ADR  Vol.10 No.2 , May 2022
Promoting a Pedagogical Shift from Didactic Teacher-Centered to Participatory Student-Centered Learning by Harnessing the Portability and Versatility of Mobile Technology
Abstract: Mobile learning promotes a pedagogical shift from didactic teacher-centered to participatory student-centered learning. The aim of this study was to examine how physical settings and human behaviour within an environment affect user productivity in a designed environment. A case study that emphasized social interactions and comprised a design interaction module was developed. Students evaluated a designed place using mobile technology alongside traditional teaching resources through lectures and design studio sessions. The research methodology comprised a case study that emphasized social interaction using five intended learning outcomes. The case was assessed using tools that measured its congruency with overall as well as specific learning outcomes. The design interaction module was developed and implemented through mobile and face-to-face deliveries. Over a one-week block, five mobile lectures, the minimum required for impacting students’ learning experience, were delivered. Mobile learning was the most suitable approach for teaching the design interaction module. By combining the experiential and instructional learning modes that provided students with more opportunities for understanding the impact of design on the users of an environment, the goal of encouraging students to develop a critical understanding of industrial design was achieved.
Cite this paper: Gashoot, M. and Mohamed, T. (2022) Promoting a Pedagogical Shift from Didactic Teacher-Centered to Participatory Student-Centered Learning by Harnessing the Portability and Versatility of Mobile Technology. Art and Design Review, 10, 296-315. doi: 10.4236/adr.2022.102022.

[1]   Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular Alignment: A Re-Examination. Theory into Practice, 4, 255-260.

[2]   Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, Evaluation, and the Improvement of Education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 102-113.

[3]   Ashworth, F., Brennan, G., Egan, K., Hamilton, R., & Sáenz, O. (2004). Learning Theories and Higher Education.

[4]   Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student Engagement: Rhetoric and Reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 759-772.

[5]   Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27, 12-26.

[6]   Bature, I. (2020). The Mathematics Teachers Shift from the Traditional Teacher-Centred Classroom to a More Constructivist Student-Centred Epistemology. Open Access Library Journal, 7, 1-26.

[7]   Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 8, 7-25.

[8]   Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. Academic Press.

[9]   Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (4th ed.). Open University Press/SRHE.

[10]   Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. Longman.

[11]   Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. Kogan Page.

[12]   Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The Role of Engagement in Inspiring Teaching and Learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 349-362.

[13]   Cassie, A. S., Ryan, W. B., & Jerred, S. (2000). Teaching Musculoskeletal Anatomy: A Technique for Active Learners. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 198-201.

[14]   Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Collier-MacMillan.

[15]   Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to Learning and Perceptions of the Learning Environment: Introduction to the Special Issue. Higher Education, 22, 201-204.

[16]   Entwistle, N. J. (2004). Learning Outcomes and Ways of Thinking across Contrasting Disciplines and Settings in Higher Education.

[17]   Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). Understanding Student Learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice (3rd ed., pp. 8-26). Routledge.

[18]   Gashoot, M. (2012). Healing Environment: A Contribution to the Interior Design and Décor Features in Single Occupancy Hospital Rooms. Bournemouth University.

[19]   Geer, U. C., & Rudge, D. W. (2007). A Review of Research on Constructivist-Based Strategies for Large Lecture Science Classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7.

[20]   Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, S., & Habeshaw, T. (1992). 53 Interesting Ways to Teach Large Classes. Technical and Educational Services.

[21]   Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New Curriculum for New Times: A Guide to Student-Centred, Problem-Based Learning. Corwin Press, Inc.

[22]   Hoskins, S. L., & Newstead, S. E. (2009). Encouraging Student Motivation. Routledge.

[23]   Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The Trouble with Learning Outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 220-233.

[24]   Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The Uses of Learning Outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 357-368.

[25]   Illeris, K. (2003). Towards a Contemporary and Comprehensive Theory of Learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22, 396-406.

[26]   Jarvis, P. (2003). The Theory and Practice of Learning (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.

[27]   Jarvis, P. (2010). Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge.

[28]   Knowles, M. S. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2nd ed.). Cambridge Books.

[29]   Knowles, M. S. (2011). A Theory of Adult Learning: Andragogy. Elsevier.

[30]   Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging Mobile Technology for Sustainable Seamless Learning: A Research Agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 154-169.

[31]   Maher, A. (2004). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Implications for Curriculum Design and Student Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, 3, 46-54.

[32]   Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

[33]   Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

[34]   Mota, M. F., da Mata, F. R., & Aversi-Ferriera, T. A. (2010). Constructivist Pedagogic Method Used in the Teaching of Human Anatomy. International Journal of Morphology, 28, 369-374.

[35]   Norton, L. (2009). Assessing Student Learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice (3rd ed., pp. 132-149). Routledge.

[36]   Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.

[37]   Poldma, T. (1999). Gender, Design and Education: The Politics of Voice. McGill University.

[38]   Poldma, T. V. (2003). An Investigation of Learning and Teaching Processes in an Interior Design Class: An Interpretive and Contextual Inquiry. McGill University.

[39]   Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 Tips on Assessment. Routledge.

[40]   Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). Routledge Falmer.

[41]   Regan, J. A. (2005). Facilitating Students towards Self-Directed Learning. In P. Hartley, A. Woods, & M. Pill (Eds.), Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education. New Approaches for Improving Student Learning (pp. 93-108). Routledge.

[42]   Saunders, L. (2011). Information Literacy as a Student Learning Outcome: The Perspective of Institutional Accreditation.

[43]   The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Q. (2014a). Part A: Setting and Maintaining Threshold Academic Standards. Chapter A6: Assessment of Intended Learning Outcomes.

[44]   The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Q. (2014b). Part B: Assuring and Enhancing Academic Quality. Chapter B3: Learning an Teaching.

[45]   The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Q. (2014c). QAA Master’s Degree Subjects.'s-degree-characteristicsstatement.pdf?sfvrsn=86c5ca81_18

[46]   The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Q. (2014d). Subject Benchmark Statement: Anthropology.

[47]   Tough, A. (1967). Learning without a Teacher. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

[48]   Tough, A. (1979). The Adult’s Learning Projects: A Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

[49]   UKPSF (2011). The UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education.

[50]   University, B. (2014a). Policy and Procedure Documents 2B—Programme Structure and Curriculum Design Characteristics procedure.

[51]   University, B. (2014b). Policy and Procedure Documents 4A—Framework and Programme Specifications-Procedure.

[52]   University, B. (2014c). Policy and Procedure Documents 4B—Unit Specifications Procedure.

[53]   Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult Education and the Post-Modern Challenge: Learning beyond the Limits. Routledge.

[54]   Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. In L. Vygotsky (Ed.), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 79-91). Harvard University Press.

[55]   Zhang, L. F., & Sternbe, R. G. (2005). The Role of Individual Differences in Approaches to Learning. In P. P. Jarvis (Ed.), Human Learning: An Holistic Approach (pp. 66-86). Routledge.