Disruptive pedagogies and learning transitions

Jacqueline L. Kenney and John G. Hedberg

Department of Education
Macquarie University
Australia
jacqueline.kenney@mq.edu.au

Abstract: This study explores transitions in student approaches to learning and conceptual
development using concept mapping in the context of a learning design with potentially disruptive
pedagogies. A developmental frame featuring characteristics of disruptive pedagogies (motivation,
engagement, higher-order thinking, sociability and fun) is applied to evaluate its effect on learning
among postgraduate consumer behaviour students. The study draws on longitudinal concept
mapping data and an essay, and survey data on student experiences of embedded technologies in
class and online. Evidence of changes to conceptual knowledge structures and transitions to deep
learning were found, supported by disruptive pedagogies and interactive settings using embedded
technologies. Results indicate multiple, varied tasks and technologies support conceptual
development and engage learners in deep and deeper approaches to learning over 13 weeks, in class
and online.

Keywords: disruptive pedagogies; diversity; qualitative concept mapping; marketing education;

design-based research

Today, learning and teaching in higher education means addressing more learners and a multiplicity of
learner differences. There are larger intakes of international students and increased socio-economic and
age-based heterogeneity (OECD, 2010). With larger numbers of learners and more academic,
economic and socio-cultural diversity in cohorts comes the accentuated need for teaching staff to
engage meaningfully with diversity among students (Gordon, Reid & Petocz, 2010) and create a
responsive and learner-centric curriculum embracing diverse prior knowledge and experience (Brew,
2010). Recent calls for a ‘wider repertoire of teaching strategies’ Kinchin, Hatzipanagos and Turner
(2009, p. 46) echo Biggs (1999, p. 57) acknowledging that ‘what the student does’ is significantly
influenced by what the teacher does. With emphasis on quality learning in the 21st century related to
knowledge, skills and technology, pedagogic practice is driven from lecture traditions with singular
and linear presentations of knowledge to contextualised learning collaborations with plural and diverse
representations of ideas (Clarke, 2010). If knowledge is seen as personally constructed, it follows that
pedagogy attends to difference by design, defined by activities that respond to variations in students’
prior knowledge, learning approaches and experiences of learning (Biggs & Tang, 2007).
Educational research broadly accepts that learners variously approach and engage in study,
resulting in deeper understanding or superficial memorization. Influencing engagement depth includes:
intention and context (Fyrenius, Wirell & Silén, 2007; Marton & Säljö, 2005); contextualised
interaction and conceptual development (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Entwistle, 2005; Kinchin, Hay &
Adams, 2000); intended and experienced social structures and interactions (Bielaczyc, 2006;
Knewstubb & Bond, 2009); and, technologies, design and higher-order learning processes (Boud &
Prosser, 2002; Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Technology responds to socio-cultural affinities in
contemporary cohorts (McCrindle & Wolfinger, 2009), larger class sizes and greater diversity in
classrooms (Ellis & Goodyear, 2010), helping to engage learners (Cooner, 2010), supporting those
from diverse disciplinary backgrounds (Conn, Boyer, Hu & Wilkinson, 2010) and enabling personal
attention with limited resources (Auvinen, Hakulinen, Korhonen, 2010). Other research proposes that
higher levels of learner engagement, motivation and creative representation occur between technology-
task designs with dialogic interactions among people and with content (Hedberg, 2006; Christensen,
Horn & Johnson; 2008). This paper reviews how embedded technologies act to disrupt learning
processes and learner experiences and influence student approaches to learning.

Conceptual development and learning approaches

Student participation in personal constructions of knowledge is a prerequisite to deep learning and is
fostered by pedagogy. Teaching practice influences student selections of deep and surface learning
strategies in the perceived extent of need to work things out rather than memorize (Biggs, 1999) and in
the student’s experience of teaching activities (Entwistle, 2005). Where pedagogy presents a single and
unproblematic view of learning content, deep learning processes become as redundant as the perceived
need for efforts to achieve meaningful learning. Constructivist approaches to learning are influenced by
student-student interaction (Jonassen, 1999) and the extent of constructivism incoprorated into teaching
activity (Kinchin, 2001). Both sources of knowledge offer exposure to diverse conceptualisations of
knowledge, engage deep learning approaches in their differences and fuel focused discussion. Student-
teacher interaction that engages in discussion about conceptual learning activities fosters deep learning
(Kinchin, 2003) by making the personalised constructions of student knowledge a priority, above the
correctness of content (Kinchin, Hatzipanagos & Turner, 2009).
Discussion of potentially available concepts and structures and their differences engages
learners in meaning-making processes of deep learning. While the quality of meaning-making is
significantly influenced by the quality of prior knowledge (Kinchin, Hay & Adams 2000) it is also
influenced by the way in which students organise their knowledge (Hay, Kehoe, Miquel, Hatzipanagos,
Kinchin, Keevil & Lygo-Baker, 2008). The way students structure their knowledge is challenged when
differences between conceptual structures and frameworks in mapping activities are subject to dialogue
about the potential causes of difference between teacher and student (Kinchin, 2003) and amongst
students (Kinchin, 2001). Teaching practice is able influence student learning in the selection of map
structures (Kinchin, 2001), the availability of conceptual frameworks (Kinchin, Hatzipanagos and
Turner, 2009) and the (dis)continuation of map elements using dialogic practices.
Concept map structures show how a topic is understood. Recent research into their use in
teaching, research and learning has identified gross structure or morphology of concept maps in three
main types: spoke, link (or chain) and net (or network, web or cats cradle). Each structure is associated
with core characteristics affecting qualities of understanding, such as what is known (spoke), how it
functions (chain) and why (net) (Kinchin & Hay, 2007) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A Morphology transitions and stages of development (academic)

Source: Kinchin & Hay (2007, p. 56)

Cognitive re-structuring contributes to meaningful knowledge development (Kinchin, Hay &

Adams, 2000) and the emergence of structure in the process of concept map construction (Hay et al.,
2008) provides multiple opportunities for comparing and discussing the development of increasingly
complex and integrated knowledge. The methods increase the likelihood of improved learning quality
by engaging in processes that are associated with deep approaches to learning and in producing visible
measures of learning approaches.

Embedding technologies
The design of technology-supports for quality learning target the student learning experience. The word
‘experience’ is used over 40 times by Boud and Prosser (2002) when discussing learning design and
technology. These authors propose, designs that engage and challenge learners as they practise learning
in context improve the student experience of learning and teaching activities. The experience is the way
in which a student perceives the overall design, after it has been conceived (intended design),
implemented (actual design) and used (experienced design). Harris, Mishra and Koehler (2009)
propose design activities that are helpful to learning, should be an embeded collective integration of
technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge to achieve set learning outcomes.
Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2008) present an approach to design as experienced by
students, highlighting collaboration (sociability) and fun. The two are portrayed in student-student,
student-friend/family and student-teacher action, interactions and reactions in learning activity.
Disruptive learning with technology, following Hedberg (2006), is characterized by learner experiences
of motivation and engagement in higher order thinking activities with dialogic interactions with people
and content (Hedberg & Brudvik, 2008). The student-centric learning approach shifts traditional
teacher-centric control of pedagogy, knowledge and technology and confers control to learners. Varied
designs engage diverse learners, learning needs and interests and result in learner-driven activity
responsiveness. The response of learners to learning experiences is significant and Hedberg (2006)
conceives design experience as well as intended and actual design perspectives. Both authors attend to
disrupting ‘classroom’ pedagogic practices yet Christensen et al. (2008) give no specific design
criteria. However, Hedberg’s (2006) approach is amenable to empirical work as it conceptualizes
disruption in the combination of technology, task and pedagogy.
This study draws on the broad concepts of engagement, motivation and higher order thinking
(Hedberg, 2006). The characteristics are relevant to any learning design, with or without technology;
however, they are testable as they inhere to a design that makes learning and technology inseparable. In
this study, sociability captures person-to-person aspects of learning as a social endeavour and fun
incorporates how learners (teacher or student) derive enjoyment when engaged in learning – a lack of
seriousness and purpose, and enjoyment shared with people that may be exciting, suspenseful or
surprising (Dix, 2003).

Table 1. Relations of disruptive pedagogy.

Relational elements Heuristic Learner behaviours and experiences
Voluntary activity Elicits cognitive effort and participation among
Engagement
participation diverse learners
Effort expended to control/choose learning
Motivation Self directed learning
pathways through diverse content
Spaces to construct and Extent of negotiation and production in tasks that
Higher order thinking
represent ideas require higher order thinking
Drives interaction and communication
Sociability Relational design
(peer/teacher) during activities
Evidence of student enjoyment of learning and
Fun Learning pleasure
learning context

The study draws on the logic of the conceptual frame developed for disruptive pedagogies
(Table 1) and assesses how these influence the student approach to learning and significant structural
changes in knowledge using concept mapping. The study explores:
(1) How are variations in approaches to learning related to conceptual changes?
(2) How do disruptive pedagogies influence learning approaches and conceptual change?

The study
This study is part of a broader undertaking informed by a design-based research approach (Bowler &
Large, 2008) to examine aspects of learning in ‘consumer behaviour’ by under- and post-graduate
students. Cycles of investigation over 16 deliveries of the course have focused on student-centred,
problem-based activities with technology supports. The current study assesses the contribution of
embedded technologies in aiding the conceptual development of learners and the transition to a deep
learning approach over the semester of the course.
Learners completed three concept maps showing how they conceptualized the topic of
‘consumer behaviour’ at the beginning, middle and end of 13 weekly, in-class sessions. Completion
time for the first two maps was 45 minutes and the third map was constructed with an accompanying
rationale in one-and-a-half hours, under exam conditions. A briefing was provided for the first and
second mapping session to outline the importance of showing concepts, relationships between concepts
and the overall structure of how each learner individually understood the concepts of the course. The
briefing drew on Novak and Cañas (2008). Importantly, while 86 percent of learners had not completed
any prior study in consumer behaviour or marketing, all learners had prior knowledge and experience
as consumers and in the consumption of educational programs.
The approach to learning in the course
The course exposes learners to diverse, competing explanations of core consumer behaviour theory
aiming to develop critical thinking, problem framing/solving skills and communication. Delivery
occurs in interactive three-hour weekly sessions, set text and journal readings and voluntary online
discussion and tasks. Participants complete four assessments: individual (quiz and final exam) and
group (oral and written). Research is central to activity and assessment; learners apply theory to
explore how consumers think, feel and act in relation to consumption, non-consumption and disposal at
the analytic levels of individual, group and market. Key research techniques are explored in interactive
lectures discussion, research applications and extensive film/image use. Application exercises are
completed as a class before groups apply techniques to a different context and, by choice participants,
individually or in their group, complete a third application and for online submission, discussion and
class/teacher review.
From week one students discuss potential project topics in class and online. Learners
identified a potential and emergent growth market, based on research of a contemporary social,
cultural, political, environmental or economic issue for detailed investigation in project work. The
presentation assesses integrated applications of learning (Weeks 1 to 7) and, following student- peer
review and summative teacher feedback, the report assesses learning in a formal write-up with
modification and extension (Weeks 1 to 13).
Deep learning is a necessary response to learning outcomes that entail the integrated
application of multiple, dynamic concepts with a practical problem and this logic was applied in the
redevelopment of learning activities during course redesign iterations. Assessments engaged students in
a number of processes from supported project identification and selection, dialogic class and teacher
feedback to collaborative examination development. Final examination essay questions sought
applications of course theories to consumption processes. Consistent with this deep learning approach
students accessed pre-prepared notes and prior concept maps to explain their changing understanding
over 13 weeks. It is from these understandings of consumption theory and practice that learners
diagrammatically conceptualize and analyze their own consumption of a course of study and provide a
dataset from which the following evaluation is drawn.

The method of analysis

The week one map engaged with prior knowledge and the latter two maps sought to capture changed
syntheses of course ideas, as required in project assessment. Qualitative analyses of concept map data
identified map qualities and corresponding learning approaches, including transitions between learning
approaches and structures, following Hay (2007) and Hay, Wells and Kinchin (2008, p. 225) and
producing qualitative and quantitative differences. Review criteria used the following definitions.
(1) Non-learning: was defined by an absence of cognitive change. Non-learning was therefore
measured by the lack of new concepts in the second map and by an absence of new links in
the extant prior knowledge structure.
(2) Rote learning: was defined in two ways. First by the addition of new knowledge. Second by
absence of links between the newly acquired concepts and those parts of the prior knowledge
repeated in the second map.
(3) Meaningful learning: was defined by a non-trivial change in the knowledge structure. Thus
evidence of deep learning comprised the emergence of new links in parts of the prior
knowledge structure developed in the course of learning and/or the meaningful linkage of new
concepts to parts of the pre-existing understanding. (Hay, Wells & Kinchin, 2008, p. 225)

Each set of three maps was tested against the review criteria and categorized. Following Hay
(2007) and Kinchin, Hay and Adams (2000) each map was examined for its structure, links and
concepts. Conceptual links that were not adequately explained in the essay were not treated as valid.
Hay’s (2007) analytic categories were extended in an additional category to isolate deep linkage.
Learning strategy transitions among types at two review points resulted in eight combinations. Each
combination was re-coded to clarify a single typology of best fit for each learner before subsequent
analysis of merged types.

Results and discussion

A compilation of data for learning types and map structures in maps one and two (M1-M2) and two
and three (M2-M3) identifies the gross structures used for each combination of learning approaches
(Table 2). Six of the eight categories transitioned between learning types (subcategory 3 to 8) and two
retained a single learning approach (subcategory 1 and 2). Learners created 61 spoke, 22 chain (link)
and 49 net (network) structures in a total of 132 maps (Table 2). A majority of learners created spoke
structures in the first map, net structures in the final map and comparatively lower numbers of chain
structures in the first and second maps and only one chain in map three.

Table 2. Summary of concept map structures*

Strategy transition Map 1 Type Map 2 Type Map 3 Type
Type
subcategories S C N S C N S C N
1. Deep-deep (25) 14 8 3 11 4 10 9 0 16
Deep

1a. Surface-deep (5) 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 3

1b. Non-deep (3) 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2
1c. Non-surface (1) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Surface

2. Surface-surface (4) 3 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 2
2a. Deep-surface (2) 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1
2b. Surface-non (2) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
Non

2c. Deep-non (2) 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1

TOTAL 27 11 6 18 10 16 16 1 27
*Map structural types are denoted by: S=spoke; C=chain/link; and, N=net.

The dominance of particular structural types across mapping instances infers a focus on the
‘what’ of significant content (spoke), the ‘how’ of application potential (link) and the ‘why’ of overall
synthesis (net) at different points in time. Overall, the dominance of knowledge structures between
maps one and three reflects a decreasing number of spoke and chain structures and an increasing
number of net structures. In map one the dominant gross structure indicates the presence of prior
knowledge in collations of ideas relevant to unit and indicates learning readiness (spoke). In maps one
and two, a number of gross structures show learner effort to clarify a process of cause and effect
(chain) and infer attentiveness to the application potential of selected concepts. Map three structures
are dominated by increased complexity that indicates learner attentiveness to the importance
(hierarchical levels) and interrelationship (linkage) of their selected concepts relative to the overall
map.

Structural change
From the range of knowledge structures across the eight sub-categories, further distinction is
made in the number of gross structures employed by individual learners (Table 3). Cohort-level
structural selections in the three mapping instances indicate a pattern of significant structural variation
between transition categories (column one). A high proportion (over 80 percent) of learners created
two and three different map structures and a small number of learners (8) used only one map structure
in all three mapping instances. A new structure in the third and final mapping instance was most likely
among deep and deeper transitional categories, including deep learning types (sub-category 1) and
those transitioning to deeper learning types (1a to 1c). The level of gross structural variation across
each the two transition categories is a more significant result relative to the sample size than the
comparable variation between sub-categories where both 2 and 2c also have higher structural variation.
The higher levels of structural variation among deep and deeper transition categories provide
somewhat predictable results in evidence of greater effort to forge meaningful explanations of the unit,
structuring and re-structuring knowledge (Table 2), and in the increased complexity of selected
structures moving from simple forms (spoke and link) to integrated hierarchies of meaning (network)
(Table 3).
In contrast, results for shallow and shallower transition categories 2 and 2c are somewhat
inconsistent in showing higher levels of structural variation (effort) and/or evidence of integrating
structures (complexity) as are the 35 percent of deep and deeper transition category learners with low
structural variation and retained spoke structures. However, closer analysis of the transition categories
in conjunction with timing of structural changes offers some clarification (Figures 1 to 2) with the
exception of 2c results, wherein both learners discussed negative past study experiences leading to a
minimal effort ‘here-to-pass’ approach in essay data albeit displaying strong aptitude.

Table 3. Summary of structural variation among learning types

Transition subcategories Number of map Total New structure
Transition categories
Map 1-2 / Map 2-3 structures used variation Map 3
 (No. of students) %
1 2 3 No. %

Deep and deeper 1. Deep-deep (25) 12 51 12 84.0 8 32.0

1a. Surface-deep (5) 0 15 0 100 3 60.0
1b. Non-deep (3) 0 6 3 100 1 33.3
1c. Non-surface (1) 0 3 0 100 1 100
Shallow and shallower 2. Surface-surface (4) 3 9 0 75 2 50.0
2a. Deep to surface (2) 3 3 0 50 0 0
2b. Surface to non (2) 6 0 0 0 0 0
2c. Deep to non (2) 0 3 3 100 1 50.0
TOTAL 24 90 18 81.8 16 36.4

Structural change and its timing

Of the eight sub-categories, two retained a single learning strategy (deep and surface, Figure
2) and two utilised transitional strategies, shallower and deeper (Figure 3). Overall, 36.4 percent of
learners attempted a new structure in the final map.
Figure 2. Timing of structural variations for non-transitioning types

Those employing a deep learning strategy experimented more times with different map
structures and selected alternate structures more often in map two (72 percent) than in map three (32
percent). The reverse holds for surface learners with less structural experimentation in map two than in
map three. The timing of structural selections and changes differed between learning types and non-
and transitioning categories. While net structure transitions to and from spoke and link and retained net
structures were most common in association with a deep learning strategy in all three maps,
comparatively, the sub-category used more chain structures in week eight and more net structures in
week 13 (Figure 2). The selected structures closely match the function of unit learning activities
involving group presentations using a sequenced theory application and group-group peer review
(week 7), a written report integrating sequenced applications with overall unit content (week 11) and
synthesizing revision activities (week 12). The transitions away from net structures occurred most in
map two and indicate either learning readiness (spoke) prior to the second half of the unit and/or a need
to re-evaluate core ideas (link) given the diversity of class presentations. Single strategy surface
approaches in Figure 2 most often retained spoke and link structures and, as with all shallower
transitional strategies (Figure 3) were least likely to retain net structures in the second and third map
indicating a poor match between strategy and unit learning activity.
Deep and deeper strategies (1, 1a and 1b) were likely to change gross structures between maps
one and two. Groups 1a and 1b repeated this level of change map two to three, conceivably this
occurred as learners changed approaches from non- and surface-learning to deep learning and in
reconsidering the structural selection made effort to generate a unique conception of the unit. Link
structures are the most resistant to conceptual change (Hay & Kinchin, 2006), indicating both a limited
quality of prior knowledge and functionality in current learning affecting future learning quality
(Kinchin, Hay & Adams, 2000). However, as Hay (et al. 2008) propose, while the structures students
select are also more or less amenable to learning they may be influenced by teaching activities. The
results indicate only one learner, using a single strategy surface approach, retained a link structure in all
three mapping instances. However, a total of five single strategy deep approaches retained a link
structure in maps one and two before employing different structures in map three and one student using
a deeper transitional strategy retained the link structure in maps one and two before selecting an
alternate (deeper) learning strategy and a new structure in the third map.

