp. 7–14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., …, & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–311). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Defining student engagement. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.2190/94V6-R58H-3367-G388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education, Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain (pp. 20–24). New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S., Gangadhar, R. B., Shankar, S., & Kasinathan, K. (2018). Applications of artificial intelligence in assessment for learning in schools. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education (pp. 185–206). Hershey, PA: IDE Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, T. (2011). The impact of types of interaction on student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 10(2), 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Benjamin, L. (2018). Best practices to support online student engagement. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education (pp. 287–299). Hershey, PA: IDE Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, C., Shelton, K., Mason, D., & Baur, K. (2015). Active learning strategies for online and blended learning environments. In J. Keengwe & J. J. Agamba (Eds.), Models for improving and optimizing blended learning in higher education (pp. 58–82). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Curton, B., & Moreno, V. (2016). Robotics in education. Journal of Intelligent Robot Systems, 81, 3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dave, R. H. (1971). Developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekwunife-Orakwue, K., & Teng, T. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2009). Critical thinking: Concepts and tools (6th ed.). Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology students, teachers, and lectures. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1996). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. (1998). Building interactivity in Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38, 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, C. (2018). What is a virtual world? Definition and classification. Education Technology Research and Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9577-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B., & Small, R. (1997). Information, instruction, and learning: A hypermedia perspective. Performance and Improvement Quarterly, 10, 156–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M., Coulson, D., & McMaugh, A. (2016). Toward a theory of the ecology of reflection: Reflective practice for experiential learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, U., Verdejo, M. F., & Kay, J. (2003). Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Campbell, J., & Davidson, M. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218685.

  • Kearsley, G. (1997). A guide to online education. Retrieved from http://gwis.circ.gwu.edu/~etl/online.html.

  • Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education, 17, 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Waynesville, NC, USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/.

  • Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2012). Experiential learning theory. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1215–1219). U.S.: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_227.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T. A. (2016a). What is RIDLR [Research in designing learning resources] all about? [Narrated video]. Retrieved from http://ridlr.syr.edu/about/.

  • Koszalka, T. A. (2016b). Reflection and its application to learning resources. [Concept paper]. Retrieved from http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/.

  • Koszalka, T. A., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic uses of features available in distance education course management systems (CMS). Distance Education, 25(2), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T., & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G. S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile-technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., & Kuh, G. (2005). Measuring deep approaches to learning using the national survey of student engagement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, Il.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopip, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examinations of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Wang, L. (2018). Using iPad-based mobile learning to teach creative engineering within a problem-based learning pedagogy. Educational and Information Technologies, 23, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A. (2003). Using online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning. Great Britain: Kogan Page Limited.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. C., & Kaye, E. R. (2016). Preparing online learning readiness with learner-content interactions: Design for scaffolding self-regulated learning. In L. Kyeo-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategic management or interaction, presence, and participation in online courses (pp. 216–244). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference IDE Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. M. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J. (2013). Evidence-centered de-sign for simulation-based assessment [Supplemental Material]. Military Medicine, 178(10), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.7205/milmed-d-13-00213PMID:24084311.

  • Moos, D. C., & Bonde, C. (2016). Flipping the classroom: Embedding self-regulated learning prompts in videos. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 21(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9269-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munene, I. I., Darby, F., & Doherty, J. (2015). Blended for student engagement and retention: The case of cinema and visual culture and healthy lifestyle studies. In J. Keengwe & J. J. Agamba (Eds.), Models for improving and optimizing blended learning in higher education (pp. 129–146). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student interaction with content in on-line and hybrid courses: Leading horses to the proverbial water. Informing Science, 16, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oigara, J. N. (2018). Integrating virtual reality tools into classroom instruction. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 147–159). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance Education, 20, 240–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Human learning (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passey, D., & Hobrecht, P. (2001). Online resources and effective teaching and learning. Education, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270185200021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). A guide for educators to critical thinking competency standards. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poll, K., Widen, J., & Weller, S. (2014). Six instructional best practices for online engagement and retention. Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The “how” and “why” of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsive approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02961476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media, Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(53). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional Design, Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(57). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rufai, M. M., Alebiosu, S. O., & Adeakin, O. A. S. (2015). A conceptual model for virtual classroom management. International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 5(1), 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading and comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, P., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J., & Coleman, J. (2010). Student satisfaction of online courses for educational leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/Fall133/sampson_ballenger133.html.

  • Sato, M. (2003). Working with teachers in assessment-related professional development. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauve, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, S. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2018). History, contemporary, and future perspectives on self-regulated learning and performance. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 1–15). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, D. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spensley, F., & Taylor, J. (1999). The development of cognitive flexibility: Evidence from children’s drawings. Human Development, 42(6), 300–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Technical Report No. 441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkan, Y., Radkowski, R., Karabulut-llgu, A., Behzadan, A. H., & Chen, A. (2017). Mobile augmented reality for teaching structural analysis. Advanced Engineering Infomatics, 34, 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augment reality technologies, application and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computer & Education, 56(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm-Chapin, M. K., & Koszalka, T. A. (2016). Generative learning theory and its application to learning resources [concept paper]. Retrieved from http://ridlr.syr.edu/publications/.

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2704_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Tiffany A. Koszalka, Yuri Pavlov & Lili Zhang

  2. State University of New York (SUNY) Cortland, Cortland, NY, USA

    Mary K. Wilhelm-Chapin

  3. World Languages Department, Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Christopher D. Hromalik

Authors
  1. Tiffany A. Koszalka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary K. Wilhelm-Chapin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher D. Hromalik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuri Pavlov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lili Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany A. Koszalka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Carlos III University of Madrid , Leganés, Spain

    Paloma Díaz

  2. Cyprus University of Technology , Lemesos, Cyprus

    Andri Ioannou

  3. Centre for Educational Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

    Kaushal Kumar Bhagat

  4. University of North Texas , Denton, TX, USA

    J. Michael Spector

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Koszalka, T.A., Wilhelm-Chapin, M.K., Hromalik, C.D., Pavlov, Y., Zhang, L. (2019). Prompting Deep Learning with Interactive Technologies: Theoretical Perspectives in Designing Interactive Learning Resources and Environments. In: Díaz, P., Ioannou, A., Bhagat, K., Spector, J. (eds) Learning in a Digital World. Smart Computing and Intelligence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8264-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8265-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation