Future–Present Learning and Teaching: A Case Study in Smart Learning

Abstract This chapter examines the teaching practice of the author in the Faculty of Education, University of Malta, taking sessions in smart learning as part of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) study units in Bachelors of Education and Masters in Teaching and Learning degree programs between 2017 and 2019. My teaching sessions ran concurrent with undertaking separate doctoral research investigating how participants experience "smart learning journeys." Smart learning journeys in the research were conceptualized as real-world journeys, with geo-spatially relevant points of interest forming a journey of locations related to a topic of learning, providing context-aware content via digital interactions. Research was not connected to teaching practice, though students who took TEL units also participated in the same smart learning journey activity as part of their syllabus.Though teaching sessions were not part of my research, my classroom practice modified as a result of emerging research findings, and my teaching benefited as I gained deeper understanding about smart learning activities and the role of the learner in them. Using dialogic learning methods and techniques inspired from my research interview methodology, class sessions became noticeably more effective as students engaged directly in discovering their own learning from having participated in the smart learning journey. Keywords Smart learning Pedagogy Discussion Dialogic learning Reflection Phenomenography Citation Lister, P. (2022), "Future–Present Learning and Teaching: A Case Study in Smart Learning", Sengupta, E. and Blessinger, P. (Ed.) Changing the Conventional University Classroom (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 44), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120220000044005 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2022 Emerald Publishing Limited Introduction This chapter attempts to describe how my classroom sessions teaching smart learning pedagogies to young educators changed as a result of applying techniques and understanding derived from my separate concurrent research about smart learning. The context of my classroom practice focuses on students who were studying education degrees at University of Malta at undergraduate final year and postgraduate level. As part of their classwork studying technology-enhanced learning (TEL), students were asked to participate in "Malta Democracy," a smart learning journey located in Republic Street, the main thoroughfare through the center of Valletta, Malta. This smart learning journey activity had been developed as part of my doctoral research at the University of Malta, investigating smart learning activities conceptualized as real-world journeys. The classroom teaching and associated student cohorts were not part of the research itself, though students participated in the same activity that I was separately researching with other participant groups. The "Malta Democracy" smart learning journey activity manifested as a smart learning environment of authentic real-world locations augmented by digital interactions, using free mobile apps and online open source digital knowledge content. Considering connectivist inspired learning activities as most relevant to this type of learning (Lister, 2018, p. 3), emphasis was placed on autonomous, creative, participatory and collaborative learning rather than specific learning designs. This permitted the hybrid, permanent beta of these learning scenarios to embrace the flexibility associated with a post web 2.0 mobile data society1 (Cochrane & Antonczak, 2014, p. 360; Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2012, p. 13; Gros, 2016). Green's (2019) "smart enough" smart cities describe our current ad hoc technologically enhanced environments that offer future–present (Ireland & Johnson, 1995) opportunities for learning in today's growing culture of learning cities to "promote lifelong learning opportunities for all," part of UNESCO Sustainable Development Goal 42 (SDG4). This is additionally relevant within a context of citizen digital literacy support and the European Commission 2017 Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (Carretero, Vuorikari, & Punie, 2017; Lister, 2020). Insights arising from my research outlined concepts of pedagogical structures of relevance and experience variation for designing these kinds of smart learning activities, gained from analyzing participant interviews using a phenomenographic structure of awareness framework (Cope, 2004). It is these pedagogical insights that I further discuss here relating to how they might be taught to future educators, to support teaching practice approaches for this type of "ubiquitous computing immersive learning" (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009, p. 8). The methodology of phenomenography employed in the research used semi-scripted, emergent and responsive interviews, encouraging participants to uncover their own experiences and reflect on them. I explored these techniques further in my non-research related classroom sessions to foster a process of learning through self-discovery, emphasizing reflection and discussion to help make sense of experiences together. This chapter reflects on how these classroom dialogic learning techniques, in the context of previous active participation in a smart learning journey, can bring about a consciousness in the participant learner toward their own act of learning (Marton & Svensson, 1979, pp. 473–474). It may be that this approach can assist in making future-facing learning activities more "real" to those who are learning about them. Definitions and Clarifications It is useful to establish definitions of terms and concepts for context and meaning in this chapter. I also clarify the nature of the smart learning journey activity that students participated in. Smart Learning, Smart Environments, and Smart Learning Journeys Smart learning is closely aligned with smart learning environments, the two might be considered intertwined, with key texts nominated here to outline these concepts for the purposes of discussion in this chapter. Spector's (2014) description of a smart learning environment that "might include features to promote engagement, effectiveness and efficiency" (p. 2) of learning is a useful benchmark, without associating specific technological implementation to it. Spector describes further aspects concerning collaboration, knowledge and learning, the importance of place and the role of technology that together form elements of the smart learning environment. Dron (2018) emphasizes the purpose of smart learning environments to learn and teach effectively, discussing how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (p. 11) play a crucial role in any learning participation. Motivation is further investigated here as part of a pedagogical "structure of relevance" (Marton & Booth, 1997) for smart learning, in light of the experiences of participants in smart learning journeys and the engagement of young educators toward smart learning as a concept. Motivational relevance is argued as potentially integral to any connectivist inspired pedagogical autonomy in smart learning design and planning (Lister, 2021c; Siemens, 2006, p. 8). A smart learning journey is a learning activity designed to mainly take place outside in the real world. Employing digital augmented reality technology to augment specific features of locations, context-aware learning content, participative learning tasks and opportunity for location-based face-to-face and digitally mediated interactions can be effectively provided to the learner at that time and place. In the doctoral research, two smart learning journeys were created to investigate smart learning. "Literary London" was located around St Paul's Cathedral and the City of London, UK, and "Malta Democracy" located along Republic Street in Valletta, Malta. Students who were attending classes with me at University of Malta, who were not part of the research, also participated in the "Malta Democracy" smart learning journey as an aspect of their studies. Concepts of Smart Learning The concept of learning in the research referred to in this chapter was not to make assumptions about results of planned learning outcomes, learning design requirements or assessment strategies, though these may all have relevance to observations and discussion. Rather, learning was regarded in terms of broad interpretations, considering the reported reflections of the participants in the research interviews for what they might regard as learning or perceive as an effective learning experience. Within this framing, smart learning is best summed up by Liu, Huang, and Wosinski's (2017, p. 209) definition of "learning to learn, learning to do and learning to self realisation." Dron (2018) describes learning in smart environments as "a complex conversational process that can and usually does lead to much that is of value beyond what is planned" (p. 3). This asks us to reflect on what effective learning is within contexts of smart learning, and what might be involved in teaching pedagogical approaches to facilitate that learning. Augmented Reality Augmented reality can be defined in various ways within educational discourse (e.g., Chen, Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2017, p. 13; Dron, 2018, pp. 2–3; Dunleavy & Dede, 2014, p. 735). Wu, Lee, Chang, and Liang (2013) provide a useful analysis, citing Klopfer and Squire (2008), who offer a description of "the idea of augmented reality – how handheld computers can supplement real world interactions, relying on context sensitivity and social interaction to create compelling new media" (p. 209). This reflects in this chapter, where augmented reality is defined as enabling a "ubiquitous computing" model, where "mediated immersion infuses digital resources throughout the real world, augmenting students' experiences and interactions" (Dunleavy et al., 2009). Teaching with a Smart Learning Journey Activity Independently of my research I was teaching classes with students studying TEL at University of Malta. A component of their syllabus was to participate in the "Malta Democracy" smart learning journey. This gave them the role of learners in a real-world example of smart learning, experiencing a direct, creative and critical participation within an autonomous activity largely controlled by themselves. Participation in the activity attempted to provide to them the smart learning that Dron (2018) describes, where smartness is "an emergent consequence of dynamic interactions between the environment's constituent parts, including those of its human inhabitants and the artefacts and structures they wittingly or unwittingly create" (p. 3). Taking part was autonomous in that students could decide when, where and how much of the journey they participated in. Tasks involved were informal, using a creative participatory pedagogy to encourage full interactivity at time and place if desired, as well as afterwards or even before going on the journey. Students were requested to create content – photographs or videos, comments or reflections – and post them in an Edmodo5 class area, relevant to tasks and locations. None of the participation or content was formally assessed in any way. Background In this chapter, I examine my teaching practice for enabling young educators to understand and facilitate smart learning in their own future teaching careers. Parallel to my teaching classes I was also researching smart learning journey activities with separate participant groups. The research that I refer to in following sections contributed to my teaching by developing understanding of smart learning pedagogies, and as findings emerged this understanding impacted my classroom practice for ways of teaching the concepts and pedagogies of smart learning to young educators studying "future-facing" TEL. My doctoral research investigating experiencing smart learning began in April 2016 (concluding September 2020) as a complementary pedagogical investigation to the COST funded CyberParks3 research project (Bonanno, Klichowski, & Lister, 2019). In order to respond to research questions orientated toward investigating the role and significance of connectivist principles in smart learning, a "connectivist-inspired" learning strategy was considered most useful to the development of learning activities (Lister, 2018, p. 3). Technological solutions that complemented this connectivist-inspired approach were therefore adopted. Apps utilized were HP Reveal,4 Edmodo,5 and Google MyMaps6 to digitally mediate learning interactions and a route of locations that together formed the journey. Learning content was hyperlinked from knowledge sources such as Wikipedia,7 WikiMedia Commons,8 or specialist websites, with some content created by tutors and hosted on independent webpages.9 As described earlier, two smart learning journeys were created, Literary London, in the UK, and Malta Democracy, in Valetta, Malta. Summary of Research Broad findings of the research outcomes outlined here may offer insights for pedagogical approaches for design and development of smart learning activities (see also Lister, 2021a, 2021b). This unfolding understanding may additionally highlight aspects for consideration in how to teach these potential approaches to young educators. Subsequent discussion reflects on what may be of pedagogical significance for smart learning activities and the environments they are situated in. Further discussion in this chapter then focuses on these considerations and approaches for teaching of smart learning in my classroom sessions (independent of the research itself), and how my teaching changed as a result of the emergent observations of the research. Methodology Phenomenography (Marton, 1981; Marton & Booth, 1997) was chosen as the methodology of the doctoral research, as was qualitative research work somewhat related to relevant fields of inquiry that benefited from selecting phenomenography as a methodological approach. Studies involving learning with technology and studies in user experience have increasingly looked to phenomenography to understand more about what users and learners do and why they do it. For example, Souleles, Savva, Watters, Annesley, and Bull (2014) examined art and design student experiences of using iPads in their studies, describing the phenomenographic approach as allowing for a "bottom-up investigation, i.e., from the perspective of learners." Kaapu and Tiainen (2010) investigated experiences of consumers and their understanding of virtual product prototypes, "to get an idea of users' subjective experience," aiming to "support customers' participation in product design process." The aims of these studies seemed to somewhat reflect in the aims of my own research, therefore phenomenography was considered to be a "good fit" for investigating user (learner) experiences of smart learning activities. These activities were a hybrid mix of digital application interactions and experiences of understanding, both in learning and in wider contexts of expectations and interpretations. Using a bottom-up approach to obtain learners' subjective experience so that it might input into smart learning design pedagogical considerations seemed a useful idea. Phenomenography analyses learner experience at collective level, looking at the experience variation itself rather than the individual context, though context is retained. Drawing on Gurwitsch's (1964, 2010) ideas about theme, thematic field and margin, experience is analyzed using a "structure of awareness" analytical framework (Cope, 2004). Known as a second-order perspective (Marton, 1981, p. 2; 1996, p. 183; Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002, p. 340), phenomenography is non-dualist (Marton, 1996) in nature, making an epistemological assumption that there is only one world as experienced by the learner, "where there is an internal relation between the inner world and the outer world" (Ireland, Tambyah, Neofa, & Harding, 2009). Here we are not concerned with ontological discussions of reality, or of the essence of a phenomenon (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 117), but rather only the reality concerning phenomena of interest to the research as experienced by individuals being researched. Sampling The sample of research participants was purposive and convenience (Edwards, 2005, p. 22; Reed, 2006, p. 6; Souleles et al., 2014, p. 4), recruiting undergraduate and postgraduate students on a voluntary basis between 2017 and 2019. Student cohorts were drawn from Education degrees and an Adult Education International Masters Erasmus program based at University of Malta, plus an additional cohort from London Metropolitan University studying English Literature and Creative Writing. Phenomenography does not require large amounts of data, only sufficient to permit the widest possible (or likely) variation of experience to be found (Yates, Partridge, & Bruce, 2012, p. 8). Taking into account practical limitations as well as iterative estimation for different variations to emerge, 24 participants were considered sufficient, giving a snapshot of variation (Åkerlind, Bowden, & Green, 2005; Trigwell, 2000) that included different demographics and subject disciplines. A possible limitation was gender representation, with nineteen females and six males. Analysis Adopting a phenomenographic analysis approach, categories of "experience complexity" variation emerged to form an outcome space (e.g., Larsson & Holmström, 2007, p. 56; Marton & Pong, 2005; Reed, 2006, p. 8) for "experiencing the smart learning journey." This was achieved by discovering units of meaning (Marton & Pong, 2005; Reed, 2006) in a structure of awareness for the activity, noting commonalities and difference variations across the utterances at collective level in the interview transcripts. The outcome space "experiencing the smart learning journey" was formed of four categories with four levels of experience complexity. These were somewhat relational, partially inclusive and may have some hierarchical relationship to each other (Lister, 2021a). Analysis was then reviewed by a co-judge (Booth, 1992, p. 68) to further review the analysis perspective and establish its communicability and interpretive awareness (Cope, 2004; Sandberg, 1997). Exploring Categories of Experience Variation Categories of experience variation for the smart learning journey shown in Tables 1 and 2 are Tasks & Obligations, Discussing, Being There and Knowledge & Place as Value (Lister, 2021a, 2021b). Table 1 shows the structure of awareness variations that a participant may experience; Table 2 shows potential levels of complexity of this structure of awareness that may be present in varying combinations concurrently at the same time for the same participant. Noting that this data interpretation may be considered a snapshot of participant experience variation for a given activity at a given time and place (e.g., Åkerlind et al., 2005, p. 81; Trigwell, 2000, p. 80), some observations can be made. Table 1. The Outcome Space "Experiencing the Smart Learning Journey," Structure of Awareness Draft Category Descriptions. Category of Description Structure of Awareness Referential: meaning, reasoning, focus (theme) Internal Horizon: theme; "near" thematic field External Horizon: further thematic field into the margin Category A – tasks and obligations Tasks, Obligations, Requirements Doing the tasks; "what we had to do"; what is required Questions, tasks, obligations, requirements, own assignment or coursework Relevance to own work, grading, "being marked," usefulness, reason to do it, time needed or set aside (available), purpose Category B – discussing Discussing, Helping, Working together, Being social Discussing tasks, discussing things associated with tasks, discussing other things about the location Working together to help each other, discussing the technology, working out "who was going to do what," sharing technology Thinking about collaboration as a help to learning, other social aspects, getting to know each other, other passers by, fun and enjoyment with friends Category C – being there Being there, Being in the place, Being there at that time Being "in the place," it "being real," "living it," "living in the picture," walking in their shoes, at that time, in that moment Seeing the close context, media and knowledge "immediately" at the place, not wasting time, "doing it now," not being like a book or online, technology mediation for discovery of place, feeling a place Mood and atmosphere of place, weather, light, sounds, wider context of surroundings, knowing the locations on a map (the route), being like a tourist, taking notice of surroundings, inspiration, imagination, visiting/exploring other locations for learning and/or inspiration Category D – knowledge and place as value Knowledge & place for own sake, Knowledge/Place as gaining benefit Personal research, motivation, own experience of the journey, the journey being of benefit, the journey as value for learning Personal reasoning, imagination, creativity, curiosity, own interest in topic(s), inspiration, learning something new Potential use or purpose, for future practice, preparedness, prior or post research, additional knowledge construction or discovery, visiting/exploring other locations for learning and/or inspiration Table 2. Understanding Experience Complexity of a Smart Learning Journey. Category A Doing the Tasks Category B Discussing Category C Being There Category D Knowledge and Place as Value Level 1 Do the tasks, go home Discuss who does the tasks, how technology works Go to locations, do tasks, go home No engagement with content or knowledge, don't create or upload content Level 2 Do the tasks of interest, directly related to coursework or assessment Discuss the tasks, help each other with tasks and tech Locations are of some interest, potential for learning, creativity or inspiration Click a few content links, save links "for later," make screenshots of augmentations or tasks Level 3 Tasks indirectly related to coursework or assessment Discuss tasks and topic in relation to time and place Experience in the place relating to other people, aspects and memories. Make connections between places and knowledge Engage further with knowledge in topics, create upload content for tasks and at locations Level 4 Research tasks and topic beforehand, take time doing and reflecting on tasks Share tasks and content, do additional learning, discuss related experience and knowledge Live it, being in the picture, live the atmosphere, take more time, seeing the whole and related parts Knowing and seeing knowledge and place as valuable, personal experience, deeper engagement and "possibilities" Table 1 describes the "referential" and the "structural" aspects of this structure of awareness. The referential is the meaning, derived from the internal horizon close up focus of the awareness (Cope, 2004), and the structural are the aspects that can be thought of as descriptive and functional, the structure that gives rise to the meaning, and extends out to the external horizon, the outer edge of perceptual boundary (e.g., Bruce, Pham, & Stoodley, 2004). These structure of awareness variations hint at an idea that a participant (learner) is not perhaps only "one type of learner" and can have a variety of complexity going on as aspects of awareness in their participation. This can be considered in two ways: structures of relevance that are of importance to the participant, and aspects of the object of learning (Marton & Tsui, 2004, pp. 4–5) that might be "of vital interest" to the learner (Greeno & Engeström, 2014, p. 134). These two ways are likely not separate, but rather are intertwined in the mind and interactions of the learner. Examining the structural and referential aspects within each category, relevance structures (Marton & Booth, 1997, chapter 7) become evident. These range from those closely related to coursework requirements of the study unit, extending toward future teaching practice, levels of personal interest, motivation, and relevance to topic area of study. Additional potentially co-existing social and collaborative factors that are sometimes disconnected from study also act as interpretive influencers. Focus on some "global aspects of learning" (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 141) might be issues such as the role or direct impact in assigned and assessed coursework, and relevance to future professional practice. Other factors emerge across the transcripts such as interest in the topics of the journey, the significance of place, time available to participate and perception of the activity itself for personal or social value. Table 2 outlines the different levels of complexity that can be described for each of the experience variation categories of description, and we can see that for level 1, the simplest descriptions are observed – doing the task, discussing who does the tasks, going to a location, not having much (or any) engagement with value of knowledge in relation to place. These levels increase upwards in complexity in terms of what may be spoken about as of significance to an interviewee, and types of complexity can vary somewhat, yet retain inclusion in a category within a perceptual boundary horizon. It was noted that for some participants, category level 1 as well as level 4 utterances were observed as present in the same person, depending on what might have been the topic of the interview at a given point. The emerging awareness of these categories of experience variation, levels of complexity, and related structures of relevance shed light on how an activity might be "pitched" to learners, for example how it could be positioned within a study unit for its relationship to assessment, wider value and possible relevance further afield from the study unit or even the degree program. These were all significant aspects to consider from pedagogical perspectives when planning or designing smart learning activities. They additionally provided possible context for how and what to teach as "smart learning pedagogy" to young student educators. Situating Smart Learning in Structures of Relevance In terms of participation for the quality and value of engagement, motivation may be a key factor of experiential and pedagogical relevance in smart learning (Lister, 2021c). The interest and motivation of the learner in a learning activity, perhaps especially an autonomous one, begin well before the activity itself takes place, as learning is situated within a wider structure of relevance and global aspects of learning. Lorenzo and Gallon (2019) contest that "(i)t is difficult to understand the personal mechanisms that incentivise engagement and motivation, as they are tightly connected to individual learning interests, styles, and priorities …" (p. 54), going on to describe "smart learning spaces" as a useful element in this (data-driven) personalized approach. Yet Dron (2018) declares that "(t)he first problem of traditional teaching is that it embeds and reinforces the power of the teacher to control everything that happens in a classroom […]. Self-determination theory demonstrates that intrinsic motivation cannot emerge unless a person has a sense of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2006), against which the traditional classroom model thus actively militates" (Dron, 2018, p. 11) . It is worth noting again here that the learner's "object of vital interest" (Greeno & Engeström, 2014, p. 134) may be a potent driver for incentivising motivation and engagement. Additional aspects of relevance structure may be associated with more cultural associations such as where locations might be situated and what they represent (e.g., Buell, 2005), or practical aspects such as the preparedness of the learner to participate in the activity (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2012), bearing in mind it is autonomous and may not be obligatory. Learners may be ill equipped to participate in autonomous learning activities, however, in contexts of connectivist-inspired learning, autonomous motivation and empowerment of the learner are implicit in activity participation. Whether or not learning is assessed, mandatory, formative, or supplementary may potentially all be powerful mitigators in the mind of the learner to initiate and sustain participation in learning. Marton and Booth's (1997) concept of relevance structures and the global aspects of learning into which a smart learning journey activity is situated may determine how the phenomenon of the smart learning journey might be experienced. In their structure of awareness, the focus of the learner may be as much on these hidden learning agendas as on any aspect of the journey itself, whether in close focus or in peripheral awareness. Part of the understanding of pedagogies for smart learning is to acknowledge these considerations, adopting an approach that learning activity situated-ness (in a variety of interpretations) is of prime importance, and that the empowerment and engagement of the learner begin well before participation in a learning activity. This emerging understanding of experience variation, relevance, autonomy, and motivation provided pragmatic insight for contexts of teaching "smart learning pedagogy" to young student educators, explicitly acknowledging these factors as relevance structures in pedagogical guidance for planning and creating smarter learning environments and activities (Lister, 2021b). So began the process of rethinking how to teach this developing pedagogy of relevance and experience complexity for smart learning to my students. Future–Present Pedagogy for Smarter Learning and Teaching The emerging findings of the research began to impact o