In this chapter, we look at the implementation perspective from the starting point of the fundamental educational aims that unite the academic community. We argue that interactive and cooperative digital media have an inherent educational value as a new means of intellectual expression. Our primary concern is not the optimisation of knowledge transmission but the use of digital technologies to enhance intellectual expressiveness and creativity: helping the students in their appropriation of the world with a special emphasis on their intellectual development, it is essential for the education system to incorporate new digital media as tools for intellectual expression and production. We outline the main issues relevant to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) – the link to overall educational aims, the relationship between innovation and practice, the importance of user engagement, the nature of TEL research, and the characteristics of the local context, and the nature of TEL as a catalyst for change. The chapter concludes with some of the key lessons learned in recent research and development projects that will help to develop more successful ways of ensuring that the technology achieves its potential to enhance learning.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bannon, L., & Bodker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 227–253). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1–14.
Barab, S. A., Dodge,T., Thomas,M., Jackson,C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the docial agendas they carry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 263–305.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373–1388.
Chen, W., & Wasson, B. (2003). Coordinating collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer and Applications, 25, 1–10.
Chen, W., & Wasson, B. (2004). An instructional assistant agent for distributed collaborative learning. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 609–618). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Conole, G., White,S., & Oliver, M. (2006). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structures. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in E-Learning research (pp. 67–79). London: Routledge.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ publications/e-strategy/docs/e-strategy.pdf.
Elton, L. (1999). New ways of learning in higher education: Managing the change. Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 207–225.
Falconer, I. (2007). Mediating between practitioner and developer communities – the LADiE experience. ALT-J: The Journal of Research in Learning Technology, 15, 155–170.
de Freitas, S., Oliver,M., Mee,A., & Mayes, T. (2007). The practitioner perspective on the modelling of pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 26–38.
Gibbons, M., Limoges,C., Nowotny,H., Schwartzman,S., Scott,P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J: The Journal of Research in Learning Technology, 3, 5–34.
Hoppe, H. U. (2009). The disappearing computer – consequences for educational technology? In P. Dillenbourg, J. Huang & M. M. Cherubini (Eds.), Collaborative artefacts and interactive furniture supporting collaborative work and learning. New York: Springer.
Hoyles, C., Noss,R., Kent,P., & Baker, A. (2006). Techno-mathematical literacies and functional mathematics in 14–19 education. In A. Brown & A. Pollard (Eds.), 14–19 education and training: A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme (pp. 42–46). London: Institute of Education, Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
IMS (2003). IMS learning design specification. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from http://www.imsglobal.orglearningdesign/
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators’ knowing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12, 87–111.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and education: Concluding comments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16, 357–360.
Laurillard, D. (2008a). Open teaching: The key to sustainable and effective open education. In T. Iiyoshi & M. S. Vijay Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Laurillard, D. (2008b). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139–154.
Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills: Final report. London: HM Treasury.
Lingnau, A., Harrer,A., Kuhn,M., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Empowering teachers to evolve media-enriched classroom scenarios. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 2, 105–129.
Ludvigsen, S., & Rasmussen, I. (2005). Modeller pra reise: En analyse av endringer i lærerutdanningen [Models that travel: Analysis of changes in teacher education]. Oslo, Norway: Rapport ITU.
Luhmann, N., & Schorr, K. E. (1982). Das Technologiedefizit der Erziehung und die Pädagogik [Pedagogics and the technology deficit of education]. In N. Luhmann & K. E. Schorr (Eds.), Zwischen Technologie und Selbstreferenz (pp. 11–40.). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Netteland, G., Wasson,B., & Morch, A. (2007). E-learning in a large organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 9, 392–411.
Oliver, M., Price,S., Boycheva,S., Dugstad Wake, J., Jones,C., Mjelstad,S., et al. (2005). Empirical studies of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on roles and practices in higher education. (Tech. Rep. No. 30-03-01-F). [n.p.]: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
Pinkwart, N., Hoppe,H. U., Bollen,L., & Fuhlrott, E. (2002). Group-oriented modelling tools with heterogeneous semantics. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Berlin, Germany.
Price, S., Oliver,M., Fartunova,M., Jones,C., van der Meij, H., Mjelstad,S., et al. (2005). Review of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on roles and practices in higher education. (Tech. Rep. No. 30-02-01-F). [n.p.]: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/Price-Kaleidoscope-2005.pdf.
Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2009). The hedgehog and the fox: A discussion of the approaches to the analysis of ICT reforms in teacher education of Larry Cuban and Yrjö Engeström. Mind, Culture and Activity, 16(1), 83–104.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schoonenboom, J., & Levene, M. (2007). Introduction: The perfect start for a trail. In J. Schoonenboom, M. Levene, J. Heller, K. Keenoy & M. Turcsanyi-Szabo (Eds.), Trails in education: Technologies that support navigational learning (1st edn., pp. 1–10). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioner’s design for learning: Principles of effective resources and interventions. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Design for learning: Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age (pp. 117–128). London: RoutlegeFalmer.
Wake, J. (2002). How instructors organise their work in a collaborative telelearning scenario. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Bergen, Norway.
Wasson, B., & Ludvigsen, S. (2003). Designing for knowledge building. Oslo, Norway: Unipub.
Wasson, B., Guribye,F., & Morch, A. (2000). Design and use of collaborative telelearning artefacts. Oslo, Norway: Unipub Forlag.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laurillard, D., Oliver, M., Wasson, B., Hoppe, U. (2009). Implementing Technology-Enhanced Learning. In: Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S. (eds) Technology-Enhanced Learning. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9826-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9827-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)