MAPLET – A Framework for Matching Aims, Processes, Learner Expertise and Technologies

  • Maree GosperEmail author


With the increasing availability of sophisticated technologies for educational purposes, an ongoing challenge for academics is the choice of which technologies to use and how to effectively integrate them into the curriculum. Too often decisions are based on the available technologies or the latest innovation and the danger of this is that the technologies may not be effective in supporting student learning. After all, it is the activity fostered in learners, not the technology, that ultimately influences learning. This paper introduces the MAPLET Framework for guiding the integration of technologies into curriculum. At its core is a three-phased approach to the development of intellectual skills such as those required for solving problems. The framework provides a learner focused perspective that makes explicit the relationship between the learning processes underpinning the aims and outcomes of the curriculum, the expertise of learners, and the potential of technologies to support learning.


Technology Learning Expertise Curriculum design 


  1. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University.Google Scholar
  5. Boulos, M. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(4), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bower, M., Hedberg, J., & Kuswara, A. (2009). Conceptualising Web 2.0 enabled learning designs. In Same places, different spaces: Proceedings for ascilite Auckland 2009. Retrieved on November 5, 2010 from http:
  7. Burns, M. (2006). Educational Leadership December 2005-January 2006, 48–53.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, J., Gould, S., Jacobson, C., & Rich, D. C. (1999). Forests of Australia. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  9. de Jong, T. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
  10. Dee-Lucas, D. (1996). Effects of overview and structure on study strategies and text representations for instructional hypertext. In J. R. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 73–108.Google Scholar
  11. Dickey, M. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of active worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of E-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. C., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Computing Research, 12(3), 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, R. (1991). The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 1, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosper, M., Green, D., McNeill, M., Phillips, R. A., Preston, G., & Woo, K. (2008). Final report: The impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and future practices in learning and teaching. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved on November 5, 2010 from
  18. Gosper, M., Woo, K., Muir, H., Dudley, C., & Nakazawa, K. (2007). Selecting ICT based solutions for quality learning and sustainable practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 227–247.Google Scholar
  19. Hesketh, B. (1997). Dilemmas in training for transfer and retention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(4), 317–339.Google Scholar
  20. Horizon-08. (2008). The 2008 Horizon report . Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchison, D. (2007). Video games and the pedagogy of place. Social Studies, 98(1), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H. (2000a). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. H. (2000b). Computers as mindtools for schools (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An interactive/aptitude-treatment interaction to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khalifa, M., & Kwok, R. C.-W. (1999). Remote learning technologies: Effectiveness of hypertext and GSS. Decision Support Systems, 26(3), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour, 7, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving and cognition (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oblinger, D. (2006). Games and learning. Educause Quarterly, 29(3), 5–7.Google Scholar
  32. Paas, F. G., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweller, J. (1990). Cognitive processes and instructional procedures. Australian Journal of Education, 34(2), 125–130.Google Scholar
  35. Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Jelsma, O., & Paas, F. G. (1992). Training for reflective expertise: A four component instructional design model for complex cognitive skill. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning and Teaching Centre, Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations