Technology-enhanced teaching and learning design as a creative approach in teacher training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51657/ric.v6i2.51582Keywords:
learning design activity, creativity, transformative agency, digital education, teacher education, cultural-historical activity theoryAbstract
This paper analyses technology-enhanced teaching and learning (TET/TEL) design in the context of in-service teacher training. It is presented as a creative (Glăveanu, 2015, 2020), agentive (Sannino, 2015) activity to help teachers transform teaching and learning and address the challenge of integrating digital technology and education in the classroom (Giraudon et al., 2020). Mainly based on third generation (Engeström, 2001, 2009) of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) and in line with epistemological pluralism (Turkle & Papert, 1990), this study also draws upon contributions in didactics and cognitive sciences. It develops the theoretical argument leading to a formative intervention (Engeström, 2011) inspired by the Change Laboratory methodology (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). The Change Laboratory is aimed at co-designing TET/TEL scenarios for teachers and thus to model a new concept (Engeström & Sannino, 2010) for teaching and learning. To support this process, teachers are assisted by a card deck as a design artefact. The cards represent the potential components of a TET/TEL scenario.
References
Albion, P., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Information and Communication Technology and Education : Meaningful Change through Teacher Agency.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context : Update to" the social psychology of creativity.". Westview press.
Bertelsen, O. W. (2000). Design artefacts : Towards a design-oriented epistemology. 12, 15.
Bonnardel, N. (2009). Activités de conception et créativité : De l’analyse des facteurs cognitifs à l’assistance aux activités de conception créatives. Le travail humain, 72(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.721.0005
Bonnardel, N., & Bouchard, C. (2017). Creativity in Design. In J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu, & J. Baer (Éds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains (1re éd., p. 403‑427). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316274385.022
Bonnardel, N., & Lubart, T. (2019). La créativité : Approches et méthodes en psychologie et en ergonomie. RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme Entreprise, 378(4), 79‑98. https://www.cairn.info/revue-rimhe-2019-4-page-79.htm
Boullier, D. (2019). Sociologie du numérique-2e éd. Armand Colin.
Brevik, L., Guðmundsdóttir, G., Lund, A., & Strømme, T. (2019). Transformative agency in teacher education : Fostering professional digital competence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.07.005
Bru, M., & Clanet, J. (2011). La situation d’enseignement-apprentissage : Caractères contextuels et construits. Recherches en éducation, 12, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.5089
Deng, Y., Antle, A. N., & Neustaedter, C. (2014). Tango cards : A card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 695‑704. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598601
Dessus, P. (2000). La planification de séquences d’enseignement, objet de description ou de prescription? Revue française de pédagogie, 133(1), 101‑116. https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.2000.1024
Engeström. (1999, janvier). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge Core; Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774
Engeström, Y. (1994). Teachers as Collaborative Thinkers : Activity-Theoretical Study of an Innovative Teacher Team. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Éds.), Teachers’ minds and actions (p. 43‑61). Falmer Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work : Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133‑156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Engeström, Y. (2009). The Future of Activity Theory : A Rough Draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Éds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (p. 303‑328). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809989.020
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598‑628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Glăveanu, V. (2012). On Third Generation Activity Theory : Interview With Yrjö Engeström. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1361
Engeström, Y., Nuttall, J., & Hopwood, N. (2020). Transformative agency by double stimulation : Advances in theory and methodology. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 0(0), 1‑7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1805499
Engeström, Y., Pihlaja, J., Helle, M., Virkkunen, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10‑17. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/the-change-laboratory-as-a-tool-for-transforming-work
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning : Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1‑24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2013). La volition et l’agentivité transformatrice : Perspective théorique de l’activité. Revue internationale du CRIRES : innover dans la tradition de Vygotsky, 1(1), 4‑19. //ojs.crires.ulaval.ca/index.php/ric/article/view/7
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2021). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions : Four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(1), 4‑23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2020.1806328
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the Methodological Demands of Formative Interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(2), 118‑128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.891868
Fiévez, A. (2017). L’intégration des TIC en contexte éducatif : Modèles, réalités et enjeux. PUQ.
Giraudon, G., Guitton, P., Romero, M., Roy, D., & Viéville, T. (2020). Éducation et numérique, Défis et enjeux. Inria.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity : Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. 23.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a Sociocultural Act. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165‑180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.94
Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). A Sociocultural Theory of Creativity : Bridging the Social, the Material, and the Psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335‑354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763
Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27‑50. http://www.herdsa.org.au/system/fles/HERDSARHE2015v02p27.pdf.
Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future : The Zo-ped. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984(23), 45‑64. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219842306
Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232‑262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.900168
Hyrkkö, S., & Kajamaa, A. (2021). Distributed Creativity and Expansive Learning in a Teacher Training School’s Change Laboratory. In S. Lemmetty, K. Collin, V. P. Glăveanu, & P. Forsman (Éds.), Creativity and Learning : Contexts, Processes and Support (p. 145‑174). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77066-2_7
Impedovo, M. A., Andreucci, C., & Ginestié, J. (2017). Mediation of artefacts, tools and technical objects : An international and french perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 19‑30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9335-y
Juutilainen, M., Metsäpelto, R.-L., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2018). Becoming agentic teachers : Experiences of the home group approach as a resource for supporting teacher students’ agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 116‑125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.013
Kambouchner, D., Meirieu, P., & Stiegler, B. (2012). L’école, le numérique et la société qui vient. https://www.fayard.fr/1001-nuits/lecole-le-numerique-et-la-societe-qui-vient-9782755506440
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers Learning Technology by Design. 9.
Komis, V., Romero, M., & Misirli, A. (2017). A Scenario-Based Approach for Designing Educational Robotics Activities for Co-creative Problem Solving.
Kumpulainen, K., Kajamaa, A., & Rajala, A. (2018). Understanding educational change : Agency-structure dynamics in a novel design and making environment. Digital Education Review, 26‑38. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2018.33.26-38
Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2015). Psychologie de la créativité-2e édition. Armand Colin.
Lund, A., & Eriksen, T. M. (2016). Teacher Education as Transformation : Some Lessons Learned from a Center for Excellence in Education. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), 53‑72. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.2483
Lund, A., Furberg, A., Bakken, J., & Engelien, K. L. (2014). Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(04), 280‑298. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-04
Maina, M., Craft, B., & Mor, Y. (Éds.). (2015). The art & science of learning design. Sense Publishers.
Miettinen, R., Paavola, S., & Pohjola, P. (2012). From Habituality to Change : Contribution of Activity Theory and Pragmatism to Practice Theories. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 42(3), 345‑360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2012.00495.x
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge : A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.
Morselli, D., & Sannino, A. (2021). Testing the model of double stimulation in a Change Laboratory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103224
Peters, D., Loke, L., & Ahmadpour, N. (2020). Toolkits, cards and games – a review of analogue tools for collaborative ideation. CoDesign, 0(0), 1‑25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1715444
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making : Agents of Change and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191‑214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x
Rantavuori, J., Engeström, Y., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Learning actions, objects and types of interaction : A methodological analysis of expansive learning among pre-service teachers. FRONTLINE LEARNING RESEARCH, 4, 1‑27. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i3.174
Ricoeur, P. (1991). Temps et récit , Paul Ricœur, Points Essais. Éd. du Seuil. https://www.editionspoints.com/ouvrage/temps-et-recit-paul-ric-ur/9782020134538
Romero, M. (2019). From Individual Creativity to Team-Based Creativity. In Toward Super-Creativity—Improving Creativity in Humans, Machines, and Human—Machine Collaborations. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89126
Roy, R., & Warren, J. P. (2019). Card-based design tools : A review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing. Design Studies, 63, 125‑154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.002
Sannino, A. (2013). Critical Transitions in the Pursuit of a Professional Object : Simone de Beauvoir’s Expansive Journey to Become a Writer. In Learning and Collective Creativity. Routledge.
Sannino, A. (2015). The principle of double stimulation : A path to volitional action. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 1‑15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.01.001
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009). Activity Theory Between Historical Engagement and Future-Making Practice. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Éds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (p. 1‑16). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809989.002
Sannino, A., & Engeström, Y. (2018). Cultural-historical activity theory : Founding insights and new challenges. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 14(3), 43‑56. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2018140304
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative Interventions for Expansive Learning and Transformative Agency. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/178032
Schneuwly, B., & Ronveaux, C. (2021). Une approche instrumentale de la transposition didactique. Pratiques. Linguistique, littérature, didactique, 189‑190, Article 189‑190. https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.9515
Stockless, A., & Villeneuve, S. (2017). Les compétences numériques chez les enseignants : Doit-on devenir un expert? In Usages créatifs du numérique pour l’apprentissage au XXIe siècle.
Stockless, A., Villeneuve, S., & Gingras, B. (2018). Maitrise d’outils technologiques : Son influence sur la compétence TIC des enseignants et les usages pédagogiques | Mastery of Digital Tools: The Influence on Information and Communication Technologies Competency and Pedagogical Use. 44. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27581
Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 346‑355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010
Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Rust, F. O. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency in contradictory times. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 615‑623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044334
Tricot, A., & Musial, M. (2020). Précis d’ingénierie pédagogique. De Boeck Superieur.
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism : Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 16(1), 128‑157.
van der Heijden, H. R. M. A., Geldens, J. J. M., Beijaard, D., & Popeijus, H. L. (2015). Characteristics of teachers as change agents. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 681‑699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044328
Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmes dans la construction d’une capacité d’action partagée de transformation. Activités, 03(3‑1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1842
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). A Change Laboratory in the Central Surgical Unit of Oulu University Hospital. In J. Virkkunen & D. S. Newnham (Éds.), The Change Laboratory : A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education (p. 165‑185). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-326-3_7
Visser, W. (2006). Designing as Construction of Representations : A Dynamic Viewpoint in Cognitive Design Research. Human–Computer Interaction, 21(1), 103‑152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci2101_4
Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R., Hickey, D., & Mckenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9340-7
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society : The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky : Problems of the Theory and History of Psychology. Springer Science & Business Media.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7‑97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610405.2004.11059210
Wanlin, P. (2009). La pensée des enseignants lors de la planification de leur enseignement. Revue française de pédagogie, 89‑128. https://doi.org/10.2307/41202607
Wong, C.-C., Kumpulainen, K., & Kajamaa, A. (2021). Collaborative creativity among education professionals in a co-design workshop : A multidimensional analysis | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100971
Yamazumi, K. (2013). Beyond Traditional School Learning : Fostering Agency and Collective Creativity in Hybrid Educational Activities. In Learning and Collective Creativity. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Caroline Duret, Margarida ROMERO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.