Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Learning to teach: Aligning pedagogy and technology in a learning

design tool
Kristin Børte a, * , Sølvi Lillejord a, b
a
Centre for the Science of Learning and Technology (SLATE), University of Bergen, PO Box 7807, N-5020, Bergen, Norway
b
Department of Education, Oxford University, 15 Norham Gardens Oxford, OX2 6PY, Oxford, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article asks how pedagogy and technology should be aligned when developing a digital learning design tool.
Teacher education We find that to support student teachers’ active learning, the tool must foreground pedagogy. We analysed how
Lesson planning researchers, practitioners and software developers jointly developed a tool (ILUKS) that supports student
Student active learning
teachers’ lesson planning. The tool allows student teachers to collaboratively inquire into planning and
Design of digital tools
improving lessons during practicums. We document the interdisciplinary team’s work of co-creation, docu­
Technology-enhanced learning
Learning design tool mentation, feedback and improvement in the development process and conclude that digital tools intended to
support students’ inquiry-based and active learning must align pedagogical and technical knowledge.

1. Introduction finding raises concern, as lesson planning is a core task in teaching.

When teachers plan their lessons, they make various important decisions
Frequent calls have been made for increased student active learning that influence their teaching. Mutton, Hagger, and Burn (2011) argued
in schools and higher education institutions (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; that it “is through planning that teachers are able to learn about teaching
Lumpkin, Achen, & Dodd, 2015). Researchers have promoted student and through teaching that they are able to learn about planning” (p.
active learning as a preferred approach to traditional content-centred 399). Thus, planning lessons is a professional competence that student
lecturing approaches (Michael, 2006; Niemi, 2002). Along with teach­ teachers should develop during their education.
ers’ capabilities to activate students (Cavanaugh, 2001; Kennewell, Several digital learning and instructional design tools aim to support
Tanner, Jones, & Beauchamp, 2008; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2011; Tondeur, teachers’ lesson planning1 or course leaders’ development and admin­
Van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017), the interactive po­ istration of content. Persico and Pozzi (2015) distinguished between
tential of technology in education is advocated. Research, however, has these learning design tools: reflection tools and pedagogical planners,
revealed that teaching remains predominantly teacher-centred (Cuban, authoring and sharing tools, repositories, and delivery tools. While some
1982; Ertmer & Simons, 2005; Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Thacker, Lee, & tools are designed to create self-paced asynchronous courses (i.e.
Friedman, 2017), and the interactive potential of technology appears to Articulate Storyline 360 and Elucidat), others are large learning man­
be underutilized in both higher education (Børte, Nesje, & Lillejord, agement systems (i.e. Canvas, Blackboard and itslearning), some are
2023; Lillejord, Børte, Nesje, & Ruud, 2018; Sailer, Murböck, & Fischer, e-learning platforms (FutureLearn, Coursera and edX) and some are
2021; Walker, Jenkins, & Voce, 2018) and schools (Blikstad-Balas & tools for lesson planning, such as the learning designer (Laurillard,
Klette, 2020). When policy and practice expect technology-use to Kennedy, Charlton, Wild, & Dimakopoulos, 2018), OULDI (Cross,
innovate teaching and facilitate student active learning, student teach­ Galley, Brasher, & Weller, 2012), LAMAS (Dalziel, 2003), LdShake
ers must learn how to plan lessons in ways that include student activities (Hernández-Leo et al., 2011) and the University of Oxford learning
and technology-use. For instance, Nguyen and Bower (2018) found that design tool Phoebe, the pedagogical planner. These tools aim to support
student teachers rarely considered pedagogy and/or discussed their the process of planning and developing teaching content that can be
teaching beliefs when designing technology-enhanced learning. This shared and reused. However, most tools are developed for educators and

* Corresponding author. Centre for the Science of Learning and Technology (SLATE), University of Bergen, PO Box 7807, N-5020, Bergen, Norway.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Børte).
1
To avoid ambiguity, we use the term “lesson planning” about the activities of student teachers who use the ILUKS planner to plan their lessons. Learning design is
used about the outcome of the planning process (the result or the product).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104693
Received 1 November 2023; Received in revised form 24 April 2024; Accepted 16 June 2024
Available online 20 June 2024
0742-051X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

support online learning in higher and continuing education. Fewer tools, 2. Learning to plan lessons
if any, are developed to support student teachers’ process of learning
how to plan lessons and teach. Learning design research has provided Studies on how teachers learn to teach have found little coherence
pedagogical principles for how tools should be constructed to support between teacher education and what we know about how teachers learn,
design processes, suggested approaches to improve teachers’ planning, how knowledge and beliefs change over time, how novice teachers learn
allowed them to share resources and delivered teaching tasks or lesson to teach and how experienced teachers change their teaching practices
designs (Nguyen & Bower, 2018). However, more knowledge is needed (Borko & Putnam, 1996). Feiman-Nemser (1983) found tensions be­
about how to strengthen teachers’ current planning practices. This study tween teacher educators’ hopes and expectations and beginning teach­
contributes insights from the design process of a digital learning design ers’ expectations and experiences. In addition, many teacher education
tool collaboratively developed to support student teachers’ active programs fail to influence beginning teachers’ firmly held beliefs
learning processes when they plan lessons. (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), and researchers have argued for
Systematic reviews show the need to align digital technologies with more coherence in teacher education programs to strengthen teacher
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and/or teaching methods when they use learning (Grossman, Hammerness, McDonald, & Ronfeldt, 2008; Ham­
technology in teaching (Børte, Lillejord, Chan, Wasson, & Greiff, 2023; merness, 2013) and increased teacher professionalization (Lillejord,
Tondeur et al., 2017). If student teachers experience digital tools that 2023). Successful programs build upon preservice teachers’ beliefs and
incorporate principles of student active learning during pre-service feature systematic and consistent long-term support in a collaborative
training, they are better prepared to teach with technology. For digital setting. Teacher education programs can be strengthened by introducing
technology to support student active learning, technical solutions must digital tools that engage students’ situational interests and encourage
be aligned with educational principles and procedures for student ac­ them to act as knowledge producers (Lillejord & Dysthe, 2008; Rotgans
tivities, allowing communication, interactive engagement and collabo­ & Schmidt, 2011). In research on teacher education, it is argued that
ration. Simply knowing how to use tools and knowledge in a single active learning influences teachers’ professional competencies (Niemi,
domain is insufficient (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995; Pelánek, 2020). Nevgi, & Aksit, 2016; Niemi & Nevgi, 2014), and teachers and teacher
Practitioners must also know how to apply tools and knowledge in new education are considered key promoters of active learning (Niemi,
domains and in different situations. These issues are important for 2002). As teachers are responsible for student active learning, re­
teacher educators since student teachers are expected to use technology searchers have argued that teachers must themselves experience active
and student active teaching methods throughout their professional learning during their education (Canaleta, Vernet, Vicent, & Montero,
careers. 2014; Kimonen & Nevalainen, 2005; Niemi et al., 2016; Pyhältö, Pie­
We have studied collaborative processes within an interdisciplinary tarinen, & Soini, 2015). As role models, teacher educators at universities
team that developed a learning design tool and show how the alignment and in schools are well positioned to model technology-enhanced stu­
between pedagogy and technology was achieved in the work. We dent active learning in teacher education for student teachers with
analyse tensions in the collaborative process and identify key instances regards to technology use in teaching, pedagogical beliefs and instruc­
that must be aligned for teacher educators to use the tool to support tional methods and strategies (Bai & Ertmer, 2008; Uerz, Volman, &
student teachers’ active learning as they learn how to plan lessons and Kral, 2018).
teach. The study answers the following research question: How can one
achieve alignment between pedagogy and technology in the development of a 2.1. Technology-enhanced learning and teacher education
learning design tool?
We report on the first year of the ILUKS project, a design-based While the first use of technologies in education originated in
research project, spanning three years (2021–2024). An interdisci­ behaviourism and was based on principles of operant conditioning
plinary team designed a learning design tool called the ILUKS planner, (Skinner, 1958), new digital technologies allow for in situ socially
and a core ambition in the design process was to align the educational augmented learning and participation in virtual worlds and multiplayer
purpose (student active learning) and technology. Technological solu­ online games in which participants engage in collaborative activities
tions should be flexible, allowing students to rethink and change their (Selwyn, 2017) that provide teachers with a range of possibilities. Re­
lesson plans, share plans with other students and give and receive searchers argue for the educational benefits of digital technology, its
feedback. Providing student teachers and teacher educators with a interactive potential and possibilities to facilitate student activity, such
flexible digital tool designed for learning how to plan lessons facilitates as augmented reality (Blanco-Fernández et al., 2014; Wang, 2017b),
flexible planning processes and promotes increased student active serious games (Lameras et al., 2017) and interactive response systems
learning in teacher education, as it opens for feedback in the learning (Wang, 2017a). However, a systematic review of learning and teaching
process. with technology in higher education revealed that the interactive po­
In this article, we report on the collaboration between researchers, tential of technology is underutilized (Lillejord et al., 2018). Instead of
one teacher educator and software developers in the process of using technology to innovate teaching and support student active
designing the tool. We have analysed data gathered during the first year learning, teachers adapt it to their existing teacher-centred practice.
of the interdisciplinary design-based research project ILUKS. We Researchers also find that in schools, technology is used to present and
describe the process of aligning pedagogy and technology and provide show content in different ways instead of supporting students’ activities
insights into what must be aligned and how to achieve alignment be­ (Blikstad-Balas & Klette, 2020; Islam & Grönlund, 2016).
tween student active learning and digital technology. We also identify In a literature review on teacher educators’ competencies in pre­
barriers that must be overcome to ensure productive collaboration and paring students to teach with technology Uerz et al. (2018) identified
argue for the centrality of pedagogy in the development of digital tools these needs: 1) technical competence (i.e. the general ability to use
for teaching and learning. technology), 2) competence for pedagogical and educational uses of
In the following section, the study is situated within current research technology, 3) beliefs about teaching and learning and 4) competences
and debates on technology-enhanced learning and the use of digital for innovation and professional learning (i.e. to adjust or change
tools in teacher education (Section 2.1). The study is anchored in a so­ instructional practice). They argued that teacher educators must be
ciocultural perspective that emphasizes what is needed to facilitate proficient in the use of educational technology and understand how
students’ active learning processes (Section 2.2). We then outline the technological solutions can be aligned with instructional methods to
educational purpose of the learning design tool and how digital tech­ achieve specific teaching and learning goals (Uerz et al., 2018). De­
nology can support student teachers’ lesson planning (Section 2.3). velopers of digital tools should therefore consider whether and how the
design of a tool is aligned with specific educational purposes and

2
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

encourages student active learning. technology in their classroom” (Baran et al., 2019, p. 368). Additionally,
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning influence their tech­ Andreasen et al. (2022) stressed the importance of strong connections
nology use. Tondeur et al. (2017, p. 569) argued that teachers find value between teacher education and field experiences in the development of
in using technology when it aligns with their current pedagogical beliefs student teachers’ professional digital competence.
and that specific pedagogical beliefs (e.g. teacher-centred or Teacher educators have been labelled second-order teachers (Murray
student-centred) are associated with specific types of technology use. & Male, 2005), as they educate student teachers who will be first-order
When Shelton (2017) explored how university lecturers used technology teachers, working with pupils in the classroom. They serve as role
in teaching and why they stopped using it, he found that the replacement models when their students choose instructional strategies (Bai &
of old technologies with new ones was not always seen as an improve­ Ertmer, 2008; Tondeur et al., 2012; Uerz et al., 2018). Teacher educa­
ment. If new technology did not align with pedagogical practice, lec­ tors’ use of technology in teaching can be more challenging than that of
turers were less likely to use it. Other reasons to stop using technology schoolteachers because they must justify the use and substantiate
and revert to traditional teacher-centred teaching methods were bad pedagogical choices (Uerz et al., 2018). This strengthens our argument
experiences, such as technical failure or little student engagement. for the need to align pedagogy and technology in digital tools when
However, when technology is integral to course design, teachers are less student teachers learn to teach.
likely to stop using it (Barak, 2017). As teacher education must address Digital tools that are aligned with pedagogy and intended to support
both technical skills and incorporate meaningful uses of technology student active learning allow teacher educators to model interactive use
(Andreasen, Tømte, Bergan, & Kovac, 2022), some of the reasons why of teaching and technology for their students. A recent systematic review
teachers stop using technology could be counteracted if digital tools are on technology use and formative assessment emphasized these key traits
aligned with pedagogy. for technology to fulfil its intended purpose: 1) the involvement of users
The implications of this research are that teacher education pro­ in the design and development process, 2) alignment between digital
grams should prepare student teachers for technology-rich classrooms tools and pedagogical practice and 3) the pedagogical process is more
and teach them how they can use technology interactively to support important than technology (Børte, Lillejord, et al., 2023). The review
student active learning. Several models or frameworks for preparing argues for placing pedagogy at the forefront of technology development
student teachers to integrate technology into teaching have been to better ensure alignment between tool and practice and to close the
developed. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) gap between intended and actual technology use. Similar arguments are
framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) describes different types of used by Adams and Clough (2015), Zhan and So (2017) and Admiraal,
knowledge teachers need to successfully integrate technology into Vermeulen, and Bulterman-Bos (2020), who have documented how
teaching. It has been used to guide the design of teacher education alignment between digital tools and educational practice can be ach­
programs, with various strategies for preparing student teachers with ieved by acknowledging teachers’ professional knowledge and inviting
the necessary knowledge and skills (Baran, Bilici, Sari, & Tondeur, teachers and students as co-creators to test the digital tools and suggest
2019). Tondeur et al. (2012) reviewed qualitative studies on strategies improvements. As most studies do not document how alignment is
to prepare student teachers to integrate technology into their teaching achieved in the design process, this study details the alignment proc­
practice and developed a model that included 12 themes for pre-service ess—when alignment begins, which instances must be aligned and how
teachers’ technology training. Seven themes were at the micro level and alignment is achieved.
specifically related to preparing student teachers to teach with tech­ Below, we describe how the idea of student active learning draws on
nology: (1) aligning theory and practice so that student teachers un­ a sociocultural perspective that emphasizes participatory practice and
derstand the reason behind technology use, (2) using teacher educators knowledge creation in learning processes. Along with research on stu­
as role models, (3) reflecting on the role of technology in education, (4) dent active learning, this constitutes the core idea behind the develop­
learning how to use technology by planning and designing such learning ment of the ILUKS planner and is reified in the tool.
activities, (5) collaborating with peers, (6) scaffolding authentic tech­
nology experiences and (7) providing continuous feedback (Tondeur 2.2. Sociocultural perspective, student active learning and productive
et al., 2012, pp. 138–139). learning processes
However, research has shown that newly qualified teachers lack
digital competence and do not know how to integrate technology into While all learning theories assume that people can obtain knowl­
teaching and benefit from its interactive potential (Gudmundsdottir & edge, they differ in views of what knowledge is, where it resides and how
Hatlevik, 2018; Tondeur, Aesaert, Prestridge, & Consuegra, 2018; Uerz we get knowledge (Lillejord & Dysthe, 2008). According to Wertsch
et al., 2018). Amhag, Hellström, and Stigmar (2019) investigated (1995), cultural-historical, sociohistorical and situated theories can all
teacher educators’ use of digital tools to support students’ learning at fit under the label sociocultural. The understanding of learning as a
two Swedish universities. They found that frequently used digital ser­ participatory social practice where activities support and promote
vices and programs were digital student platforms, learning manage­ learning distinguishes sociocultural theories from behavioural theories,
ment systems (itslearning), digital communication tools and e-meeting where learning is perceived as behavioural change resulting from
tools. The study revealed that while teacher educators used various external stimuli. Sociocultural theory is based on three foundational
digital tools for teaching, meetings, communication, daily administra­ assumptions (Lillejord, 2022): First, that people learn from participating
tion and research, they primarily used digital tools to relocate teaching in knowledge development processes because we learn more by doing
from a physical learning environment to a digital classroom. In teachers’ things ourselves, as observed by Dewey (1916), than when we are being
training, Tømte (2015) identified a slow uptake of technology and told how to do things; second, that people actively co-construct knowl­
limited understanding among student teachers of how to incorporate edge in a social setting and third, that knowledge production is a
digital tools in their teaching practice, even after being taught by teacher continuously developing and changing process. Our current knowledge
educators who used technology in innovative and pedagogical ways. has a historical character (Säljö, 2006), as it builds on knowledge
Baran et al. (2019) investigated how student teachers perceived the developed by previous generations. When developing new knowledge,
support their teacher education program provided for developing we typically adjust or reject previous assumptions. Sociocultural re­
technological pedagogical content knowledge and found that feedback searchers focus on the learner and the context of teaching and learning
and instructional design strategies received low scores. They argued that (Wertsch, 1998). They assume that we learn through linguistic, social
providing student teachers with “opportunities to design lessons with and cultural collaboration and that learning happens when people
ICT, both in teacher education courses and field experiences, would help jointly develop knowledge, for instance, through problem-solving. From
them develop their practical knowledge about the effective use of a sociocultural perspective, learning is perceived as an interplay

3
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

between individual, social and cultural activities integrated into our transforming teaching practice). As individual teacher-centred concep­
practices. tions of teaching are strong, both teachers and student teachers need a
When students are being taught, they not only learn the topic taught varied repertoire of pedagogical approaches when teaching with tech­
but also the entire teaching context (Lave & Wenger, 1991): institutional nology (Børte, Nesje, & Lillejord, 2023).
procedures and principles and the societal, cultural understanding of Student active learning can be described in many ways and there is
how we learn. This context, combined with how teachers plan their no universally accepted definition (Prince, 2004). According to Børte,
teaching, affects each student’s experience of learning, mastery, moti­ Nesje, and Lillejord (2023), the term’s basic meaning is “that teaching
vation to complete the task and the desire to learn more (Roth, 2008). staff should use teaching practices that actively engage students”
Sociocultural theories (Wertsch, 1995, 1998) and pragmatist phi­ (p.601). To illustrate what this means they list concepts frequently used
losophy (Bacon, 2012) were developed in the late 1800s and early in research, such as communicate, co-construct, experiment, investigate,
1900s. From different backgrounds, Lev S. Vygotsky and John Dewey interact, produce and participate. Across different active learning peda­
promoted the centrality of active inquiry for learning. Glassman (2001) gogies identified by Cattaneo (2017), a common denominator was to
argued that Dewey and Vygotsky, while “close in spirit” (p. 3), differed perceive students as knowledge producers. To produce new knowledge,
in how they positioned teachers in relation to students’ learning. For students must learn how to solve problems and build on what they
Dewey, the child was a free agent who achieved goals through own already know. Lillejord and Dysthe (2008) argued that students must
interest in the activity. Vygotsky, on the other hand, suggested a process both learn how to participate in productive learning processes and
with a mentor who creates activities that will gradually lead the child produce knowledge products. They need evaluative skills and a critical
towards mastery. These differences can explain why active learning is orientation (Niemi, 2002). In the ILUKS project reported here, student
used with reference to both student-centred and activating instructional active learning refers to instructional practices in which students act as
methods and instructor-led activities, relating the concept primarily to knowledge producers (Cattaneo, 2017; Lee, Morrone, & Siering, 2018;
instruction, not to learning (Hartikainen, Rintala, Pylväs, & Nokelainen, Lillejord & Dysthe, 2008; Niemi, 2002).
2019). Lillejord and Dysthe (2008) argued that educational activities, such
Having studied available material on teachers’ teaching over almost as teaching, can be productive, reproductive, unproductive and coun­
a century, Cuban (1993) concluded that teacher-centred teaching terproductive. In a critique of US educational policy, Sarason (2004)
dominated student-centred learning. Table 1 shows how he described claimed that behaviourist learning theories and the test culture’s narrow
the two (Cuban, 1983, p. 160). conception of learning contributed to unproductive learning environ­
Educating the teaching profession entails a continuous strengthening ments. In contrast, contexts of productive learning fostered students’
of teachers’ knowledge and professional competence (Lillejord, 2023). curiosity, built on their interests and encouraged them to learn from and
As policies and research recommend student active learning in educa­ with each other, not depending solely on the teacher. Engeström (1987)
tion, student teachers must learn how to facilitate student activities in labelled reproductive learning practices that emphasize present learning
their teaching. There are, however, barriers to student active learning. tasks an ‘essentially reactive activity’. Worst case scenarios of counter­
According to Niemi (2002), only a few pioneer teacher educators productive educational practices are that already marginalized students
implemented active learning because they found these methods chal­ learn that they cannot learn.
lenging, as they required more from them than traditional teaching.
Interestingly, student teachers complained about not having been taught 2.3. A digital tool that supports student teachers’ lesson planning
through active learning methods. The principles of active learning were
described but not practiced. This is not unique to teacher education. For Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006) found that in good teacher
decades, researchers have reported multifaceted institutional barriers to education programs, student teachers’ work is inquiry-based and they
student active teaching and learning related to leadership, organization, develop professional discretion. Successful teacher education programs
competency needs and technological issues (Børte, Nesje, & Lillejord, are also found to provide opportunities for students to construct
2023; Ito & Takeuchi, 2021; McCorkle, 2021; Michael, 2007). The most knowledge as active learners (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Niemi et al.,
prominent barriers, however, concern teachers’ lack of pedagogical 2016), where teachers and student teachers collaboratively investigate
methods and approaches (i.e. how technology can contribute to and document their practices. Niemi (2002) identified a lack of
meta-knowledge about teaching and learning at all levels of the
educational system. Asking how teacher education programs can sup­
Table 1
port the development of a knowledge-producing teaching profession,
Teacher-centred and student-centred learning, according to Cuban (1983, p.
Lillejord (2023) argued that mentors and student teachers should
160).
participate in professional learning communities in which they jointly
Teacher-centred Student-centred develop a meta-perspective of their own teaching practice.
• far more teacher talk than student talk • student talk on learning tasks is at least Lesson planning is a core task in teaching and a key competence for
during instruction equal to, if not more than, teacher talk student teachers. When planning lessons, teachers make a range of de­
• most teacher questions call for • students ask questions as much as, if
cisions that influence their teaching (John, 2006; Mutton et al., 2011).
reciting factual information not more than, the teacher
• most instruction occurs with whole • most instruction occurs either König, Bremerich-Vos, Buchholtz, Fladung, and Glutsch (2020) argued
group rather than in small groups or individually, in small or moderately that there is little empirical research on how student teachers learn to
with individuals sized groups, rather than the whole plan lessons. There are, however, several theories and practical guide­
• use of class time is determined by the class lines on lesson planning for pre-service teachers (i.e. John, 2006; Tyler,
teacher • students help choose and organize the
• teachers often rely upon textbooks content to be learned
2013). In Norwegian teacher education programs, student teachers are
with lesser use of films, tapes, records, • teacher permits students to determine, often equipped with a table with columns where they are encouraged to
television or other technology partially or wholly, rules of behaviour reflect on and respond to ‘what, how and why’ when they plan their
• tests usually concentrate on factual • varied instructional materials are lessons during practicum. In the table, students are expected to describe
recall of information available in the classroom
what they plan to teach, how they plan to teach and why they have
• the classroom is usually arranged into • use of these materials is either
rows of desks or chairs facing a scheduled by the teacher or decided on this approach to teaching. Such approaches risk reducing
blackboard with a teacher’s desk determined by students teaching to mere technicalities.
nearby • classroom is usually arranged in a Different research strands, such as instructional design and learning
manner that permits students to work design (Persico & Pozzi, 2015), aim to more efficiently and systemati­
together
cally support teachers’ lesson planning. Instructional design refers to

4
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

“the reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruc­ learning. The project’s main goal is to develop a digital learning design
tion into plans for instructional materials, activities, information re­ tool that contributes to more student active learning in teacher educa­
sources, and evaluation” (Smith & Ragan, 1999, p. 2). The field of tion and supports student teachers’ active learning processes when they
learning design emerges from educational technology research and has learn how to plan lessons and teach.
gained a foothold in Europe (Bennett, Agostinho, & Lockyer, 2015; The ILUKS project adheres to the principles of DBR developed by
Wasson & Kirschner, 2020). Learning design emphasizes learning as a Anderson and Shattuck (2012). This study reports on the development
goal more than the instructional approaches to get there and concerns process of the tool and uses a qualitative approach to explicate the
both the design of the learning experience and the learning environment collaborative work of aligning pedagogy and technology.
(Wasson & Kirschner, 2020). The emphasis is on technology-based tools
and technical specifications to support the design process and facilitate 3.2. Empirical context and participants
“practitioners in the sharing, modification, and reuse of their pedagog­
ical plans” (Persico & Pozzi, 2015, p. 234). Three strands of research are The study was approved by the National Centre for Research Data
related to learning design: 1) the way pedagogical plans and learning and followed the EU’s general data protection regulations. All partici­
design can be represented (Zalavra, Papanikolaou, Dimitriadis, & pants were informed about the study and the video recordings and gave
Sgouropoulou, 2023), 2) the development of approaches to support the their consent to participate in the research. They also read through the
sharing, reuse and enactment of designs and 3) the development of tools data presentations and gave their permission for use in this article.
(Persico & Pozzi, 2015, p. 234). Our study is about the development of The interdisciplinary team designing and developing the tool
tools—the third strand. comprised 2–3 educational researchers, one teacher educator, and two
The digital learning design tool, the ILUKS planner, is not a con­ software developers. Each team member brought different kinds of
ventional learning design tool developed for sharing and reusing de­ expertise to the collaboration. Educational researchers and the teacher
signs, such as the learning designer (Laurillard et al., 2018), but educator specialize in teaching, learning and pedagogy. The software
designed to support student teachers’ learning processes. The ILUKS developers specialize in software development, technical solutions and
planner provides student teachers with a framework for planning lessons knowledge and skills of how to solve development tasks by capitalizing
including key components to consider in their planning, such as learning on existing solutions. The point of departure for conducting design work
goals, content, activities, assessment, learning resources and student differs among the team members, as they bring different perspectives to
prerequisites. The key to supporting students’ learning processes is the the work. Throughout the design and development process, this has
possibility for university lecturers and mentors in school to provide influenced discussions, deliberations, collaboration, decisions and so­
feedback on each student’s lesson plans. Supporting student teachers lutions. The work was organized in regular team meetings starting in
with digital tools that allow them to plan lessons in a flexible and dy­ January 2021 and continuing until the end of December 2021. Most of
namic way, receive feedback in the process and the possibility to the meetings were online and supported by the digital platform Zoom;
document lesson plans that can be further developed and improved there were three physical meetings for lengthy discussions.
supports students’ inquiry-based active learning process and provides a Fig. 1 illustrates the iterative tool development process with cycles of
meta perspective on their own teaching practice. Anchored in these development, testing and improvements. The educational researchers, a
research findings, the ILUKS planner is based on a sociocultural learning teacher educator, and software developers collaboratively developed
perspective (van Schaik, Volman, Admiraal, & Schenke, 2019; Vygotsky, and tested Prototypes 1 and 2, before Prototype 2 was tested and eval­
1978) and developed to support student teachers who learn how to plan uated in practice by teachers, student teachers and teacher educators. A
lessons and use student active approaches in the process. As pedagogical sociocultural perspective of learning (Section 2.2) informed the design
issues are among the fundamental inhibitors to student active learning process, along with research on barriers to student active learning
(Børte, Nesje, & Lillejord, 2023), technical solutions must be aligned (Børte, Nesje, & Lillejord, 2023). The combination of these perspectives
with requirements for student active learning and provide possibilities raised the team’s awareness of when and how challenges occurred and
for communication, interactive engagement and collaboration. should be solved to achieve alignment between the educational purpose
With this background, the development of the ILUKS planner took (student active learning) and the technological solutions of the learning
into consideration that for student active learning to happen, students design tool. In the process of improving the learning design tool, the
need a problem to investigate (in this case, how to develop a lesson team continuously considered feedback from testing and evaluation in
plan), tools to support their work and feedback from other students and practice, documented every step of the work and continuously collected
teacher educators during the process. data.

3. Methodology 3.2.1. The ILUKS planner – a digital tool for student teachers’ lesson
planning
This section provides information about the empirical setting and As student teachers primarily related to word documents expecting
method, the study context and participants and the idea behind devel­ them to report on why, what and how to teach, the core idea behind the
oping a learning design tool for student teachers’ lesson planning before ILUKS planner was that student teachers need a flexible digital learning
presenting the data collection and analytical strategy. design tool with a framework for lesson planning with integrated
generic key components, such as learning goals, content, activities,
3.1. Background context learning resources, student prerequisites and assessment, adapted to the
teaching of various subjects and purposes. Flexibility was important, as
The present study is part of a larger design-based research project the design should support active learning and foster student creativity
(DBR) (Brown, 1992) ILUKS,2 financed by the Norwegian Directorate for and professional learning. Therefore, the tool should allow students to
Higher Education and Skills. The ILUKS project aims to support and start planning a lesson with any component in any order they prefer,
strengthen student teachers’ competence in planning, developing and change the order of components and compose a complete learning
improving lessons. We understand lesson planning and teaching as design with as many components as they want or need. As the intention
creative, analytical and iterative processes of continuous professional is to support students’ active learning when they learn how to plan
lessons and teach, the ILUKS planner has no mandatory fields or
guidelines/learning goals from the national curriculum. Instead, it al­
2
- Innovative student teachers: Learning designs for student active teaching. First lows for conceptual approaches to plan a lesson, reflecting students’
author is the project leader. knowledge levels and the subject being taught. The tool does not

5
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Fig. 1. The iterative tool development process with cycles of development, testing and improvements.

indicate that there is an authoritative “correct” approach to lesson their lesson plans. In addition, data were collected on how pre-service
planning. It opens up creative processes with trial and error, where teachers interact with mentors and university supervisors in the pro­
students can collaborate and get feedback from the university supervisor cess of improving their learning designs. In this way, learning analytics3
and/or school mentor. Because each student’s lesson plan is stored in the can be used to identify pre-service teachers’ planning patterns and to
system, they can easily assess how each design functions and make inform teacher educators of students’ planning processes.
improvements when needed.
Fig. 2 shows the user interface in the ILUKS planner, with columns 3.2.2. Data collection, selection and analytical approach
and cards containing in-depth descriptions of, for instance, activities or To document the design and development process, qualitative data
content for the planned lesson. The cards can be dragged and dropped were collected through 1) video recordings of 13 digital team meetings
into the first column to compose a complete learning design in any between January 2021 and December 2021, 2) field notes from three
preferred order. The intention was to integrate the use of the tool into a physical team meetings, 3) project activities on a digital collaborative
course module related to the students’ practicum, where teacher edu­ platform and 4) artefacts used in the work, such as lesson plans, tem­
cators used technology to support student active learning in students’ plates, diagrams and use cases.4 Taken together, the data sources pro­
lesson planning. Because formative feedback from teacher educators and vide opportunities to explore multiple perspectives on the complex
school mentors is considered an important part of student teachers’ development process. As our goal was to explain how alignment be­
learning processes, it was important to integrate functionality that tween pedagogy and technology is achieved and which instances must
supported the sharing of learning designs and allowed feedback in the be aligned in the design phase of developing a learning design tool, this
process (Cañadas, 2021). These design features allowed student teachers article presents analyses of the video recordings from 13 digital team
to plan lessons in a flexible and dynamic way by constructing and meetings and field notes from three physical meetings.
co-constructing knowledge in collaboration with teacher educators, The video recordings of the team meetings were the first step in the
peers or school mentors during practicum. The ILUKS learning design analysis. They served as an ethnographic frame, providing an overview
tool has been piloted in teacher education programs at two Norwegian of the material and the context of the team’s design work. The video
universities. This paper reports on the design phase of the tool (i.e. the recordings were viewed multiple times, and critical incidents and po­
development and testing of Prototypes 1 and 2, as shown in Fig. 1). The tential tensions in the collaboration related to alignment challenges
results from the evaluation phase are reported in a separate paper. were identified and discussed. The next step was to understand how
A core idea in the development was that the tool should allow flex­ team members reasoned. At this stage, we repeatedly studied incidents
ibility and knowledge creation and avoid ‘click, collect and compose’ or episodes. An episode or incident is understood as a sequence of talk
with predefined content to choose from. This distinguishes the ILUKS with a beginning and an end, often related to a problem or a particular
planner from, for instance, repository tools that provide teachers with topic or issue (Linell, 1998). We then selected a few incidents that
examples of design ideas and best practices (Persico & Pozzi, 2015). The demonstrated typical tensions in the work. From these, we developed
intention behind aligning student active learning (the pedagogical detailed transcripts of the verbal communication of the selected in­
purpose) with the digital tool (technology) during the design process cidents in addition to notes on actions (i.e. sharing the screen in a Zoom
was to create a tool that genuinely supported students’ active learning meeting). Some of the data excerpts were condensed, meaning that a
processes and allowed teacher educators to use technology pedagogi­ timed part of the interaction was not included. This is illustrated by [ …
cally in their teaching. In addition to supporting student active learning, .] in the transcript. Together with the video recordings and field notes,
the team also wanted a tool that collected activity data from its users so
that the data could be used to inform teacher educators about student
teachers’ planning processes. The tool was therefore designed to collect
3
activity data on how and when pre-service teachers create and update Learning analytics is defined as the measurement, collection, analysis and
reporting of data about learners and their contexts for purposes of under­
standing and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs. htt
ps://www.solaresearch.org/about/what-is-learning-analytics/.
4
Use cases is a way of articulating interactions between the system and the
entities external to the system (i.e. users, other computer systems or external
events). Kulak, D., & Guiney, E. (2012). Use cases: requirements in context.
Addison-Wesley.

6
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Fig. 2. Screenshot of the interface in the ILUKS learning design tool.

these transcripts provided the basis for the analytical work and allowed tool can support the interaction between student teachers and teachers. To
for an in-depth analysis of the work sequences. Principles of interaction what extent does it [digital tool] need to support the collaboration that pri­
analysis were used in the analysis (Derry et al., 2010; Jordan & Hen­ marily will take place physically at the university? (ER1 in writing).
derson, 1995). As technology-enhanced student active learning is at the core of
The analysis was a joint effort, with special attention to reflexivity design and development work, the questions raised by ER1 disclosed a
(Brinkmann & Kvale, 2018; Silverman, 2011). To analyse incidents and need to better align the teacher educator’s and the educational re­
sequences of talk, we approached the material with the following searcher’s understanding of educational knowledge, as different peda­
analytical concepts developed by Lillejord and Dysthe (2008): productive gogical beliefs can result in different uses of technology. This caused
tensions (when collaboration brought the work further), reproductive several reproductive tensions as the team had to start over again,
tensions (when collaboration repeated work already done without rephrase and reexplain to reach a joint understanding of the tool’s
creating something new), unproductive tensions (collaboration with no educational purpose. Then, the researchers had to explain the educa­
outcome) and counterproductive tensions (collaboration with potentially tional purpose to the software developers, who translated it into a
negative outcome). These analytical categories allowed us to identify technical solution. This lengthy iterative process continued throughout
tensions and challenges in the work process and disclose what must be the design process and raised our awareness of alignment as a contin­
aligned, how to achieve alignment and what stimulates or hinders uous process.
collaboration. In the following sections, we present three excerpts from Phases 4
and 5 (ref. Fig. 3) to illustrate the main tensions that occurred related to
4. Results 1) how to identify the alignment challenge, 2) how to address the
problem across disciplines and 3) how to achieve alignment between
This section presents results from the analysis of the team’s work and technology and student active learning.
shows key tensions in the process of aligning technological development
with the educational purpose of student active learning. Five main
phases during the first year of design and development were identified in 4.1. Encountering, discussing and solving problems
the team’s collaborative work: 1) achieving a shared understanding of
the project, 2) introducing tools for collaboration in the design phase, 3) In the fourth phase, team members shared experiences from testing
conducting design specifications and developing the prototype, 4) the first prototype of the ILUKS planner, where alignment between the
sharing experiences from testing the prototype and 5) concluding on a pedagogical purpose and the technical solution was not achieved. In a
technical solution for the learning design tool. Fig. 3 shows a timeline of team meeting in late August 2021, the software developers presented
the work documented in the video recordings and field notes throughout Prototype 1. During the presentation, software developer 1 (SD1)
the year (2021) and the key tensions related to the alignment challenges commented that they encountered restrictions due to the chosen
identified in each work phase. technology:
Tensions during the first six months of the collaboration were related “Maybe … we need to think differently. Because, when I implemented
to reaching a shared understanding and aligning different kinds of these forms, I noticed some restrictions from the media wiki, and I started
professional knowledge. The first tension occurred between the educa­ thinking [that] it’s not [a] very good idea to use these tools.” (SD1 August
tional researchers and the teacher educator when the project leader 27, 2021).
asked them to write down their interpretation of the goal and aim of the When SD1 reported this problem, the educational researcher and
project. Different conceptions of teaching and learning were articulated, teacher educator tested the prototype and found that the chosen tech­
elaborated and rephrased several times. For instance, one of the nology did not align with the educational purpose. To understand the
educational researchers (ER1) expressed concern about how the problem, more work was needed. The researchers adopted a user
learning design tool can support interactions between student teachers perspective and experienced restrictions firsthand, which turned out to
and teachers: be a vital part of the alignment processes. This test reiterated testing that
I’m concerned about how the communication platform/learning design had already been conducted by the software developers. Thus, the team
experienced a reproductive tension in the collaboration.

7
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Fig. 3. Timeline of work phases and key tensions.

Excerpt 15 shows team deliberations about Prototype 1 and how the the team to agree on the problem. The researchers tested a prototype in
problem was identified and acknowledged by the team members. The which the educational purpose was interpreted and operationalized by
excerpt captures the dialogue between the software developers (SD1 and the software developers. In this first prototype, the student teachers’
SD2), the teacher educator (TE) and the educational researcher (ERPL), support of learning to plan teaching lessons did not align with the re­
who is the project leader. This team meeting took place one month after searchers’ educational purpose of the learning design tool.
the first presentation of the prototype and the initial problem detection. The software developers had already identified problems with the
prototype and indicated that this was not the ideal solution the re­
Excerpt 1 searchers had hoped for (ref. August meeting). The problem was now
Prototype 1 – Problem detection and problem acknowledgement – team meeting narrowed down, and they articulated what they perceived as the main
September 29, 2021 issue, namely the design of the user interface. The software developers’
interpretation of the educational purpose was related to how users (e.g.
00:00:11 SD1: I agree that it’s a good idea if we concentrate on [the] design of user student teachers) interact with the learning design tool rather than the
interfaces. Because it may [have been] my mistake that we first … I selected a tool,
tool’s technical functionality. To ensure progress, the software de­
Semantic Media Wiki and tried to use the possibility of Media Wiki to create user
interface. If you remember our last meeting, we talked about this interface. It’s not velopers proposed a new approach to interaction, thereby taking the
very impressive, quite boring. And I’ve agreed with SD2 that it’s a good idea if we lead in problem-solving.
concentrate on user interface, and not care about how we store the data, which The researchers agreed that the testing of the prototype raised their
databases, or tools, are behind this user interface. Because I think it’s [the] main
awareness of why and how it was not aligned with the intended
problem right now - not database, not engine, not scripts, but user interface. As I can
see, SD2 is online. Maybe I’ll just ask him if he can comment on how we can make
educational purpose. They therefore stressed that the design of the
progress. learning tool should meet two purposes: 1) to support a student’s
00:02:18 SD2: It seems like we’ll be making the best progress by making learning process with feedback and 2) to support the creation of a
suggestions, and see if you like them, instead of focusing on, like SD1 said, some product: the learning design.
decisions are less important right now, and it’s more important that you’re happy
This productive tension mediated by the discussions over the proto­
with the interactions we are designing, rather than things you don’t immediately
see. Did you want to talk about the idea SD1, or? type allowed the team to formulate, acknowledge and align individual
00:03:07 SD1: Not yet. (Goes on to elaborate the possibilities of using a different understandings of the problem. This paved the way for designing a new
technical solution for the tool, as this change would provide more options for the tool’s technical solution with the goal of aligning technology with student
interface). […]
active learning. Interestingly, the reproductive tensions that occurred in
00:09:32 ERPL: Yeah, [this] resonates with me and TE. Yesterday we created three
different types of learning designs in the wiki. We went through the form to see how
the August meeting proved to be a necessary step towards the productive
we wanted this to look in the end and we wanted to split it up. And it seems to fit tensions experienced in the September meeting. The team realized that
very well with the cards you mention. (Shares screen in Zoom and shows the learning the process of reaching a shared understanding across professions is both
design created, an illustration of the educational purpose and suggestions for how to better crucial and time-consuming.
align pedagogy and technology) [ …. ]
00:20:32 ERPL: it was very useful for us to really investigate what you created in the
wiki SD1. It made us aware of our own shortcomings. To understand why the form 4.2. Aligning the educational purpose among team members
didn’t work, was helpful to see. […]
00:24:43 TE: We are designing a tool with two different purposes. On one hand, we In the fifth phase, the team decided on a new technical solution for
want to create a tool that facilitates learning by dividing elements so that students
can move the cards or the different boxes within the form as different elements. We
the learning design tool. The suggested solution was discussed in a
want to keep it open so that they can show how they think, not present a perfect project meeting that took place approximately one month after the team
solution on the first try. Both teachers in school and supervisors at the university can had identified the problem with Prototype 1 and two months after SD1
respond to their learning process after students have made their design. We visualize first realized that there was a problem. Before data presented in Excerpt
an interface where you can read a description of a lesson, or teaching subject, with
2, SD1 shared their screen in Zoom and presented the Prototype 2
the goals and other information presented together. So, we want a tool that
facilitates both the learning process and illustrates the product, the teaching interface and the new technical solution. The dialogue presented in
designs. I think that trying out the wiki technology made us realize that in the design Excerpt 2 starts when the team summarizes the central features of Pro­
process we have kind of forgotten how to get to the point where all the content is totype 2.
there, yeah?
Excerpt 2
Prototype 2 – Aligning the educational purpose among team members – team
Excerpt 1 illustrates the complex and time-consuming process of meeting October 21, 2021
identifying the core problem with the first prototype and what it took for
39:30 SD1: The main idea is that students should link different cards to the learning
design. We can make a template for the learning design in the presentation layer, not
5 just link to other cards, but include the text content from this card when we design
All excerpts have been shortened as filler words, and repetitions are
(continued on next page)
removed to make it easier to read.

8
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Excerpt 2 (continued ) Excerpt 3 (continued )

the presentation layer. And of course, we can show some sort of a …. I don’t know, provided in wiki. And when students … go back and improve their learning designs.
it’s hard to say right now. (…) they click on the learning design that they will improve and then all the cards
40:35 ERPL: Yeah, this is really interesting. Now the students are free to choose are shown here (shows on screen). Then they can work and edit the different cards
where to start, which is what we want. To complete their design, they must combine here (shows on screen) and they don’t have to add more cards on the other lists. So
the different cards and present it, and then, maybe we can have a template that that will be like phase two of the students’ work and follows the students’ learning
would, you know … trajectory in a way. Does this make sense?
41:26 TE: Yeah, it’s a good idea, but I also think it’s important to remember that 00:10:41 SD1: Yeah, I think it’s a brilliant idea because … can you switch to the
students should receive feedback on their designs. It’s important to include the free ILUKS tab on the board … Yeah, in my opinion, on the left in the 1st column, they
text from the students, in addition to the cards. School or university supervisors have different lesson plans or maybe version of different designs but now if we think
need to see the final lesson plan including all the text on each card. The presentation about this interface, about the one single learning design and the first column. Yeah,
mode should include all the text and display the learning design students have built. it’s like a functionality to combine different cards. I think it’s very interesting. And
I find it interesting if the students compose their learning designs in different ways. yeah, I think it can solve many of the problems that I’ve seen before. So, I think it’s
For instance, if someone starts with the teaching methods before they talk about the great idea.
students, or what kind of grade they’re in, and what subject it is, it’s interesting to
see that.
43:05 SD1: Yeah, interesting idea. But right now, when I think about templates for
In Excerpt 3, the research team shared their experiences of testing
example for learning design, I think that I don’t like the idea about strictly defining a
template, so I think the idea that students can write text and create a link to another Prototype 2. ERPL started by sharing the screen in Zoom and pointing to
card when it’s necessary is more interesting, what students learn, not whether they the challenges discovered in this version. ERPL explained how the tool,
have filled in the predefined template. ideally, should allow students to plan and design a lesson by moving
43:49 TE: I agree with you, SD1. […] cards from different sections into one where cards were combined into a
44:24 SD2: We haven’t talked much about the actual user experience here but more
about what we want to achieve and which data we want to end up with. But I think
coherent lesson plan. To visualize the dual purpose of using cards to
SD1 has presented a really ergonomic solution compared to just a boring form. initiate a knowledge-producing process and compose a learning design
(product), the researchers used the digital tool Trello6 to show how the
prototype could be further developed. The idea was to allow the student
The excerpt reveals that when team members discussed the educa­ teachers to freely choose where to start the process of planning a lesson,
tional purpose of Prototype 2 (Excerpt 2), it was evident that they had which cards (components) they wanted to compose and use, the content
different expectations for the anticipated product. SD1 presented a new of the cards and how to sequence the cards so that they form a coherent
idea for Prototype 2 and elaborated on how students can create different lesson plan. Using Trello in the meeting made it easier for ERPL to argue
parts of a lesson plan and then combine these in a presentation layer. pedagogically and articulate what the researchers expected from this
ERPL emphasized that students should ideally be able to work flexibly new learning design tool. This approach to conceptualizing how a
and start the design of a lesson plan in whatever way they prefer. TE learning design tool can support a learning process and develop a
added that the design should support student active learning processes knowledge product resonated with SD1, who backed the idea, quickly
and allow feedback from others. As team members started confirming translated the pedagogical knowledge into technical solutions that could
each other’s points of view, a shared understanding of the educational be accommodated in the new prototype. SD1 elaborated on how ERPL’s
purpose slowly emerged. SD1 and SD2 described Prototype 2 as an ‘er­ idea of using Trello could also solve other technical challenges that SD1
gonomic solution’, as opposed to a predefined template or “boring form” discovered in Prototype 2. This productive tension allowed the software
(a reference to prototype 1). When the team members reached a shared developers to further develop the prototype and accomplish alignment
understanding, the educational and student active intention behind the between educational purpose and technology in the learning design tool.
tool was realized. The team experienced productive tension that pushed The productive tension also shows how educational principles can serve
the work forward to the development of Prototype 2. When the team as a guiding vehicle for the design process, a constant reminder that the
agreed on what they wanted to achieve through the ILUKS planner, the tool should support student teachers’ learning of how to plan lessons and
software developers designed Prototype 2, which was then tested by the teach.
educational researchers and teacher educator. Excerpts 2 and 3 show how the team members articulated their
professional knowledge, reached a shared understanding of the educa­
4.3. Aligning the educational purpose and technology tional purpose of the ILUKS learning design tool and aligned educational
knowledge with technical solutions in the design process.
Excerpt 3 shows the team discussions after a test of prototype 2. The
team is now focused on the testing results. The excerpt starts with the 5. Discussion
ERs and TE reactions to Prototype 2.
The analysis showed that the alignment process started at the very
Excerpt 3 beginning of the project and continued until the end. The interdisci­
Articulating and aligning the educational purpose and technology – team plinary team experienced the importance of establishing a joint under­
meeting November 03, 2021 standing early in the process of developing an educational tool designed
to support student teachers’ lesson planning. This joint understanding
00:05:18 ERPL: When we started working on this, we discovered some challenges. guided the entire design process and was helpful when clearing up
(…) and talked about the possibility of moving the cards. Also, [there are] some
misunderstandings. The importance of designing a tool that could sup­
cards they can fill in. We have a template with guidelines for how to fill in on the
cards, right? (…) So, we, me, and TE, tested in Trello and found that the students port student teachers’ process of learning how to plan lessons guided the
need a dashboard or a front page, if you know what I mean? (Goes on to show how teams’ design work and was a recurring question in the team’s design
ERPL and TE have used Trello to create a learning design and shares screen in Zoom). We process. The idea behind the ILUKS planner was that student teachers
want the students to compose one learning design. So, they choose, for instance
who are in the process of entering the teaching profession could benefit
English. (…) And they choose the [cards] which they have filled in. And they have
different activities [described in different cards]. Then these lists will be empty, you
from a digital tool that allows flexible lesson planning and feedback
know. After you have collected [the cards to a] complete design. throughout the planning process. The team’s strength was the contin­
00:08:28 SD1: Ah, I’m trying to understand. uous close collaboration between educational researchers, a teacher
00:08:35 ERPL: (Continues explaining the intended use) This is the complete learning educator and software developers. This ensured that educational
design that the students have been working on. And we need a button that can
compile this into one file to be shared with the teachers who are expected to give
feedback. And that’s when I was thinking about a form. The same (…) that is
6
(continued on next column) https://trello.com/.

9
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

knowledge guided the development work (Børte, Lillejord, et al., 2023). teacher education (Amhag et al., 2019). We have argued that a tool for
The study revealed three key instances that had to be aligned. First, lesson planning aligned with student active learning can facilitate the
individual conceptions of teaching must be discussed and clarified early pedagogical use of technology in teacher education and support student
in the process. The educational researchers and the teacher educator had teachers’ teaching. Providing teacher educators and student teachers in
to take a step back and discuss and align their perceptions of teaching teacher education programs with a tool for lesson planning that allows
before talking about how to develop a digital learning design tool that for knowledge creation, collaboration and interactive engagement may
could support student teachers’ lesson planning. Research has shown serve a double purpose. First, teacher educators are provided with the
that individual conceptions of teaching are strong and affect the use of possibility of modelling pedagogical technology use in student active
technology in teaching (Tondeur et al., 2017). Therefore, it was crucial learning, first, by using a tool that allows student teachers to solve a
to align the various understandings of teaching held by the educational problem (i.e. create a lesson plan) and, second, by providing students
researchers and the teacher educator. While it can be claimed that they with a tool that helps them further develop their own planning
belong to the same professional discipline, they differed in views on competence and professional teaching practice.
what it means to teach. To establish common ground for the design The ILUKS planner aimed, via design, to allow students the flexibility
process, this question needed attention. they need to plan lessons during the practicum. The article described the
Second, the team had to reach a shared understanding of the complex design process in a team of educational researchers, a teacher
educational purpose across the professional disciplines represented in educator and software developers who collaboratively aligned pedagogy
the team (i.e., among educational researchers, a teacher educator and and technology. The intention behind the ILUKS planner is to allow
software developers). This proved to be a complex, iterative and students flexibility to design and redesign sequences during lessons and
continuous process. Throughout the work, the same, or similar, ques­ to learn to think more holistically and less linearly. For student teachers,
tions frequently reappeared. Several instances of reproductive collabo­ the ILUKS planner serves as a shared object of investigation, bridging the
ration occurred, indicating that this could be a characteristic of university’s research-based knowledge with the schools’ experience-
interdisciplinary development work. Moreover, the educational purpose based knowledge during practice placement. It also serves as a tool for
had to be translated into a technical solution that reflected this purpose, trial and error, where students can document their lesson planning and
which proved to be a challenging endeavour. The data revealed that on discuss this with their peers, mentors and supervisors. If we expect
several occasions during the work, team members’ different un­ teachers to practice student active learning in their teaching in schools,
derstandings of vital educational aspects and the aim of the tool were they should learn these practices during pre-service.
evident. This realization was an important and constant reminder of the
educational purpose of the learning design tool. Funding
Third, a crucial aspect of the alignment process was therefore to
revisit the educational purpose of the tool throughout the design pro­ HKDIR - AKTIV-2019/10093 – ILUKS.
cess, and, more importantly, the purpose must both inform and guide the
choice of technological solutions developed for the tool. Quite often, CRediT authorship contribution statement
digital tools such as learning management systems and learning design
tools for teachers aim at helping, supporting and simplifying work Kristin Børte: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
processes (Laurillard et al., 2018). Many of them, however, are technical Visualization, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
tools incorporating templates and mandatory fields that must be filled Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Sølvi Lillejord: Writing – review &
out. The idea behind the ILUKS planner was to support student teachers’ editing, Validation, Conceptualization.
active learning processes by allowing them to produce, document,
collaborate, give and receive feedback when they plan their lessons.
Therefore, the tool does not allow easy ‘click & collect ordering’ when Declaration of competing interest
students plan lessons. Instead, flexibility, professional knowledge crea­
tion and continuous feedback processes are at the core of the ILUKS The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
planner. There are no mandatory fields, and students are free to include interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
as much or as little information as they like. Furthermore, students can the work reported in this paper.
develop a learning design, test it in practice and later revisit and revise
the plan to see whether a different order of activities or different orga­ Data availability
nization of activities would work better. In this way, the ILUKS planner
supports an inquiry-based approach to developing teaching practice by The data that has been used is confidential.
allowing students to create and co-create knowledge, investigate and
document the results of their teaching and the execution of their plans. References
In addition, the feedback students receive on their learning designs is
Adams, A., & Clough, G. (2015). The e-assessment burger: Supporting the before and
available in the tool for later planning purposes. after in e-assessment systems. Interaction Design and Architecture (s), 25, 39–57.
Admiraal, W., Vermeulen, J., & Bulterman-Bos, J. (2020). Teaching with learning
6. Conclusion analytics: How to connect computer-based assessment data with classroom
instruction? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(5), 577–591.
Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher educators’ use of digital tools
This study has described the process of aligning pedagogy and and needs for digital competence in higher education. Journal of Digital Learning in
technology when developing a digital learning design tool that supports Teacher Education, 35(4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21532974.2019.1646169
student teachers’ active learning when they plan lessons. A constant Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in
focus by the team on the learning processes the tool aimed to facilitate education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/
was key to achieving alignment. The importance of articulating, dis­ 0013189X11428813
Andreasen, J. K., Tømte, C. E., Bergan, I., & Kovac, V. B. (2022). Professional digital
cussing and translating pedagogical principles (here, student active
competence in initial teacher education: An examination of differences in two
learning) from research to technical solutions was crucial. Multiple it­ cohorts of pre-service teachers. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 17(1), 61–74.
erations and interpretations from different professional perspectives https://doi.org/10.18261/njdl.17.1.5
were needed for the team to reach a shared understanding of the Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism: An introduction. Polity.
Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors
learning purpose that was reified in the tool. Previous research has of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and
shown that digital tools are rarely used with pedagogical intent in Teacher Education, 16(1), 93–112.

10
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Barak, M. (2017). Cloud pedagogy: Utilizing web-based technologies for the promotion Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active
of social constructivist learning in science teacher preparation courses. Journal of learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in
Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956- engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 276. https://doi.org/
017-9691-3 10.3390/educsci9040276
Baran, E., Bilici, S. C., Sari, A. A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of Hernández-Leo, D., Romeo, L., Carralero, M. A., Chacón, J., Carrió, M., Moreno, P., et al.
teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of (2011). LdShake: Learning design solutions sharing and co-edition. Computers &
Educational Technology, 50(1), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12565 Education, 57(4), 2249–2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.016
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing
design: Implications derived from an investigation of university teachers’ design in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17, 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/
practices. Computers & Education, 81, 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. s10833-016-9271-y
compedu.2014.10.016 Ito, H., & Takeuchi, S. (2021). Active learning in Japan: Breaking barriers at individual,
Blanco-Fernández, Y., López-Nores, M., Pazos-Arias, J. J., Gil-Solla, A., Ramos- institutional, and policy levels. Policy Futures in Education, 19(8), 950–967. https://
Cabrer, M., & García-Duque, J. (2014). Reenact: A step forward in immersive doi.org/10.1177/1478210321999933
learning about human history by augmented reality, role playing and social John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant
networking. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(10), 4811–4828. https://doi.org/ model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.018 00220270500363620
Blikstad-Balas, M., & Klette, K. (2020). Still a long way to go: Narrow and transmissive Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The
use of technology in the classroom. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(1), 55–68. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-05 s15327809jls0401_2
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom
1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist (learner-
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee centered) teaching (Note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29–37. https://
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). Prentice Hall doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29
International. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of
Børte, K., Lillejord, S., Chan, J., Wasson, B., & Greiff, S. (2023). Prerequisites for interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer
teachers’ technology use in formative assessment practices: A systematic review. Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
Educational Research Review, 100568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2005). Active learning in the process of educational
edurev.2023.100568 change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher tate.2005.05.003
education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/ König, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., Fladung, I., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Pre–service
13562517.2020.1839746 teachers’ generic and subject-specific lesson-planning skills: On learning adaptive
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (Vol. 2). Sage. teaching during initial teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in (2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1679115
creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for
Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8),
Cañadas, L. (2021). Contribution of formative assessment for developing teaching 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
competences in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–17. Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., & Petridis, P. (2017). Essential
Canaleta, X., Vernet, D., Vicent, L., & Montero, J. A. (2014). Master in teacher training: A features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to
real implementation of active learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 651–658. game mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 972–994. https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.020 doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12467
Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice. Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using
Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/ technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer.
10.7821/naer.2017.7.237 British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044–1058. https://doi.org/
Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies 10.1111/bjet.12697
in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Telecommunications, 7(1), 73–88. Cambridge University Press.
Cross, S., Galley, R., Brasher, A., & Weller, M. (2012). OULDI-JISC project evaluation Lee, D., Morrone, A. S., & Siering, G. (2018). From swimming pool to collaborative
report: The impact of new curriculum design tools and approaches on institutional process learning studio: Pedagogy, space, and technology in a large active learning
and design cultures. The Open University. classroom. Educational Technology Research & Development, 66(1), 95–127. https://
Cuban, L. (1982). Persistence of the inevitable: The teacher-centered classroom. doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9550-1
Education and Urban Society, 15(1), 26–41. Lillejord, S. (2022). Læring som en praksis vi deltar i [Learning as participatory practice].
Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980. Theory Into Practice, 22(3), In S. Lillejord, T. Manger, & S. Mausethagen (Eds.), Livet i skolen [School life] (pp.
159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848309543056 195–222). Fagbokforlaget.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, Lillejord, S. (2023). Educating the teaching profession. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, &
1890-1990. Teachers College Press. K. Ercikan (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., pp. 368–374).
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity management system Elsevier Ltd.
(LAMS). Interact, integrate, impact. Proceedings of the 20th Annual conference of the Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Ruud, E. (2018). Learning and teaching with
australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education. Adelaide. technology in higher education–a systematic review. https://www.forskningsradet.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254035532334.pdf.
Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285 Lillejord, S., & Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive learning practice–a theoretical discussion
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). based on two cases. Journal of Education and Work, 21(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/
Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, 10.1080/13639080801957154
technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. https://doi. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical
org/10.1080/10508400903452884 perspectives (Vol. 3). John Benjamin’s Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning.
MacMillan, Free Press. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121–133.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to McCorkle, S. (2021). Exploring faculty barriers in a new active learning classroom: A
developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy. divide and conquer approach to support. Journal of Learning Spaces, 10(2). https://li
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2005). Scaffolding teachers’ efforts to implement bjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/2106.
problem-based learning. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 319–328. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. M. S. University. Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College
educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Teaching, 55(2), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.2.42-47
0013189X030004003 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
definition. ALT-J, 3(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776950030202 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Constructing Murray, J., & Male, T. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: Evidence from the field.
coherence: Structural predictors of perceptions of coherence in NYC teacher Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/ tate.2004.12.006
10.1177/0022487108322127 Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399–416.
digital competence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.580516
Education, 41(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1416085 Nguyen, G. N., & Bower, M. (2018). Novice teacher technology-enhanced learning design
Hammerness, K. (2013). Examining features of teacher education in Norway. practices: The case of the silent pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/ 49(6), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12681
10.1080/00313831.2012.656285

11
K. Børte and S. Lillejord Teaching and Teacher Education 148 (2024) 104693

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—a cultural change needed in teacher education and Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/ what matters in the training of pre-service teacher’s ICT competencies. Computers &
S0742-051X(02)00042-2 Education, 122, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002
Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017).
professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
Education, 43, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006 technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning promoting student teachers’ Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/
professional competences in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Education, 39(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1212835 Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.
Pelánek, R. (2020). Managing items and knowledge components: Domain modelling in (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A
practice. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(1), 529–550. https:// synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09716-w doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2015). Informing learning design with learning analytics to Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago
improve teacher inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 230–248. Press.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12207 Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators’ competences in fostering
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004. of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23. https://
tb00809.x doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W., & Schenke, W. (2019). Approaches to co-
learning–from adaption to active modification in the teacher community. Teachers construction of knowledge in teacher learning groups. Teaching and Teacher
and Teaching, 21(7), 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.995483 Education, 84, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.019
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). The role of teachers in facilitating situational Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.
interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), Harvard University Press.
37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.025 Walker, R., Jenkins, M., & Voce, J. (2018). The rhetoric and reality of technology-
Roth, W.-M. (2008). Knowing, participative thinking, emoting. Mind, Culture and Activity, enhanced learning developments in UK higher education: Reflections on recent
15(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030701798565 UCISA research findings (2012–2016). Interactive Learning Environments, 26(7),
Sailer, M., Murböck, J., & Fischer, F. (2021). Digital learning in schools: What does it 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1419497
take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 103, Article Wang, Y. H. (2017a). The effectiveness of integrating teaching strategies into IRS
103346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346 activities to facilitate learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 35–50.
Säljö, R. (2006). Læring som kulturelle redskaper. Om læreprosesser og den kulturelle https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12164
hukommelsen [Learning and cultural tools. About the learning process and the Wang, Y. H. (2017b). Using augmented reality to support a software editing course for
cultural memory]. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. college students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 532–546. https://doi.
Sarason, S. B. (2004). And what do you mean by learning? Heinemann. org/10.1111/jcal.12199
Selwyn, N. (2017). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Wasson, B., & Kirschner, P. A. (2020). Learning design: European approaches.
Publishing. TechTrends, 64, 815–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00498-0
Shelton, C. (2017). Giving up technology and social media: Why university lecturers stop Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. Cambridge
using technology in teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 303–321. University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1217269 Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press.
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analyzing talk, text and Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on
interaction. Sage Publications Ltd. learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines: From the experimental study of learning come Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/
devices which arrange optimal conditions for self-instruction. Science, 128(3330), 00346543068002130
969–977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969 Zalavra, E., Papanikolaou, K., Dimitriadis, Y., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2023). Representing
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. John Wiley & Sons. learning designs in a design support tool. Education and Information Technologies, 28
Thacker, E. S., Lee, J. K., & Friedman, A. M. (2017). Teaching with the C3 framework: (6), 6563–6594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11441-6
Surveying teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Social Studies Research, 41(2), Zhan, Y., & So, W. W. M. (2017). Views and practices from the chalkface: Development of
89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2016.08.00 a formative assessment multimedia learning environment. Technology, Pedagogy and
Tømte, C. E. (2015). Educating teachers for the new millennium?-Teacher training, ICT Education, 26(4), 505–515.
and digital competence. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(Jubileumsnummer),
138–154. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2015-Jubileumsnummer-10

12