Purpose: In the educational field a lack of focus on the process of arriving at a level of profound understanding of a phenomenon can be observed. While classical approaches in education focus on “downloading,” repeating, or sometimes optimizing relatively stable chunks of knowledge (both facts and procedural knowledge), this paper proposes to shift the center of attention towards a more dynamic and constructivist perspective: learning as a process of individual and collective knowledge creation and knowledge construction. The goal of this process is to profoundly understand a phenomenon in its multi-dimensionality and complexity and to reflect on the processes that have lead to this understanding. The issue we want to tackle in this paper is how this profound understanding can be brought about in a technology-enhanced learning environment. Method: Part 1 of this paper explores strategies of technology-enhanced knowledge sharing/creation in the field of higher education. Part 2 presents a successful blended learning scenario that illustrates the implementation of these learning strategies in a concrete course design. In this case study students are involved in active theory construction processes by conducting virtual experiments with a virtual organism. Part 3 elaborates on the epistemological implications of this case study. Findings: A constructivist framework for modes of knowing and modes of coming to know is developed. It is shown that – in order to reach a profound understanding of a phenomenon – it is essential to take into account the multi-facetted character of knowledge and to use the strategy of double-loop learning. Conclusion: This leads to an understanding of learning/teaching as a process of socio-epistemological engineering. Furthermore, the role of the teacher changes in such a constructivist setting of learning/teaching: Their primary task is to provide a “pedagogically (and technologically) augmented environment.” They are responsible for creating an atmosphere of collective knowledge construction and reflection. Beyond the role of a coach and moderator the teacher has to act as a facilitator or “enabler” for the (individual and collective) processes of double-loop learning.

Key words: blended learning, collaborative co-construction, collective learning, double-loop learning, e-learning, individual learning, knowledge construction, knowledge creation, organizational learning, socio-epistemological engineering, university teaching

Context: Radical constructivism (RC) is seen as a fruitful way to teach innovation, as Ernst von Glasersfeld’s concepts of knowing, learning, and teaching provide an epistemological framework fostering processes of generating an autonomous conceptual understanding. Problem: Classical educational approaches do not meet the requirements for teaching and learning innovation because they mostly aim at students’ competent performance, not at students’ understanding and developing their creative capabilities. Method: Analysis of theoretical principles from the constructivist framework and how they can be used as a foundation for designing a course in the field of innovation. The empirical results are based on qualitative journal entries that were coded and categorized according to Charmaz’s grounded theory approach. Results: It is shown that there is a close relationship between learning and innovation processes. The proposed investigated course design based on RC incorporates the following concepts: the course setting is understood as a framework to guide understanding; students work in teams and are subjective constructors of their own knowledge; instructors take on the role of coaches, guiding students through an innovation process as co-creators. Such a framework facilitates dynamic processes of assimilation and accommodation, as well as perturbation through the “other,” which potentially lead to novel, and viable, conceptual structures crucial for sustainable innovation. Constructivist Content: The paper argues in favor of RC principles in the context of teaching and learning. The proposed course setting is oriented at von Glasersfeld’s understanding of knowing, learning, and teaching (vs. training. It outlines theoretical and practical aspects of these principles in the context of a course design for innovation. Furthermore, it shows the importance of von Glasersfeld’s concept of intersubjectivity for processes of accommodation and the generation of (novel) autonomous conceptual structures. The interplay between creating coherence, perturbation, and irritation through interacting with the “other” (in the form of co-students and instructors) is assumed to be vital for such processes, as it leads to the creation of not only novel but also viable conceptual structures, therefore re-establishing a relative equilibrium critical for sustainable innovation.

Key words: Innovation, teaching, learning, course design, co-creation, Enabling Space, radical constructivism.

The key elements of online course design and pedagogy suggested by research as promoting effective learning are discussed through the lens of constructivist epistemology. Presentation of content, instructor–student and student–student interactions, individual and group activities, and student assessment are each addressed, in turn. The focus is on learning and recognition that, from time-to-time, all students are teachers as they bring diverse expertise, experiences, and worldviews to the task of learning. Reflection on past experiences, interaction with other members of the learning community, immediate instructor behavior, authentic group activities, and diverse assessment tasks with timely and detailed feedback are underscored.

Key words: learning, constructivism, higher education, distance education, course design, pedagogy.

This paper overviews conversation theory, as developed over three decades by Pask, Scott and others, with particular emphasis on its application to the field of educational technology. Topics covered include models for learning and teaching, individual differences in approaches to learning, CASTE Course Assembly System and Tutorial Environment and associated principles for course design and tutorial strategies, knowledge and task analysis and knowledge representation for course design. The paper begins with a brief biographical note on the life and work of Gordon Pask and ends with some examples of current applications and some thoughts about the role of conversation theory in future developments in educational technology.

Key words: Conversation theory, Gordon Pask, holist, serialist, comprehension learning, operation learning, entailment structure, task structure, entailment mesh

Purpose: This paper aims to present an approach from first principles to the design of learning experiences in interactive learning environments, that is learning designs in the broadest sense. Design/methodology/approach – The approach is based on conversation theory CT, a theory of learning and teaching with principled foundations in cybernetics. The approach to learning design that is proposed is not dissimilar from other approaches such as that proposed by Rowntree. However, its basis in CT provides a coherent theoretical underpinning. Findings: Currently, in the world of e-learning, the terms instructional design and learning design are used to refer to the application of theories of learning and instruction to the creation of e-learning material and online learning experiences. The paper examines the roots of the two terms and discusses similarities and differences in usage. It then discusses how the processes of learning design fit into the larger processes of course, design, development and delivery. It goes on to examine the concept of a learning design pattern. Originality/value – The paper contends that, whilst learning design patterns are useful as starting-points for individual learning designs, learning designers should adopt the cybernetic principles of reflective practice – as expressed in CT – to create learning designs where received wisdom is enriched by contextual feedback from colleagues and learners.

Key words: Cybernetics, Learning, Design