Theoretical and Practical Aspects of "pure" Educational Technology Adapted to Support the Teacher's Activities

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 97 - 113

Stefan Svetsky , Oliver Moravcik

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.21.12.2

Abstract

The integration of educational technologies in education is frequently examined through case studies, often neglecting iterative and collaborative approaches such as participatory action research (PAR). This article presents an interdisciplinary pedagogical-informatics approach to designing personal educational software that supports and automates a wide range of teaching and research activities in real-world settings. By introducing the concept of virtual knowledge, the software works as a "cognitive translator", which enables teachers to manage their entire educational workflow—covering content creation, pedagogical tasks, file transfers, communication, and operations across networks, clouds, and institutional virtual learning environments. Unlike generic global technologies, which are often adapted for education but rely on vast, non-educational content and information, this technology is explicitly declared as "pure" educational technology. It is uniquely grounded in teachers' knowledge flows and is specifically designed to support pedagogical purposes and teaching activities. The article explores its pedagogical and technological benefits, demonstrating its practical applications in university teaching, including the development of innovative teaching methodologies and thematic educational materials. Finally, it discusses the CSU model of an endless knowledge-processing time loop for digitizing PAR, offering a theoretical framework developed through over 15 years of research.

Keywords

education technology, participatory action research, educational knowledge content, undergraduate teaching, blended learning, adaptive learning

References

• Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (Eds.) (2009). Technology-enhanced learning. Principles and products, XXVI, 326 p. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7
• Boros, J. (1976). Zaklady psychologie (Basics of psychology). SPN, Bratislava.
• Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Emerald Group Publishing – Education.
• Chun Lai, Qiu Wang and Xianhan Huang (2022). The differential interplay of TPACK, teacher beliefs, school culture and professional development with the nature of in-service EFL teachers' technology adoption. British Journal of Educational Technology. John Wiley and Sons.
• Dantas, L. A., & Cunha, A. (2020). An integrative debate on learning styles and the learning process. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100017
• Felder, R. M. (2002). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
• Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Gogus, A. (2012). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning objectives. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 469–473). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_141
• Goodman, S.P., et al. (2002). Technology-enhanced learning: Opportunities for change. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
• Herwiana, S., & Laili, E.N. (2022). Exploring benefits and obstacles of online learning during the COVID pandemic in EFL students' experiences. Qalamuna - Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan Agama, 14(1), 61–72.
• Hudecová, F. (2004). The revision of Bloom‘s taxonomy of educational objectives. Discussion (Revize Bloomovy taxonomie edukačních cílů. Diskuse). Pedagogika, ed. LIV, pp. 274-283.
• Joseph, J. (2012). The barriers of using education technology for optimizing the educational experience of learners. In 12th International Educational Technology Conference - IETC 2012. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 64, pp. 427–436.
• Kinchin, I. (2012). Avoiding technology-enhanced non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 43–48.
• Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2021). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media & Technology, 39(1), 6.
• Klaus, G. (1962). Kybernetik in philosophsher Sicht. Dietz Verlag, Berlin.
• Kolb, D. A. (2004). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press.
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: A comprehensive guide to the theory, psychometrics, research on validity, and educational applications. Philadelphia, PA: Hay Group.
• Kotek, Z., Vysoky, P., & Zdrahal, Z. (1990). Kybernetika (Cybernetics). SNTL, Praha.
• Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge.
• Lundie, D. (2016). Authority, autonomy and automation: The irreducibility of pedagogy to information transactions. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35(3), 279–291.
• Mark, G. (2015). Multitasking in the digital age. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(3), 1–113.
• Marosan, Z., Savic, N., Klasnja-Milicevic, A., Ivanovic, M., & Vesin, B. (2022). Students’ perceptions of ILS as a learning-style-identification tool in e-learning environments. Sustainability, 14(8), Article 4426. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084426
• Martens, A. (2014). Software engineering and modelling in TEL. In R. Huang & N.-S.C. Kinshuk (Eds.), The new development of technology enhanced learning: Concept, research and best practices, pp. 27–40. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38291-8_2
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
• Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 373–384.
• Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 31–43.
• Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching, 6th edn. Pearson.
• Saadé, R. G., Rezai, G., & Roschk, H. (2020). Automation of knowledge processing and learning. In M. Bruhn & K. Hadwich (Eds.), Automatisierung und Personalisierung von Dienstleistungen. Forum Dienstleistungsmanagement. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-30168-2_19
• Sancho-Gil, J., Rivera-Vargas, P., & Mino-Puigcercós, R. (2020). Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 61–75. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1666873
• Serfaty (2016). Hyperconnected brain overload (Hyperconnectés le cervau en surcharge). ARTE France, ZED Productions, INSERM, France.
• Stošić, L. (2015). The importance of educational technology in teaching. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 3(1), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-1-111-114
• Svetsky, S., Moravcik, O., Tanuska, P., Rehakova, A., & Ruskova, D. (2008). The implementation of technology enhanced learning at dislocated university workplace. In Proceedings of the ICETA 6th International Conference on Emerging e-Learning Technologies and Applications, Stará Lesná. Košice: Elfa.
• Svetsky, S., & Moravcik, O. (2014). The automation of teaching processes based on knowledge processing. Transactions on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, 2.
• Svetsky S., & Moravcik O. (2019). Some barriers regarding the sustainability of digital technology for longterm teaching. In K. Arai, R. Bhatia & S. Kapoor (Eds.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 880. Springer, Cham.
• Svetsky, S., & Moravcik, O. The utility model UV 8787 (2020). https://wbr.indprop.gov.sk/WebRegistre/UzitkovyVzor/Detail/75-2019
• Svetsky, S., & Moravcik, O. (2023). A universal IT support system for teachers for educational processes, publishing and academic research using all-in-one educational software. In K. Arai, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2022, Volume 3. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 561. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18344-7_48
• Underwood, J. (2004). Research into information and communications technologies: Where now? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(2).
• Walker, R., Voce, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Jenkins, M., & Vincent, P. (2016). Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK. UCISA TEL Survey Report 2016. University of Oxford.
• Weng, X., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). Instructional design and learning outcomes of intelligent computer-assisted language learning: A systematic review in the field. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100117
• Zhang, W., & Tang, J. (2021). Teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 367–380.