A doctoral dissertation employed a critical pragmatic research paradigm and a transformative mixed methods methodology to explore what educational paradigm most empowers leaners to acquire higher levels of emergent technology integration for learning on demand. Participants included 12 graduate-level students from two Master of Education courses at one online North American institute during one four-month term. A Paradigm Shift Framework (Wark, 2018) was designed to generate quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews for capturing participants’ paradigmatic preferences and perceived levels of integration mastery with 16 emergent educational technologies throughout the term. This paper identifies two possible factors for why, collectively, respondents in Course A moderately increased their preference for a behavioural paradigm, while Course B respondents significantly increased their preference for a perceptual paradigm by the end of the term. The first factor is respondents’ conception of the term, emergent technology, and the second is the practice of mindfulness.

2.  Introduction
 Literature Review
 Methods and Procedures
 Results and Discussion
 Conclusions

4. Emergent technology • “Tools, concepts, innovations, and advancements utilized in
diverse educational settings to serve varied education-related purposes” (Veletsianos,
2010, p. 33).
Technology • “Tools, means, skills, crafts, or systems that are outward reflections of
individual and societal values and motivations” (Wark, 2018, p. 4).
tech∙nol∙o∙gy • /tek’näləjē/ Noun. Origin Greek: teche, art, craft, skill or means to obtain
something, and logos, the outward expression of an inner thought or feeling. 1. “Tools, devices,
systems, procedures.. . [that] order and transform matter, energy, and information to realize
certain valued ends [emphasis added]” (Funk, 1999).

5. Andragogy • Learning approach typically used with adults; learner may control the
learning context, while the teacher usually controls the learning process and task; aligns
most closely with behavioural paradigm.
Educational paradigm • “The shared beliefs, theories, and practices, including research
practices, associated with a particular educational group or school of thought” (Wark,
2018, p. 26).
Pedagogy • Teacher controls learning context, process, and task; associated with the
behavioural paradigm.
Heutagogy • Learner controls learning context, process, and task; associated with
learner-determined/perceptual paradigm.
Approaches to Learning

6. State of flux between dynamically evolving educational technologies and
educational practices requires learners to cope with perpetual ambiguity,
while thoughtfully and purposely integrating needed technology on an
ongoing basis.

7. To critically reflect online graduate level learners’ perspectives on what key
factors/educational paradigm most enabled them to integrate 16 emergent
technologies.
“What educational paradigm most empowers online graduate level learners to
acquire higher levels of emergent technology integration for learning on
demand?”

8. Various course elements very similar in both course settings, yet:
• Early term: Course A & B = early practice level with emergent tech
• End of term: Course B = most significant increase in emergent tech level
Possible explanations:
• Understanding of the term, “emergent technology”
• Mindfulness teaching and learning strategies in Course B

9. Theory, nature, and power of learning
DE: Technology-enabled learning

10. Epistemology Objective/Behavioural Subjective/Perceptual
Learning Theory Behaviourism Cognitivism Constructivism Connectivism ?
Mind Is Blank Slate Computer Architecture Organic Network
Pedagogy Andragogy Heutagogy
Learning
Approach
Locus of Control Teacher Learner
Figure 1. Theories and learning approaches derived from two epistemologies on learning.

13. Mindfulness:
• Mind/body relationship (meditation, deep
listening, dance, breathing, reflection,
journaling; Barbezat & Bush, 2014; David, 2009, Goleman
& Davidson, 2017)
• One goal = to center one’s physical and
mental awareness on present moment;
“paying attention in a particular way: on
purpose, in the present moment, and non-
judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 3).
• Promote attention, impulse control, self-
awareness, compassion, empathy (Palalas,
2018)
• Paucity of studies on mindfulness in online
educational settings(Palalas, 2018)

15. Critical pragmatic research paradigm:
• Blend of Critical Theory, Pragmatism, Reflective Practice traditions (Deegan,
1988; Ulrich, 2007)
Exploratory transformative mixed methods methodology (Mertens,
2015)

16. Figure 2. Paradigm Shift Framework.

19. Participation: N=34; n=12 or 35.3% of N
Gender: 75% F; 17% M; 8% No response
Geographic: 42.5% lived in large urban centers (Pop. > 500,000)
MEd DE program: 75% completed over half of program
Emergent tech skill level: First tech course for most

20. All respondents’ pre-term integration mastery levels = early
practice
Post term levels:
• Behavioural paradigm – slight drop in practice level
• Shifting paradigms – slight to moderate increase in practice level
• Perceptual paradigm – significant increase to early competency level
Technologies:
• 3D printing, augmented reality, cloud computing, conversational interfaces,
educational game technologies, flipped classrooms, interactive whiteboards,
learner analytics, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), online learning
management systems (LMSs), online social networking, open content, QR codes,
tablet computing, wearable smart technologies

21. Table 1.
Comparative Analysis of Two Course Environments
Realm of
Control
Course Element Course A Course B
Average
A & B
Instructor
Average of:
Assignments, activities, grades,
learner goals
4.0
(AH)
*3.9
(AH)
3.9
(AH)
Faculty
Average of:
Syllabus, assignments,
activities, grading
1.1
(P)
1.1
(P)
1.1
(P)
Institution
Average of:
Curriculum, schedule
1.0
(P)
1.0
(P)
1.0
(P)
*Rounded to nearest 10th of a percent
Key:
P = Behavioural paradigm/pedagogical approach
AH = Perceptual paradigm/blend of andragogical and heutagogical approach

22. Figure 3. Early- and post-term
Course A: Preferred learning
environments
Figure 4. Early- and post-term
Course B: Preferred learning
environments

23. Setting a personal emergent technology goal for the term:
• Course A: 41% set a goal
• Course B: 80% set a goal
Understanding of the term, “Emergent technology”:
• All instruments = Veletsiano’s (2010) broad definition of “emergent technology”
• Most respondents viewed emergent technologies as “tools”
• Both courses = emergent technology courses; Course B = mobile learning

24. Emergent technologies as tools:
[Course A: 1] “The technology is a tool or medium I present my [online] classroom in…”
[Course B: 1] “My goal at the beginning of this course was to be more at ease with
mobile technology. I recently bought a tablet…and wanted to be more efficient with
the tool.”
Confusion with “emergent technology”:
[Course A: 2] “I still find it confusing… When I think about the phrase, ‘emergent
technology’ I immediately go to physical tools. Then suddenly I have to backtrack and
consider something like ideation or conceptual tools.”
Evolution in understanding “emergent technology”:
[Course B: 2] “So my initial thought going into the class was that my interest in
instructional design and mobile learning is just a design on a mobile device. But then
coming out of the class, I realized that it was a little bit different, more in-depth.
Mobile technology is a whole other world, a whole other entity…”

25. Course A vs Course B:
• Course A: Presented emergent technologies within online learning context
• Course B: Presented systemic and conceptual notion of mobile learning;
employed the use of mobile devices and apps in the course
Pedagogical respondents didn’t set goals for the term:
[Course A: 1P] “This isn’t a technology course.”
[Course A: 2P] “…I was actually a little perplexed by that question just because it’s an
online teaching and learning course about online teaching and learning, but it is not
really a course specifically about technology. So it wouldn’t be a course where I would
set that type of goal because I am not going to learn about new technologies in it.”
Heutagogical respondents set goals for the term:
[Course A: 1H] “I am not sure if I had stated that or not [on the questionnaire], but one
of the goals that I had was actually using mobile technology.”
[Course B: 1H]: “I wanted to get practical experience with mobile technology so that I
would actually use it in my practice.”

26. Course B Mindfulness Practices:
• Connecting with students on a regular basis
• Apps:
• Connecting with class
• Staying organized
• Remaining current
• Merging life events, goals, and activities with course events and outcomes
• Synchronous sessions began with meditation; being in present moment
• Identifying, discussing, revisiting personally meaningful reasons for taking
the course
• Mindful listening
Current research on mindfulness:
• Same course, different term
• Become cognizant of personal goals; monitor, assess, and update goals
• Apps help maintain focus, organize lives, reduce stress
• Gain control over their own learning and other life aspects

28. Course A vs Course B:
• Locus of control almost identical
• Conceptual and systemic emergent technologies; Course B mobile hard- and
software tools
• Nearly equal blend of P, A, and H early-term preferences in both courses
• Post-term Course A=slightly more P/A; Course B=significantly more H/less P
Possible explanations for results:
• Respondent understanding of “emergent technology”; use of tools in
Course B
• Mindfulness strategies in Course B
Future research:
• New strategies for helping respondents understand broader definition of
“emergent technology”
• Research on relationship between learning paradigms, learning approaches,
and mindfulness teaching and learning strategies in online learning
environments

29. Dr. Mohamed Ally
mohameda@athabascau.ca
Dr. Norine Wark
norinewark@gmail.com
Centre for Distance Education, FGSS, Athabasca University

30. Barbezat, D. P., & Bush, M. (2014). Contemplative practices in higher education:
Powerful methods to transform teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons.
David, D. S. (2009). Mindful teaching and teaching mindfulness: A guide for anyone
who teaches anything. Simon and Schuster.
Deegan, M. J. (1988). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books
Funk, K. (1999). Definitions of technology. Technology and Christian ‘values.’
Retrieved from
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Technology/technology.html
Goleman, D., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Altered traits: Science reveals how meditation
changes your mind, brain, and body. New York, New York: Penguin Random
House.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in
everyday life. Retrieved from http://drdavidlawrence.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/Wherever-You-Go-There-You-Are.pdf
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

31. Palalas, A. (2018). Mindfulness in mobile and ubiquitous learning: Harnessing the
power of attention. In S. Yu, M. Ally, & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Mobile and ubiquitous
learning: An international handbook (pp. 19-44). Singapore: Springer Nature.
Ulrich, W. (2007, May-June). The greening of pragmatism (i): The emergence of
critical pragmatism. (Reflections on critical pragmatism, Part 5) [Web log post].
Ulrich's bimonthly. Retrieved from http://wulrich.com/bimonthly_may2007.html
Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.),
Emerging technologies in education (pp. 3-22). Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca
University Press.
Wark, N. (2018). Shifting Paradigms: A critical pragmatic evaluation of key factors
affecting learner-empowered emergent technology integration (Doctoral
dissertation, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada). Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10791/274