Figure 3. Timing of structural variations for transitioning types

The results and discussion to this point have provided a comparison of structural changes
among mapping instances and between selected learning strategies. These results associate variations
in approaches to learning with the nature and timing of learning activities. Gross concept map
structural changes are associated with profound differences in the way a topic is conceptualised. The
study showed a high number of reversions to spoke structures from chain structures and to spoke and
chain structures from net structures among all learners between map one to two and two to three. In
total these ‘reversions’ appeared in 36 percent of transitions and, in particular, 26 percent appeared in
single-strategy deep learning approaches with the remaining 10 percent spread evenly among shallower
transitional learning strategies. The result is potentially indicative of understanding that is in process
but yet to be achieved, described by Scheja (2006) as delayed understanding. Hay and Kinchin (2006,
p. 135) describe the process of structural change and its consequences:
Wherever structural change occurs, however, it inevitably comprises a difficult
learning process. One that involves transition states in which all concepts and
links are carefully re-examined and tested …. It is this period of “deliberation”
that is perhaps the hall-mark of “deep learning”.
In the current context the quote indicates that learners are making significant effort in learning
in the high level of structural change that is evident. The end product of the process of transformation
in thinking may or may not coincide with assessment timing, particularly in a short 13-week course
(Hay, Wells & Kinchin, 2008). As there is in this study, potential exists for latter maps to reflect
decreasing levels of cohesion and a somewhat surprising decrepitude in the face of previously
competent performances by individual learners. The result provides an insight into why deep learning
does not necessarily equate to higher levels of performance (grades). As Fyrenius, Wirell and Silén
(2007, p. 155) propose, some learners engage with understanding as an ongoing process that is interest
based and open-ended to result in a continuous intention to strive for conceptual change, a ‘moving
pattern’ of learning that may, aside from timing, continuously produce underdeveloped maps.
Disruptive pedagogies
Results indicate that the combined use of interactive lectures, online activities and concept
mapping activities improved the learning experience in the unit and aided learning. Learners found
design elements improved learning by increasing the extent of social interaction and the experience of
learning participation (Figure 4). Technologies supported both.

Figure 4. Social and experimental design elements that aid the learning experience (n=91).

