Creative Teaching Competence and EdTech: Total Pedagogy

  • Dennis SaleEmail author
Part of the Cognitive Science and Technology book series (CSAT)


This chapter, based on the evidence-based creative teaching framework established in the previous chapters, provides a design model for utilizing the affordances of EdTech to positively impact specific aspects of the learning process, learning delivery arrangements, and student attainment and engagement. While there are emerging new technologies (e.g., virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality), which have specific learning affordances (though often high cost in the present context), it is now possible to use low tech (in terms of user learning), low cost (mostly free) and user-friendly (essential) in effective, efficient and creative ways to enhance student learning outcomes. The design frame provides the practical heuristics for selecting, blending, and employing appropriate EdTech tools into the design and facilitation of learning for all delivery modes (e.g., face-to-face, blended/flipped classroom, and fully online).


  1. Abeysekera L, Dawson P (2015) Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. In: Higher education research and development, vol 34(1)Google Scholar
  2. Ash K (2012) Educators view ‘flipped’ model with a more critical eye, Education Week, S6–S7Google Scholar
  3. Beattie A (2011) What is the difference between social media and web 2.0?, Nov 29.
  4. Bergmann J, Sams A (2012) Flipped your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in educationGoogle Scholar
  5. Berrett D (2012) How 'flipping' the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The chronicle of higher educationGoogle Scholar
  6. Bersin J (2004) The blended learning book. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown T (2009) Change by design. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark R, Lyons C (2005) Graphics for learning: proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. Colvin Clark R, Mayer RE (2011) E-learning and the science of instruction; proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd edn). Wiley, San Francisco. Retrieved from Scholar
  10. Educause Horizon Report (2019) Higher education edition. Louisville, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher-Mackay K, Steinhauer N (2017). Pushing the limits, how schools can prepare our children today for the challenges of tomorrow. Penguin Doubleday, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Garrison DR, Kanuka H (2004) Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ 7(20):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrison DR, Vaughan ND (2008) Blended learning in higher education: framework, principles, and guideline. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Gee JP (2017) Teaching, learning, literacy in our high-risk high-tech world: a framework for becoming human. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenberg AD, Zanetis J (2012) The impact of broadcast and streaming video in education. Wainhouse Research, LLC, Cisco Systems Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton S, Zimmerman S (2002) Breaking through zero-sum academics: two students’ perspectives on computer-mediated learning environment. In: Rudestam KE, Schoenholtz J (eds) Handbook of online learning: innovations in higher education and corporate training. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Harari YN (2016) Homo deus: a brief history of tomorrow. Penguin, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Harari YN (2018) 21 lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris S (2010) The moral landscape: how science can determine human values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hattie J (2009) Visible learning. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hattie J, Yates GCR (2014) Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Herreid CF, Schiller NA (2013) Case studies and the flipped classroom. J. of College Science Teaching, National Science Teachers Association, pp 62–66Google Scholar
  23. Hodges P, Saba L (2002) Teaching statistics online. In: Rudestam KE, Schoenholtz (eds) Handbook of online learning: innovations in higher education and corporate training chap. 18. Sage, London, pp 389–404Google Scholar
  24. Horton W (2006) e-learning by design. Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  25. Ilkka T (2018) JRC science for policy report: the impact of artificial intelligence on learning, teaching, and education. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen JL, Kummer TA, Godoy PD (2015) Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ 14:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keen A (2007) The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln YS (1990) The making of a constructivist: a remembrance of transformations past. In: Guba EG (ed) The paradigm dialog. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Littlejohn A, Pegler C (2007) Preparing for blended e-learning. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luckin R (2018) Machine learning and human intelligence: the future of education for the 21st century. UCL Institute of Education Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Margulieux L, Majerich D, McCraken M (2013) Guide to flipping your classroom. Center for 21st century universities, Georgia TechGoogle Scholar
  32. Mason GS, Shuman TR, Cook KE (2013) Comparing the effectiveness of an inverted classroom to a traditional classroom in an upper-division engineering course. IEEE Trans Edu 56(4):430–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLaughlin JE et al (2013) Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Phar Edu 77(9):1–8Google Scholar
  34. Means B et al (2010) Evaluation of evidence-based practices. In: Online learning a meta-analysis and review of online learning. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Melchior T et al (1997) New technologies. In: Costa A, Liebmann RM (eds) Supporting the spirit of learning: when process is content. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller MD (2016) Minds online: teaching effectively with technology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Mlodinow L (2012) Subliminal: how your unconscious mind rules your behaviour. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Moffett J (2014) Twelve tips for “flipping” the classroom. Med Teach 37(4):331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moroder K (2013) You tube video. Learning that technology is not a silver bullet: Ed tech challenge intro (1/4). Available at Last accessed 26 Nov 2019
  40. Olbrish Pagano K (2013) Immersive learning: designing for authentic practice. ASTD Press, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliver R (2007) Describing ICT-based learning designs that promote quality learning outcomes. In: Beetham H, Sharpe R (eds) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e-Learning. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Pacansky-Brock M (2013) Best practices for teaching with emerging technologies. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Picciano AG et al (eds) (2014) Blended learning research perspective, vol 2. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Pienta NJ (2016) A “flipped classroom” reality check. J Chem Educ 93:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robinson DH, Schraw G (2008) A need for quality research in e-Learning. In: Robinson DH, Schraw G (eds) Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitates student learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NCGoogle Scholar
  47. Sale D, Cheah SM (2011) Developing critical thinking skills through dynamic simulation using an explicit model of thinking. Paper presented at the 7th international CDIO conference at DTU Lyngby, Denmark, June 20–23Google Scholar
  48. Sale D, Cheah SM, Wan M (2017) Symposia on creative flipped classroom learning: an evidence-based approach. In: Redesigning pedagogy international conference, National institute of education, Singapore, May 31–June 2 2017Google Scholar
  49. Sale D (2015) Creative teaching: an evidence-based approach. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shank P, Sitze A (2004) Making sense of online learning. Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  51. Shea-Shultz H, Fogarty J (2002) Online Learning Today. Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  52. Strayer JF (2012) How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation innovation and task orientation. Learn Environ Res 15:171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stein J, Graham CR (2014) Essentials for blended learning a standards-based guide. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sylwester R (1995) A celebration of neurons: an educator's guide to the human brain. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  55. Treadwell M (2017) The future of learning. The Global Curriculum Project, Mount Maunganui, NZGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Vliet EA, Winnips JC, Brouwer N (2015) Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student meta-cognition and collaborative-learning strategies higher education but effect does not persist. Life Sci Educ 14:1–10Google Scholar
  57. Willingham DT (2009) Why don't students like school: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson S (2014) The flipped class: a method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teach Psychol 40(3):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winget L (2017) What's wrong with damn near everything!: how the collapse of core values is destroying us and how to fix it. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Zemsky P, Massey WF (2004) Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why. University of Pennsylvania, Learning Alliance ReportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Singapore PolytechnicSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations