Components of learning in upper secondary teachers’ pedagogical patterns

ABSTRACT

Pedagogical patterns aim at assisting teachers with limited teaching experience with technology-supported solutions to educational problems. In a workshop series, 13 pedagogical patterns were created by upper secondary teachers recognised for their use of technology in teaching. These patterns constitute data for a deductive thematic analysis to understand how they reflect key components of learning theories. The analysis reveals that the learning activities promote individual and reflective learning but that the solutions involve a variety of pedagogical components. The authors conclude that the method suggested for analysis contributes to research within technology-enhanced learning. It can expand knowledge about the pedagogy involved in learning designs that support the use of technology in education. Adopting a participatory design approach in workshops can moreover contribute to the collegial learning of teachers.

KEYWORDS:

• Pedagogical patterns
• learning design
• thematic analysis
• pedagogy
• learning theories

Introduction

One approach to supporting the use of technology in education is to encourage teachers to develop design competence, and to become designers of education with technology for learning. Mor and Craft (2012) claimed that: ‘[T]he role of educators needs to adapt from distributors of knowledge to designers for learning’ (p. 85). The idea of teachers as designers is noted in research communities such as Design for Learning and Learning Design (Beetham & Sharpe, 2013; Dalziel et al., 2016; Goodyear & Dimitriadis, 2013; Laurillard, 2012; Mor et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2013; Selander, 2008). Teachers-as-designers encompasses the complex tasks with which teachers engage, involving the challenges and provisions related to their teaching and ultimately to their students’ learning. As designers of learning and thus developers of learning designs, teachers who successfully employ technology in their teaching practice may share their experiences with their colleagues. Teachers are then in a position to steer the use of technology in schools (Laurillard, 2012) and provide future users with proposals that can be adapted to the unique context of the actual teaching practice (Goodyear & Retalis, 2010; Holmberg, 2014; Pareto & Willermark, 2019; Prieto et al., 2011).

Shared knowledge in the form of learning designs entails a bottom-up strategy that may support a widespread use of sound technology use in teaching. However, in order to expand knowledge in the field concerned with technology-enhanced learning (TEL), a detailed understanding of the characteristics of the shared items is needed. From our perspective, learning theories underpinning learning designs should be considered an important detail to examine. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, no such analyses have been carried out within TEL.

This article presents a descriptive analysis of learning designs in the form of pedagogical patterns written by upper secondary teachers. The analysis aims to understand what the designs reveal, either implicitly or explicitly, about components related to learning theories. To this end, the analysis adopts a framework developed by Conole et al. (2004) for inferring pedagogy related to specific characteristics of learning theories. Furthermore, the analysis involves applying deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Terry et al., 2017). The following research question thus guides the analysis: which components of learning can be distinguished in pedagogical patterns?

Background

Different pedagogy planner tools (Masterman & Manton, 2011), mostly referred to Learning Designs, have been suggested for teachers’ designs for learning (Dalziel et al., 2016; Wasson & Kirschner, 2020). They function as a means of providing teachers with a structure for communicating and sharing knowledge relating to the pedagogical use of technology in education, which may be further reused. Examples include the Learning Designer tool (Laurillard et al., 2018), an online resource that walks teachers through various elements that ultimately result in a complete learning design, and TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), which integrates seven aspects of teachers’ knowledge about technology, pedagogy and content in order to help teachers to reflect on these matters when creating learning designs.

This article focuses on pedagogical patterns, a kind of learning design that stems from design patterns (Persico & Pozzi, 2015), originally created by architects Alexander et al. (1977). They were committed to sharing their knowledge and ideas about architecture with a larger audience by describing problems in a certain context familiar to architects and providing solutions to the stated problems. Thus, design patterns are based within the tradition of design with its understanding of problem-framing and exploration of solutions as essential parts of the design process (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2007).

The concept of design patterns came to be adapted first by software engineering for the design patterns’ potential to support the developers (Fincher, 1999). Later, design patterns were also applied to educational purposes in higher education, involving the use of technology in teaching, and often referred to as pedagogical, instructional or educational (design) patterns (Falconer et al., 2011; Goodyear, 2005; Law et al., 2017; McAndrew et al., 2006; Retalis et al., 2006; Sun, 2020; Winters & Mor, 2008). Accordingly, pedagogical patterns both bring about technology-related problems and provide solutions to them, thus giving teachers ideas on how to use technology in their teaching. The problems can be of two kinds (Laurillard, 2012): either the pattern is about teaching problems that, for example, provide solutions on how to help students collaborate, or teachers understand the problem as equivalent to a learning outcome, exemplified by learning the alphabet or understanding the different perspectives of the French Revolution. Both kinds describe sequences of learning activities in the solution section.

Analyses of finalised pedagogical patterns are, however, rare. An example consists of approximately 40 pedagogical patterns developed in the ELEN project from 2002 to 2005 by university teachers and researchers and then evaluated by the same group of contributors (Niegemann & Domagk, 2005). The evaluators’ comments on each pedagogical pattern imply that they may have other opinions on the solutions or find it difficult to understand different parts of the patterns. In another study, primary teachers developed recurrent routines, a limited variety of pedagogical patterns that describe a single idea of how to use technology. The researchers found that activities ‘spanning several minutes and involving teacher decisions and complex interactions between the teacher and the students are taken care of with one small sentence in the written design’ (Prieto et al., 2010, p. 500), resulting in incomplete routines. The same tendencies have also been identified in pedagogical patterns written by upper secondary teachers (Rolf et al., 2019). Yet, pedagogical patterns, like any other learning design, are said to have the potential ‘to convey great teaching ideas among educators to improve student learning’ (Dalziel et al., 2016, p. 2) and spur technology use in teaching. However, if pedagogical patterns are to be recommended to teachers that seek usable ideas of pedagogical use of technology, more knowledge is needed to ensure their effectiveness.

It is known that it is difficult for professionals (e.g., engineers, architects or teachers) to access and articulate the knowledge gathered through their education and work experiences (Schön, 1983). Much professional knowledge is thus tacit, and accordingly, teachers may be less able to define the intended pedagogy. It has, nevertheless, been argued that if learning designs are to be effectively reused, then ‘pedagogy must be clear and explicitly described’ (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 155). In a case study, pre-school teachers in training attended a course to support the use of technology in their future practice by using TPACK (Nguyen & Bower, 2018). The course included lectures and seminars about pedagogical approaches and pedagogical theories involving ‘scaffolding strategies, facilitating collaboration, conducting an assessment, epistemologies of learning and so on’ (Nguyen & Bower, 2018, p. 1037), thus indicating a complex understanding of pedagogy. Despite the researchers’ efforts to share knowledge on pedagogy, the findings revealed that the teachers rarely mentioned it in their designs.

However, a contradictory result is found in analyses of teachers’ design talk when creating learning designs by applying the TPACK model (Boschman et al., 2015; Koh & Chai, 2016). These results demonstrate that the teachers addressed pedagogy while designing for learning. The findings are related to the model in which pedagogy equals pedagogical strategies (Koh & Chai, 2016) and ‘instructional strategies, classroom strategies and knowledge about learners, learning and teaching’ (Boschman et al., 2015, p. 395), but reveal no further details on the character of those strategies.

The literature examining pedagogy hence shows different results, which may be a consequence of different methods used, different educational levels and, relevant to this study, researchers’ different understanding of pedagogy. Our analysis starts from the inherent connection between practice and theory, between teachers’ strategies and methods and learning theories (Phillips & Soltis, 2009). Thus, it should be possible to find traces of learning theories in learning activities, and in this article, we report how this can be done.

Data collection – workshops and writing of design patterns

In cooperation with Stockholm University, the city of Stockholm’s educational administration launched a programme in 2016 to support upper secondary teachers’ use of technology. The municipality invited teachers with documented experience of technology use in teaching to participate and share their proven ideas on technology use by applying design strategies that would inspire other teachers to use technology in their teaching. Fourteen upper secondary teachers from different schools representing various subjects accepted the invitation to join the project.

The workshop series involved five two-hour meetings facilitated by the three researchers and held outside schools in a conference room at the municipality. The first two workshops were dedicated to participatory design methods to support teachers’ ‘constructive discussion, dialogue, negotiation, and mutual learning’ (Muller, 2008, p. 1064). The three remaining workshops focused on writing design patterns, and four to six patterns were created at each meeting, with the teachers working in different collaborative groups across subjects. The researchers functioned as facilitators to assist the teachers if they needed support in identifying problems that hindered them from making decisions, as suggested by Herbert (2010). Hence, the teachers were encouraged to create any design pattern which they considered had the potential to support the use of technology in schools. (For a detailed account of each workshop, see Rolf et al., 2019.)

The design pattern format used by the teachers was based on the original layout (Alexander et al., 1977). Sections were thus chosen, so the layout used supported the development of information-rich design patterns (Table 1). The third column reproduces an example of a written design pattern. In contrast to the intention, the participating teachers in the present workshop series did not use the design pattern layout much, and the pattern name, problem and solution sections were thus often favoured (Rolf et al., 2019). We can, therefore, anticipate a particular challenge in interpreting the learning activities described in the set of pedagogical patterns, but we need to accept that the teachers have not communicated more fully. Despite the fragmented outcome in writing, the teachers were deeply involved in their task, and the discussions were intense.

Table 1. Design pattern layout including explanations and an example of its use

Layout sections	Sections explained	Design Pattern 4
Pattern name	The name of the pattern	Plagiarism, cheating
Problem	A description of the problem	Learners hand in copy and pasted work. They are ignorant of the differences between writing text in their own words, citing, and plagiarising.
Context	The context of the problem	-
Solution	A solution to the problem	Make the learners show their work in progress Demonstrate how to search and find the same material Teachers may use Urkund Learn how to reference/learn referencing
Maturity	The maturity of the pattern, in terms of how established the solution is	-
Miscellaneous	Miscellaneous information	Don’t judge, inspire for the future.
The pattern creator’s name and date	The pattern creator’s name and date	-
Pattern status	Status of the pattern; whether the pattern is currently in use	-
References to other patterns	References to other patterns	-
Recipient	Description of the recipient of the pattern (teacher, learner, principal)	-

Table 2. The six key components of learning organised into three spectra and explanations

Spectrum	Key component	Explanation
Spectrum 1	Individual	‘Where the individual is the focus of learning.’
	Social	‘Learning is explained through interaction with others (such as a tutor or fellow learners), through discourse and collaboration and the wider social context within which the learning takes place.’
Spectrum 2	Reflection	‘Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience is transformed into learning.’
	Non-reflection	‘Where learning is explained with reference to processes such as conditioning, preconscious learning, skills learning and memorisation.’
Spectrum 3	Information	‘Where an external body of information such as text, artefacts and bodies of knowledge form the basis of experience and the raw material for learning.’
	Experience	‘Where learning arises through direct experience, activity and practical application.’

Note: Conole et al. (2004, pp. 22–23).

Table 3. Analytical framework including pedagogical themes for each spectrum

Spectrum	Pedagogical themes
1	Individual	Individual–Social	Social
2	Reflection	Reflection–Non-reflection	Non-reflection
3	Information	Information–Experience	Experience

Note: Adapted from Conole et al. (2004).

Table 4. Overview of pedagogical patterns involving inferred pedagogical themes from associated solutions

Pattern name, Problem and Solution(s)		Spectrum 1	Spectrum 2	Spectrum 3
1. Share (good) examples Lack of time, will, fear of sharing examples of ICT usage	1. Learners and teachers prepare examples of technology use 2. Learners and teachers record a video of examples of technology use 3. Other learners and teachers at the school watch the video	Social Social Individual	Reflection Reflection– Non-reflection Non-reflection	Information– Experience Experience Information
2. Enhance basic IT skills by video tutorials Learners lack basic digital skills Teachers lack time to give repeated support	4. Tutorials are arranged in a database	Individual	Non-reflection	Information
3. Internet source criticism Learners do not reflect on the sender of sources of information	5. ‘The Viral Eye’ with examples of false sources 6. Wikipedia course 7. Reference guide for source criticism 8. Demand references–reflections in every part	Individual–Social Individual–Social Individual Individual	Reflection–Non-reflection Reflection–Non-reflection Non-Reflection Reflection	Experience Information Information Information– Experience
4. Plagiarism, cheating Learners hand in copy and pasted work. They are ignorant of the differences between writing a text in their own words, citing, and plagiarising	9. Make the learners show their work in progress 10. Demonstrate how to search and find the same material 11. Learn to referee—learn to reference	Individual–Social Individual–Social Individual	Reflection–Non-reflection Reflection Reflection	Information– Experience Experience Information– Experience
5. Invent pre-knowledge The teacher is ignorant of the pre-knowledge or misconceptions of learners	12. Use a response app	Individual	Reflection–Non-reflection	Information–Experience
6. A way to let everybody use their voice Some learners do not want to speak up in class	13. Use digital and anonymous response apps such as Padlet, Kahoot, Socrative	Social	Reflection	Information—Experience
7. Evaluating the lesson The teacher does not know how much the learner has absorbed from a lesson	14. Use exit tickets at the end of the lesson, i.e., Padlet	Individual	Reflection–Non-reflection	Information–Experience
8. Learners work with concepts by flip The learners need a basic knowledge of concepts, but their knowledge is at different levels	15. Give learners online access to all material (concepts, learning design, videos, links) and work at a preferred pace 16. The learners submit further questions via a form at the end of the lesson. 17. Learners take a digitalised mini-test after the lesson	Individual Individual Individual	Reflection Reflection Reflection–Non-reflection	Experience Information Information
9. Collaborative work by brainstorming A group should be able to collect, think, and brainstorm collaboratively in the cloud; all members should be able to edit; and nothing is linked to a user or screen. All learners do not need to be at the same place at the same time.	18. Work in the cloud so that many learners can edit work, for example via Lucidchart or Padlet	Social	Reflection	Experience
10. Learners—collaborative work by brainstorming Learners are not familiar with technology for sharing and editing	19. Learners work in a classroom with the teacher the first time using Padlet	Individual–Social	Non-reflection	Information
11. Working anonymously on a group learning design Social patterns in the classroom generate preconceptions about learners and what they can add to project work. Learners may therefore avoid working with classmates. This causes a problem, as the democratic values of the school support the development of confident learners that are able to cooperate with anyone in the classroom	20. Learners brainstorm together anonymously online in Padlet 21. Learners work anonymously on an online document for the creation of a presentation 22. Teach the learners how to use the applications	Social Social Individual–Social	Reflection Reflection Non-reflection	Experience Experience Information–Experience
12. Learners cannot find their digital documents Learners forget to save documents or lack structure in digital environments	23. Migrate to Office365	Individual	Reflection	Experience

The pedagogical patterns (Tables 1 and 4) have been translated from Swedish to English by the authors to maintain the original formulations.

A total of 17 design patterns were finalised. Four of them describe problems and solutions related to technology issues, involving, for example, infrastructure and projectors. The remaining 13 design patterns are related to teaching with technology (Laurillard, 2012). These 13 patterns are identified as pedagogical patterns and examined in this study.

Method

Data is textual and primarily comprises solution sections of the pedagogical patterns. As a solution is part of the context, the entire pedagogical pattern is consulted when performing the analysis.

Analytical framework

A framework developed by Conole et al. (2004) describes six key components of learning theories and is used for the deductive analysis in this study to identify pedagogical approaches in the pedagogical patterns.

The toolkit, a model of pedagogies, is a framework that enables e-learning teachers to identify pedagogical components of learning activities when planning or to evaluate implemented activities (Conole et al., 2004). The framework distinguishes common characteristics of learning theories, originating in writings of, among others, John Dewey, David Kolb, Jean Piaget, B. F. Skinner, Lev Vygotsky and Etienne Wenger.

The components are arranged in three spectra so dichotomies can be discerned. A continuum between them enables teachers to position their teaching activity accurately. Table 2 introduces the components and their meaning according to Conole et al. (2004).

The original framework indicates a continuum of six to seven positions (Conole et al., 2004). Because pedagogical patterns are fragmented, the solutions were expected to convey information that was too limited to be placed correctly on such a detailed scale. The option of using solely binary distinctions was thought to be insufficient, and therefore a single intermediate position was created on each spectrum to support the characterisation of the solutions (Table 3).

The applied conceptual framework aligned with the thematic analysis. It constituted key components that correspond to nine pedagogical themes. When inferring pedagogy from a solution that contains elements that fit both themes in a spectrum, it is assumed that it will be placed in the intermediate theme. If neither the solution nor the entire pedagogical pattern describe enough meaning, it is impossible to infer a pedagogical theme.

Pedagogical themes for each solution and from three spectra makes it possible to assemble the results in clusters. These clusters then reflect the combinations of pedagogical themes suggested for each solution. There are 27 possible clusters.

Thematic analysis

The analysis strives to theoretically understand what the solutions disclose about themes that are deductively inferred from the data and involve semantic/descriptive and latent/interpretative approaches (Terry et al., 2017). The first approach is applied when the wordings more or less explicitly address pedagogical themes. The latent approach is used when the pedagogical themes are more or less implicitly expressed.

For a solution to be characterised as Social, it must describe interaction with either classmates or the teacher. Lecturing is considered partly Social since teachers usually invite learners to ask questions and engage in discussions, which is defined as Individual-Social. Collaboration, on the other hand, is considered entirely Social.

The definition of Reflection offered by Conole et al. (2004) implies an association with Experience. However, the analysis made here includes any other instance that requires reflection, such as when the learners are interacting with each other and when a solution is considered demanding for the learners. Conversely, a solution that can be performed instantly or does not require much attention to detail is deemed part of the Non-reflection theme.

The use of digital tools is not considered sufficient to create experiential learning, and the context of the use of technology must thus be considered carefully. The more complex the solution, the more likely it is to be interpreted as experiential. Although experience, according to Conole et al. (2004), is related to an individual’s opportunities to reflect, use of technology needs to accomplish more profound or deep learning to be considered experiential. On the other hand, if the technology used is new to the learners, the activity is considered experiential.

In order to approach data with a reflective and critical stance, the analysis was performed iteratively. Two authors discussed the analysis to consistently interpret the data until consensus was reached (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013).

Handling of data

A recurrent feature of teachers’ learning designs is that teachers tend to load their designs with several learning activities or similar distinguishable units (Harris et al., 2009; Laurillard, 2012; Pareto & Willermark, 2019). Units are also recognised by the authors of the method applied (Conole et al., 2004) that extract mini-learning activities. In this article, cases in which the pedagogical patterns contain several solutions or sub-solutions are distinguished and each is considered a unit for analysis.

Four solutions to the problem are stated in the design pattern presented in Table 1, but only three are solutions related to pedagogical matters: (i) make the learners show their work in progress; (ii) demonstrate how to search and find the same material, and iii) learn how to reference/learn referencing. The fourth solution involves an activity concerning Urkund, a plagiarism detection tool. It is not identified as a solution that involves pedagogy and is thus omitted from the analysis.

Solutions that do not provide information related to key components of different learning approaches are omitted from the forthcoming analysis. The following pedagogical pattern includes only the pattern name and solution sections. Moreover, the character of the solutions is general and unclear, and it is not explained what ‘the tool’ refers to. Because it is too difficult to envision any specific activity, pedagogical themes cannot be inferred.

Pattern name: ‘the laptop is used only as a typewriter’

Solution: ‘encourage optional presentation alternatives, use the tool to support a culture of sharing, use the tool to support creativity.’

This pedagogical pattern is omitted from the analysis, and thus the analysis comprises 12 pedagogical patterns.

Results

The pedagogical themes found in the 12 pedagogical patterns are illustrated in Table 4 in columns 2–4. The first column displays the most commonly used sections of the pedagogical patterns, the pattern name, the problem and the solutions to provide an overview of the pattern. The table shows that five of the pedagogical patterns contain several solutions, and a total of 26 solutions can hence be distinguished.

The digital devices represented in the pedagogical patterns are limited almost entirely to laptops. In addition, pedagogical pattern 1 does not explicitly refer to devices, but a video camera or a smartphone is needed to record a video, and a projector is also needed to show the recording. Although not mentioned, a projector may also be required for activities that describe lecturing since teachers that use technology often use a digital presentation.

The digital resources referred to include information retrieved online through websites or the learning management system used in the school. Multimedia content in the form of videos is also mentioned. The use of various apps, including Office365, is also found in the solutions.

Pedagogical themes found in solutions

The number of times a theme was inferred from a solution is displayed in Table 5. As can be seen, the results indicate that the Individual and Reflection themes are prominent. These themes constitute approximately half of the solutions, and the other themes each represent about a quarter. The themes in spectrum 3 demonstrate an equal distribution, although the Information theme is least common.

Table 5. The number of times pedagogical themes for each spectrum are displayed in the numbered solutions

Spectrum	Pedagogical themes
1	11 Individual 3,4,7,8,11,12,14–17,23	6 Individual–Social 5,6,9,10,19,22	6 Social 1,2,13,18,20,21
2	11 Reflection 1,8,10,11,13,15,16,18,20,21,23	7 Reflection–Non-reflection 2,5,6,9,12,14,17	5 Non-reflection 3,4,7,19,22
3	6 Information 3,4,6,7,16,17	9 Information–Experience 1,8,9,11–14,19,22	8 Experience 2,5,10,15,18,20,21,23

As most of the themes for spectrum 1 and 2 focus on individual and reflective activities, it is possible to claim that the designing teachers favour these solutions involving technology use. Five solutions (8, 11, 15, 16 and 23) have the Individual and Reflection themes in common. Referencing sources is one example carried out by individual learners but requires their full attention, that is, demanding reflection, not least because they have to learn to manage the different reference systems used by different academic disciplines besides critically examining sources of information. Furthermore, the definition of Reflection supports the interpretation: ‘Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience is transformed into learning’ (Conole et al., 2004, p. 22).

Another four solutions (13, 18, 20 and 21) include both the Social and Reflection themes. For example, collaborating with classmates on presentations provides the learners with opportunities to access opinions from others on both the content and how to perform and complete the assignment. As there are no solutions that demonstrate a combination of the Social and Non-reflection themes, Social activities thus tend to require some degree of reflection. Some designs combine the Individual and Non-reflection themes, as exemplified by solutions 3, 4 and 7. Watching a video is an excellent example of such a learning design.

The distribution among pedagogical themes is most even in the third spectrum, although the intermediate theme stands out as being slightly favoured. Five of the Information theme-characterised solutions (3, 4, 7, 16 and, 17) also correspond with the Individual theme. These activities thus require learners to individually access information – whether in the form of a document or video – or individually pass on information to the teacher.

A single Experience-related design, inferred in solution 23, corresponded with an Individual theme, but four solutions (2, 18, 20 and 21) correspond to the Social theme. These four solutions thus comprise a collaborative use of technology that allows learners to engage in an experience, exemplified both by recording a video and engaging in brainstorming sessions. Almost every solution inferred as the Information theme (3, 4, 7, 16 and 17) was also associated with the Individual theme. These solutions are about individual learners taking part in activities that are associated with transferral learning designs.

Pedagogical themes combined in clusters

As shown in the previous section, it is not only single pedagogical themes worth considering since combinations of two themes may shed more light on themes of pedagogical patterns. A cluster combines three spectra and thus further enhances understanding. We have discovered that the 23 solutions analysed are distributed over 14 clusters of 27 theoretically possible combinations of the three themes from each spectrum, that is, half of the clusters. It further confirms the varied use of pedagogical themes in the set of solutions. Table 6 shows the number of times a solution is represented in a particular cluster. Each cluster is given a letter for reference.

