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