Student-student interactions accounted for four social activities that aided learning (project
choice, viewing past project reports and presentations and the consumer behaviour presentation forum
and related peer review) and teacher-student driven activities accounted for the remaining seven
activities. Teacher-student activities were rated highly as social and experimental design elements and
these relied heavily on student contribution. For example, class discussions revolved around the diverse
experiences of the cohort in interpreting and applying theories and the co-authored examination
activity engaged student assessment of what had been learned in the course and how those materials
could best be evaluated in the final examination components. Of the 26 items, only three activities
indirectly involved the use of technology. The remaining 23 items made direct use of technologies for
activities in class and online. Indirect technology uses included the speed dating activity designed as an
ice-breaking activity to discuss major project interests supported by discussion questions in a slide;
project-teacher time in classes that often involved online research skill development; and project choice
that took place in viewing and discussing past project and potential projects in class and online
discussion forums (supported by the LMS, Internet and DVD). Significantly, learning was most aided
by technologies in visual diversity in class and on the LMS (images, DVD, colour, multi-format lecture
notes in colour for viewing and black and white for printing) and participative activities (class, teacher-
group, group-group, individual discussions).
Students completed a survey that focused on technology, social aspects of learning and
learning activity effectiveness. In two open-ended questions students identified one barrier to degree
completion and stated if they thought fun was important to learning (yes/no) using an example (open
response) in a survey. Responses to the first question mentioned technology 18 times in 91 surveys yet
171 times in the same number of responses for the second question. Only one student thought fun
should not be a priority, despite acknowledging its importance and all 91 students responded ‘yes’,
having fun helps you learn. The examples drew on interactive lecture components in the subject,
strongly associating uses of technology, interaction and learning tasks with fun in learning.
The increased emphasis on applications of competing theories in the redesign relied on
visual/film content during interactive lectures, including teacher-and student- selected items for review,
and it is in this interactive design that ‘fun’ made a strong contribution to learning. References were
made to individual technologies that were used in interactive lecture activity and the online setting. The
references were to online tools, activities, resources and discussion (76), film (DVD/Youtube) (78) and
websites and online resources in class (17). In discussing how technology use made learning activity
‘fun’, students referred to diagrams frameworks (30) and images (49) and film used as the basis for
discussion and activity. Slides with examples, problems and cases using images and pictures and film
made a strong contribution to perceived fun in learning. Diversity of activity components was referred
to in 47 statements of fun aiding learning and using technologies.
The combination of fun, activity and technology was associated with: the motivation and
engagement to study and attend classes (71); improved memory (25), understanding (21) and learning,
more, more easily and with context (27); and, participation, involvement (37). Significantly, affective
elements were embedded in and aided cognition and participation, such as: building relationships and
community (29); in forming meaningful and personalised connections with own and other knowledge
and experiences related to new subject ideas (35); and in aiding the function of memory and
understanding and, creativity and clear thinking (42). Students related to emotion to making sense of
‘information’ (‘meaningfulness is attached to emotion’), being engaged (‘emotion makes deep
connection, helps learning memories’; ‘I remember enjoyable moments and why, the story and the
theory together’), increasing confidence (‘I a good about things when I am having fun’; ‘gives me
confidence to express myself’) and wanting to study (‘I revisit interesting content at home’; ‘creates
desire not obligation to learn’; ‘it's a natural way of learning instead of concentrating on being
serious’). Last, positive affective experiences prevented feelings of anxiety (13) and stress (19), and
made learning enjoyable (22).

Heuristics

The research began with concern for needs resulting from extensive diversity. A technology-embedded
design was evaluated using a tentative conceptual frame for disruptive pedagogies in conjunction with
changes in engagement and knowledge structures using mapping data. Mapping data from one
postgraduate consumer behaviour cohort and survey feedback from 91 learners (two cohorts) were
used to review the influence of embedded technology supports inside and outside class. Concept
mapping data provides evidence of transitioning approaches to learning and efforts to structure and re-
structure knowledge that were influenced by overall unit design. Yet, not all learners transitioned to
and retained deeper learning approaches and complex map structures and future research is needed to
explore maps and associated orientations to learning to identify characteristic differences, such as
understandings of disciplinary concepts (thinking), applications (practises), levels of engagement and
learner experiences that act as barriers to learning.
Participation in engaging activities centring on discussions supported by technologies
promoted conceptual development (re-structuring knowledge) and the prevalence of transitions to
deeper learning approaches. The characteristic elements of disruptive pedagogies were well supported
by study data and indicate their utility, theoretically, for understanding aspects of student learning and,
practically, in enhancing learning quality through student engagement using technologies. Socio-
affective dimensions were significant to learning quality and its experience, influencing participation,
effort and depth of engagement. Definitional aspects of the developmental frame are unclear and
require clarification in future research yet, provide useful insights about the practices and preferences
of learners engaged with technology to learn and to have fun in the process.

References
Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L. & Korhonen, A. (2010). Tackling the challenges of a large course with
blended learning. In T. Joutsenvirta & L. Myyry, Blended Learning in Finland. Available at
http://www.helsinki.fi/valtiotieteellinen/julkaisut/blended_learning_Finland.pdf
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: critical issues in creating learning environments
with technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301-329.
Biggs, J.B. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed.). Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Boud, D. & Prosser, M. (2002). Appraising new technologies for learning, A framework for
development. Educational Media International, 39(3/4), 237-245.
Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for
Academic Development, 15(2), 105-116.
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B. & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation
Will Change the Way the World Learns. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, D. (2010). Don’t lecture me. Keynote speech, Association for Learning Technology Conference
(ALTC), 7 Sep. 2010. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbl-­‐xXF8NPY
Dix, A. (2003). Deconstructing Experience - pulling crackers apart. In M. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A.
Monk and P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment (2003), pp. 165-178.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ellis, R.A. & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students' experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology
of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.
Entwistle, N. (2005). Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting disciplines and
settings in higher education. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 67–82.
Fyrenius, A., Wirell, S. & Silén, C. (2007). Student approaches to achieving understanding-approaches
to learning revisited. Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), pp. 149-165.
Gordon, S., Reid, A. & Petocz, P. (2010). Educators’ conceptions of student diversity in their classes,
Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 961-974.
Harris, J., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge
and learning activity types: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
Hay, D.B. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in
Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.
Hay, D.B. & Kinchin, I.M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and
Training, 48, 79-83.
Hay, D.B., Kehoe, C., Miquel, M.E., Hatzipanagos, S., Kinchin, I.M., Keevil, SF. & Lygo-Baker, S.
(2008). Measuring the quality of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6),
1037-1056.
Hay, D.B., Wells, H. & Kinchin, I.M. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning
at university level. Higher Education, 56, 221-39.
Hedberg, J.G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come, Studies in Continuing
Education, 28(2), 173–85.
Hedberg, J.G. & Brudvik, O.C. (2008). Supporting Dialogic Literacy Through Mashing and Modding
of Places and Spaces. Theory into Practice, 47, 138-149.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models. Vol. 2: A new paradigm of instructional theory.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kinchin, I.M. (2001). If concept mapping is so helpful to learning biology, why aren’t we all using it?
International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1257-1269.
Kinchin, I.M. (2003). Effective teacher !" student dialogue: a model from biological education.
Journal of Biological Education, 37(3), 110-113.
Kinchin, I.M. & Cabot, L.B. (2007). Using concept mapping principles in PowerPoint. European
Journal of Dental Education, 11, 194-199.
Kinchin, I.M. (2006). Concept mapping, PowerPoint, and a pedagogy of access. Journal of Biological
Education, 40(2), 79-83
Kinchin, I.M. & Hay, D.B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 13(1), 43-61.
Kinchin, I.M., Hatzipanagos, S. & Turner, N. (2009). Epistemological separation of research and
teaching among graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1),
45-55.
Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B. & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can
be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research,
42(1), 43–57.
Knewstubb, B. & Bond, C. (2009). What’s he talking about? The communicative alignment between a
teacher’s intentions and a students’ understandings. Higher Education Research & Development,
28(2), 179-193.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (2005) Approaches to Learning. In: F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle,
(Eds.) The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education,
(3rd (Internet) Ed.). Available from http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html
McCrindle, M. & Wolfinger, E. (2009). The ABC of XYZ. Understanding the global generations.
Sydney: UNSW Press.
Novak, J.D. & A.J. Cañas (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and
Use Them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Available from:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) (2010). Education at a Glance
2010. Available from http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/get-it.asp?REF=9610071E.PDF
Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Student’s perceptions of their study
situation. Higher Education, 52, 421–445.