Table 6. Summary of clusters of pedagogical themes and related solutions

	Pedagogical theme cluster	Solution
A	Social/Reflection/Experience	18,20,21
B	Individual/Non-reflection/Information	3,4,7
C	Social/Reflection/Information–Experience	1,13
D	Individual/Reflection/Experience	15,23
E	Individual/Reflection/Information–Experience	8,11
F	Individual/Reflection–Non-reflection/Information–Experience	12,14
G	Individual–Social/Non-reflection/Information–Experience	19,22
H	Social/Reflection–Non-reflection/Experience	2
I	Individual/Reflection/Information	16
J	Individual/Reflection–Non-reflection/Information	17
K	Individual–Social/Reflection-Non-reflection/Information	6
L	Individual–Social/Reflection/Experience	10
M	Individual–Social/Reflection–Non-reflection/Experience	5
N	Individual–Social/Reflection–Non-reflection/Information–Experience	9

We can see that three solutions characterise the two clusters A and B, representing different pedagogical themes. Another five clusters (C–G) involve two solutions each, and seven clusters are unique. Due to the disparate results, varied pedagogical themes for the solutions as a whole are further emphasised. An illustrative example involves the six solutions that suggest the use of Padlet. These solutions are found in four clusters (A, C, F and G). Using this example, it is clear that the solutions suggest different pedagogical uses of the same technology.

Discussion

The question to be discussed was posed initially: Which components of learning can be distinguished in pedagogical patterns?

Previous research presents contradictory findings regarding teachers’ references to pedagogy. Studies based on specific understandings of what pedagogy entails show that teachers may address pedagogy during design talk (Boschman et al., 2015; Koh & Chai, 2016), but that a case study that put effort into informing the designers of pedagogical approaches reported that teachers rarely mentioned pedagogy (Nguyen & Bower, 2018). However, the conflict may be illusory. The method used in this study allowed us to identify pedagogy in almost every solution of pedagogical patterns. A strength of the framework applied (Conole et al., 2004) is that it associates proposed learning activities, which indicate teachers’ strategies and methods, with learning theories (Conole et al., 2004; Phillips & Soltis, 2009). In combination with a deductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Terry et al., 2017), the applied framework hence made it possible to depict the components of learning theories regardless of whether they were explicitly or implicitly addressed.

When reflecting on the findings, it is vital to remember that the teachers were not instructed to write exemplary pedagogical patterns representing their own most advanced use of technology. Hence, the inferred components likely reflect the teacher designers’ ideas on what they believe may be of use for teachers who are inexperienced in using technology in their teaching.

We found that the Individual and Reflection components are most common, indicating that the suggested learning activities require consideration by the individual student. The fact that social activities are proposed to a limited extent indicates that theories that promote collaborative learning are not represented to such an extent. However, an overall characteristic of the solutions is the prominent finding that they display a variation of components of learning. The variation can be associated with the different goals teachers strive for (Peterson et al., 2018): ‘To the extent that education has multiple goals, the design of learning will always require drawing on a variety of practices and pedagogical approaches’ (p. 33). From this perspective, the variation may be considered desirable. The fact that the two most common clusters represented almost diametrically different theories further maintains the varying nature of pedagogical patterns. One of the clusters can be associated with a behaviouristic approach, whereas theories associated with experiential learning characterise the other cluster (Conole et al., 2004). The clusters found represent almost half of the possible combinations of clusters further and indicate that the pedagogical patterns offer future users a wide repertoire of strategies and methods. However, we know that the solutions will need to be adapted to the unique context of the actual teaching practice (Goodyear & Retalis, 2010; Holmberg, 2014; Pareto & Willermark, 2019; Prieto et al., 2011). Therefore, future research should be considered on whether pedagogy changes when pedagogical patterns are used.

There are, however, some limitations of the method to consider. The analysis of underpinning pedagogy is limited to specific characteristics of learning theories as described by the framework, and the analysis can reflect only those. Similarly, although identified as key learning theories (Conole et al., 2004), the components are based on a selection of theories.

Furthermore, inferring components of learning theories were in some instances difficult. For both Dewey and Vygotsky, learning takes place in a social setting. According to the framework, teachers form part of collaborative learning experiences and were thus inferred to the framework’s Social component (Conole et al., 2004). However, in formal education, a teacher interacts with the students by their mere presence in the learning environment. Therefore, too many learning activities may have been deemed a Social component. Since theorists have discussed the role of the teacher (e.g., Piaget and Dewey think of teachers as facilitators of learning), a component that emphasises the teacher’s part of a learning activity may be added to incorporate this particular characteristic of formal learning.

Also, because there is a particular emphasis on the use of technology in the pedagogical patterns, it sometimes affects the interpretation of the solution. The specific technology suggested may require a certain digital competence that the students lack, hence requiring careful consideration by the students. If such a lack could be discerned in the patterns, the solution was deemed the Reflection component. Hence, even if the learning concerns certain content, the digital skills needed can discern a component that the designer does not intend or consider. A solution to this problem may be that specific pedagogical patterns are created for the digital competence development needed to accomplish learning, involving perhaps only a minor emphasis on the content or subject.

Despite the limitations, the method applied may be applicable to other learning designs, presumably with a further developed framework. By inferring certain characteristics of learning theories in learning designs, it may be unnecessary to demand of teachers that the ‘pedagogy must be clear and explicitly described’ (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 155) since it is already there.

Lastly, understanding and interpreting the meaning of texts is undoubtedly a subjective act, especially when the text is incomplete and fragmented. The analysis thus assumed familiarity with upper secondary teaching. Therefore, the intention has been to make the methodological approach explicit, and deductive analysis is in addition performed multiple times to ensure coherence and consistency. Nevertheless, the result may not be replicable, but we do not claim that this is due to the lack of an inter-reliability test. We believe that the accuracy of such a case would not have been greater than the iterative approach taken (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

For future research, we consider interesting analysis of pedagogical patterns written by learning designers and researchers. It may provide us with further understanding of the learning theories found in patterns that describe learning activities with technology.

Conclusion

This article has brought together components of pedagogy to investigate 23 solutions of pedagogical patterns involving learning activities created by upper secondary teachers for colleagues with limited experience of technology use in their practice. The main findings indicate that the patterns emphasise pedagogy which promotes individual and reflective activities and that the patterns portray various combinations of different learning theories, resulting in different approaches to pedagogy. Research has shown that such a differentiation is desirable as it enables the teacher to address as many of the students’ needs as possible.

The method applied to infer pedagogical theories from solutions of pedagogical patterns contributes to research within TEL. Furthermore, the method may also be helpful for other learning designs. The framework applied in our analysis can be used despite limitations found. The option is to derive complementary or other pedagogical themes from learning theories.

The method can thus be summarised as follows:

1. Pedagogical themes are determined.

2. Distinct units of learning activities are distinguished in learning designs.

3. Pedagogical themes are inferred from the learning activities.

4. The pedagogical themes for each spectrum are merged into clusters.

In addition, a participatory design approach in workshops, when teachers are collaboratively creating pedagogical patterns, may contribute to teachers’ collegial learning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elisabeth Rolf

Elisabeth Rolf is a PhD student at the Department of Computer and Systems Sciences at Stockholm University and an upper secondary teacher. Her research focuses on design patterns in the field of TEL.

Ola Knutsson

Ola Knutsson has a PhD in Human–Computer Interaction and is a senior lecturer at the Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University. His research focuses on participatory design of learning environments, design patterns and digital literacy.

Robert Ramberg

Robert Ramberg has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and is a professor in Computer and Systems Sciences at Stockholm University and research director at the Swedish Air Force Combat Simulation Centre (FLSC). His research focuses on design methodology and representational tools for learning and collaboration.