The Dialogue Between Emerging Pedagogies and Emerging Technologies

  • Begoña GrosEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


This chapter discusses the mutual influence of emerging technologies and emergent pedagogies. The potential of one specific technology or application has to be analysed in a particular scenario. We maintain that the dialogue between technology and pedagogy is absolutely necessary because there is a constant influence between them. The difference is that as technology becomes more invisible, pedagogy needs to make its practices visible offering practices that take into account the fundamental needs of modern society. This chapter is divided into three sections. Firstly, we will describe the main educational challenges of the networked knowledge society. Secondly, we will centre on the main directions and theories that support emergent pedagogies. Finally, we will conclude this chapter with an analysis of the implications and relationship between emerging pedagogies and emergent technologies.


Emerging pedagogies Emergent technologies Learning design Network learning theories 


  1. Abiko, T. (2011). A response from Japan to TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ala-Mutka, K., Redecker, C., Punie, Y., Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Centeno, C. (2010). The Future of Learning: European Teachers’ Visions. Report on a foresight consultation at the 2010 eTwinning Conference. Seville.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, T. (2010a). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Velesianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 23–40). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press/Athabasca University.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, T. (2010b). Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 23–39). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments-the future of eLearning? Elearning papers, 2(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  8. Beaty, L., Cousin, G., & Hodgson, V. (2010). Revisiting the e-quality in networked learning manifesto. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 585–592).Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(5), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canning, N. (2010). Playing with heutagogy: Exploring strategies to empower mature learners in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Canning, N., & Callan, S. (2010). Heutagogy: Spirals of reflection to empower learners in higher education. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carvalho, L. & Goodyear, P. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks.Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Chatti, M. A. (2013). The LaaN Theory. Personal learning environments, networks, and knowledge.|Mohamed_Chatti_LaaN_preprint.Pdf.
  14. Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Frosch-Wilke, D. (2007). The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge networking and social software. International journal of knowledge and learning, 3(4–5), 404–420.Google Scholar
  15. Chatti, M. A., Agustiawan, M. R., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010a). Toward a personal learning environment framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1(4), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Quix, C. (2010b). Connectivism: The network metaphor of learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(1), 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5), 2.Google Scholar
  18. Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Collective intelligence and elearning, 20, 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. Downes, S. (2010). New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  21. Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years? Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fullan, B. M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. Seattle, Washington: Collaborative Impact.Google Scholar
  24. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  26. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Gurung, B (2013). Emerging pedagogies in changing contexts: Pedagogies in networked knowledge society, New Mexico State University, 1(2), 105–124.Google Scholar
  28. Hase, S. (2009). Heutagogy and e-learning in the workplace: Some challenges and opportunities. Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 43–52.Google Scholar
  29. Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007a). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Education, 4(1), 111–119.Google Scholar
  30. Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007b). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111–118.Google Scholar
  31. Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBase. Retrieved December 28, 2005,
  32. James, M., & Pollard, A. (2008). Primary Review Research Survey: 2/4 Learning and teaching in primary schools: insights from TLRP. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. James, M., & Pollard, A. (2011). TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy: Rationale, development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 275–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (1997). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications (working paper). Retrieved from
  41. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mayes, T., Morrison, D., Mellar, H., Bullen, P. & Oliver, M. (2009). Transforming higher education through technology-enhanced learning.
  43. Mas, X. (2014). La integració dels usos de la tecnologia digital de les persones adultes. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  44. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ng’ambi, D. (2013). Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: Towards a transformative pedagogical model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redecker, A. C., Leis, M., & Leendertse, M. (2011). The future of learning: Preparing for change. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  47. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Gaved, M. (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar
  48. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., et al. (2012). Innovating pedagogy 2012: Open University innovation report 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar
  49. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  51. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Available at
  52. Sinay, E., & Yashkina, A. (2012). Technology and innovation in education: Towards a single vision and plan for the Toronto District School Board. Toronto.Google Scholar
  53. Stoyanov, S., Bert, H., & Paul, K. (2010). Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025. JRC Technical Note.Google Scholar
  54. Tan, S. C., Divaharan, S., Tan, L., & Cheah, H. M. (2011). Self-directed learning with ICT: Theory, practice and assessment. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  55. Taylor, R. P. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  56. Veletsianos, G. (2010). Emerging technologies in distance education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations