You are here:

Quality Towards an Expected Harmony: Pedagogy and Technology Speaking Together About Innovation

, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

AACE Journal Volume 15, Number 2, ISSN 1065-6901 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


In this paper we will develop the following hypothesis as it relates to the field of educational technology in higher education: students, teachers and educational institutions are all concerned with a common underlying “learning model”. The organization of these various levels (students, teachers, institutions) around learning may be considered as a guide and as a sign of an expected educational quality. In this case, the general models for learning and for pedagogical setup development may be used to develop new teaching or training methods, to promote innovation in institutions and to assess quality. After a short presentation of a “objectives - methods - tools " reference model, we will use this model to organize and to assess the question of the added value of ICT in learning. These factors of learning enhanced by ICT define a learning model consistent with learning factors as proposed by education sciences. The deduced learning model will then be used to understand and to foster teacher training and innovation in institutions.


Lebrun, M. (2007). Quality Towards an Expected Harmony: Pedagogy and Technology Speaking Together About Innovation. AACE Journal, 15(2), 115-130. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. American Psychological Association (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign andre form (P. 12).
  2. Bagley, C., & Hunter, B. (1992). Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: Forging a new relationship. Educational Technology, 7, 22-27.
  3. Biggs, J.B. (1999). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1-18.
  4. Biggs, J.B., & Telfer, R. (1987). The process of learning (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Prentice-Hall.
  5. Clark, R.E., & Leonard, S. (1985). Computer research confounding. Paper presented a t The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
  6. Combs, A.W. (1976). Fostering maximum development of the individual. In W. Van Til & K.J. Rehage (Eds.), Issues in secondary education. (NSSE Yearbook). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education
  7. Cooperrider, D.L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in orga-n izat ion change and development (Vo l. 1 , pp. 129-169). Greenwich,
  8. Evers, F.T., Rush, J.C., & Berdrow, I. (1998). The bases of competence. Skills for lifelong learning and employability. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers.
  9. Fullan, M. (2000). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.
  10. Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach. Austin, TX : Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
  11. Kadiyala, M., & Crynes, B.L. (2000). A review of literature on effectiveness of use of information technology in education. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 177-190.
  12. Kulik, J., Kulik, C., & Cohen, P. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50 , 525-544. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education Journal, 15(2)
  13. Lebrun, M. (2002). Théor ies e t mé thodes pédagog iques pour enseigner e t apprendre: Que l le place pour les TIC dans l’éducation? [Theories and methods for teaching and learning: Which place for ICT in education?].Bruxelles-Paris: De Boeck.
  14. Lebrun, M. (2005). ELearning pour enseigner e t apprendre: All ier pédago-g ie e t technologie [eLearning for teaching and learning: Pedagogy and Technology working together].Louva in-la-Neuve : Academia-Bruy lan t.
  15. Means, B. & Olson, K. (1994). The link between technology and authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 51.
  16. Piaget, J. (1975). L’équ i libra t ion des structures cogn i t ives [Cognitive structures equilibration]. Paris: PUF.
  17. Savoie, J.M., & Hughes, A.S. (1994). Problem-based learning as classroom solution. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 54-57.
  18. Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective IV: Considering one’s own strategy (Rep. No. 79). Mö lnda l, Sweden: University of Go thenburg, Institute of Education.
  19. Shulman, L.S. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Note 1. Above the microlearning level, three other levels may be proposed: meso-level for teaching “in classroom” activities, macro-level for institutionalized teacher training, and institutional level for the organ iza-t iona l level.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact