2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
39
IJTHE • RITPU
Catherine LOISY
École normale supérieure de Lyon – IFÉ
catherine.loisy@ens-lyon.fr
Geneviève LAMEUL
Université Bretagne Loire (UBL)
genevieve.lameul@univ-rennes2.fr
Réexion pédagogique et point de vue critique
Abstract
As higher education undergoes major changes (mass
higher education, ICT development, etc.), there is
a need for methods and models that can be used
to analyze the complexity of university pedagogy.
In this paper, De Ketele’s model (2010) is used as
the basis for two case studies. The objectives are
to enrich the “eld of university pedagogy” by si-
tuating ICT among the components that De Ketele
describes. The case studies conrm the necessity
of viewing university education as a system. They
also enrich the model in three respects, namely:
1) by considering ICT a component unto itself that
should be added to the model; 2) by considering
educational research a full-edged component that
should be associated with ICT in the model; and
3) by reconsidering the complexity of interrelations
between the components. The conclusion is that
ICT leads to the pedagogical question, that further
research is needed, and that the words “digital” and
“pedagogy” must be associated in higher educa-
tion.
Keywords
Higher education, digital pedagogy, ICT, education
research, “augmented” model
Résumé
L’enseignement supérieur connaît d’importants
changements ; il devient nécessaire de disposer de
méthodes et modèles pour analyser la complexité
du domaine de la pédagogie universitaire. Dans cet
article, le modèle de De Ketele (2010) est utilisé
pour analyser deux cas. Les objectifs sont d’en-
richir le ‘champ de la pédagogie universitaire’ en
situant les TIC parmi les composantes décrites par
De Ketele. L’analyse des cas consolide la nécessité
de considérer l’enseignement universitaire comme
un système et elle conduit à enrichir le modèle dans
trois directions: (1) en considérant les TIC comme
une composante à ajouter au modèle ; (2) en consi-
dérant également la recherche en éducation comme
une composante à ajouter ; (3) en reconsidérant la
complexité des interrelations entre les composan-
tes. La conclusion souligne que les TIC conduisent
à la question pédagogique ; que de nouvelles re-
cherches sont nécessaires ; et elle revient sur l’im-
portance du couplage numérique / pédagogie.
Augmenting De Ketele’s model
for university pedagogy
©Auteur(s). Cette œuvre, disponible à https://doi.org/10.18162 /ritpu-2017-v14n2-03, est mise à disposition selon les termes de
la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/deed.fr
2017 - Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 14(2)
www.ritpu.org
40
RITPU • IJTHE
Mots-clés
Enseignement supérieur, pédagogie numérique,
TIC, recherche en éducation, modèle ‘augmenté’
Introduction
Since the late 20th century, higher education has
been undergoing a sea change, particularly with
regard to the development of information and com-
munication technology (ICT). Until recently, tech-
nology was an instrument used to manage the sheer
number of students in the context of mass higher
education (Albero 2014). However, European insti-
tutions are now seeking solutions for the use of ICT
in pedagogy further to the Bologna Process (1999),
the Lisbon Treaty (2000), and the Europe 2020
Strategy, which lead to expectations from national
policies on program quality and the success and
employability of university graduates. These exter-
nal factors are compounded by changes stemming
from student demands, some of which concern the
quality of teaching programs. For instance, students
are less accepting of incomplete or redundant tea-
chings (Peraya, 2015). At the end of their curricu-
lum, they also expect to nd a job that matches their
university education, in an evolving environment
where labor market requirements have become
more complex, particularly in terms of skills (San-
chez, 2004). To keep up with these social uses, in-
junctions, and quality expectations, ICT appears to
be an asset in modernizing educational institutions
and their practices. Learning outcomes are an in-
creasingly important part of formative assessments
(Yorke, 2003) or pedagogical alignment (Biggs,
2003). One trend focuses on improving programs
so that they factor in student learning (Nygaard,
Højlt, Hermansen, 2008). With a program-based
approach (PBA), a collaboratively designed curri-
culum guides the choice of teaching methods (Le-
noir, 2015) and is implemented (S. Johnson & C. D.
Johnson 2003; Prégent, Bernard, Kozanitis, 2009),
while specic tools are produced and provided to
this end (Loisy & Sanchez, 2016). This fragmen-
tation born of university teaching in the digital age
calls for a new model that can be used to interpret
these factors and their complex interrelations. In
international literature, De Ketele’s model (2010)
of the “eld of university pedagogy” [in French, “le
champ de la pédagogie universitaire”] focuses on
higher education teaching and learning and their re-
lation with a range of components, creating a “sys-
tem with multiple interactions.” However, although
ICT is among the most important starting points for
research and debate on introducing this pedagogi-
cal paradigm to higher education, the author does
not present it per se in his model. How can ICT
be represented in the model? And does introducing
ICT lead to other changes in this “system with mul-
tiple interactions”?
In this paper, De Ketele’s model (2010) is used as
the basis for two case studies. The objectives are
to enrich the “eld of university pedagogy” by si-
tuating ICT among the components that De Ketele
describes. The case studies conrm the necessity
of viewing university education as a system. They
also enrich the model in three respects, namely: 1)
by considering ICT a component unto itself that
should be added to the model; 2) by considering
educational research a full-edged component that
should be associated with ICT in the model; and
3) by reconsidering the complexity of interrelations
between the components. The conclusion is that
ICT leads to the pedagogical question, that further
research is needed, and that the words “digital” and
“pedagogy” must be associated in higher educa-
tion.
Teaching and learning
in higher education, an
articulated range of components
For several decades, authors have been attempting
to clarify the notion of pedagogy in higher educa-
tion, especially in North America. For example,
Walkner (2006) understands pedagogies in higher
education as teaching methods “in the broad sen-
se,” including the roles of teachers and students,
teacher–learner–curriculum interrelations, and,
more generally, the context in which the connec-
tion between education and learning takes place.
Similarly, Lebrun (2015), willing to avoid a dele-
2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
41
IJTHE • RITPU
terious dissociation between the teaching and lear-
ning processes, highlights the need to combine pe-
dagogy and technologies and to broaden reection
on the overall construction of training systems. In
this relational area, a complex game is unfolding.
Identities, the ow of power, mediated knowledge,
as well as social and institutional structures interpe-
netrate the other dimensions. Understood for many
years by English-language universities, this broader
conception of pedagogy in higher education has ap-
peared more recently in the European context with
the “eld of university pedagogy,” a model deve-
loped by De Ketele (2010). In developing his mo-
del, De Ketele (2010) draws on English-language
research as the pedagogical issue has remained re-
latively foreign to higher education in Europe for a
longer time (Albero, 2014). It has spread gradually
under the inuence of policies, in particular the Eu-
rope 2020 Strategy. Teachers are now encouraged
to focus on student learning, not just on teaching.
This can be likened to a change in what has been
called the “educational paradigm” (Barr & Tagg,
1995). Students are encouraged to actively parti-
cipate in building their knowledge and to develop
their autonomy. De Ketele’s model (2010) inclu-
des ve interrelated components and is organized
according to two axes (see the dark elements and
arrows on Figure 1). On the diachronic axis, Peda-
gogical activities are inuenced by the Curriculum
and then, in turn, inuence Results. The synchro-
nic axis refers to External factors and Contexts that
are operating on Pedagogical activities (teaching
and learning), Curriculum, and Results. The rst
are political, economic, cultural, and social. The
second relate to the academic environment and to
students. The model thus emphasizes that the “eld
of university pedagogy” extends beyond the educa-
tional dimension (the diachronic axis).
Higher education and ICT
Digitized information and its vectors—the elec-
tronic devices that record and process information
with various programs—are physically present
everywhere at universities: corporate governance,
administration, nancial management, and even
education and knowledge control. Policies favoring
ICT instill a change readily grasped by higher edu-
cation institutions because it enhances their image
in a context in which international rankings lead to
increased pressure (Stromquist, 2007). Since Cu-
ban’s work (2001), technological devices and tools
appear to have been introduced mainly to moder-
nize institutions, while their development for edu-
cational purposes remains below their potential.
The 13th edition of the New Media Consortium
(NMC) Horizon Report (L. Johnson et al., 2016)
describes annual ndings from the NMC Horizon
Project, an ongoing research project designed to
identify and describe emerging technologies likely
to have an impact on learning, teaching, and crea-
tive inquiry in education. Six key trends, six signi-
cant challenges, and six important developments
in educational technology are placed directly in the
context of their likely impact on the core missions
of universities. For example, some developments
in educational technology for higher education are
important in the medium to long term: learning
analytics and adaptive learning; bring your own
device (BYOD); augmented or virtual reality; and
affective computing.
However, educational incentive programs have not
been as successful as hoped in improving student
learning and the overall system. To overcome this
problem, equipment policies—even those that do
not emphasize the educational aspect—are coupled
with incentive policies that seek to stimulate the
use of ICT in educational design. In spite of current
advances in the eld, the relations between educa-
tional and technological matters are still an issue
at many universities. Three factors may explain
this phenomenon: the traditional academic culture
at the institution’s core, the status of auxiliary ser-
vices commonly associated with educational and
technological activities, and the latter’s subordina-
tion to current market and ideological forces. It is
urgent that higher education take up the problem
and develop a comprehensive line of research (4,
2014).
2017 - Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 14(2)
www.ritpu.org
42
RITPU • IJTHE
Two cases are analyzed below to examine De Kete-
le’s model (2010) and determine whether factoring
in technology and research holds potential.
Two case studies using De Ketele’s
model
ICT and learning activities in an auditorium
This rst case (Lamine & Petit, 2014) focuses on the
educational use of electronic voting systems (clic-
kers) during lectures in auditoriums. It is coupled
with a quantitative assessment methodology on the
effects of the teaching method on student results.
The digital educational activity relates to a trai-
ning session in which the teacher participated. The
session was given by the university’s Pedagogical
Support Services, a unit found at French universi-
ties (Cosnefroy, 2015). A qualitative study was also
carried out in order to investigate potential changes
to the teaching approach among teachers who took
the training. The assessment enables the universi-
ty’s Pedagogical Support Services to measure the
effects of the training dispensed. This qualitative
study focuses on changes in the teachers’ professio-
nal development rather than only on satisfaction.
Results show that interactive learning strategies
improve students’ mastery of concepts and pro-
blem-solving skills. Interactivity in the classroom
also appears to give students an edge at exams,
with effects equal to or greater than such factors as
parent education or the number of hours spent stu-
dying per week. Students and teachers alike believe
that interactive learning strategies improve student
learning, and both think these strategies increase
student engagement and motivation (Lamine &
Petit, 2014; Rudolph, Lamine, Joyce, Vignolles, &
Consiglio, 2014).
One author, the teacher who describes his expe-
riment, took the training session because he was
driven by questions about his usual teaching acti-
vities, which fell short of helping all students ac-
quire an in-depth understanding of physical science
concepts, a central element of the curriculum. On
the diachronic axis of De Ketele’s model (2010),
teachers seek to improve student learning by bet-
ter adjusting their teachings to the curriculum. In
contrast, student results drive the new educational
activity. Assessments show that student results im-
proved in two regards: their mastery of concepts
and their method of learning (Lamine & Petit,
2014).
On the synchronic axis, the academic context
both encourages innovation and restricts the lati-
tude necessary for innovation. On the one hand, it
promotes educational development by providing
training opportunities to all teachers who wish to
support student learning. This shows the univer-
sity’s interest in educational issues. On the other
hand, this context proves to be an obstacle, since
the institution imposes a normative assessment for
all students, which contradicts the educational ali-
gnment of learning objectives, interactive learning
situations, and evaluation processes based on these
objectives (Biggs, 1996; 2003). According to the
authors (Lamine & Petit, 2014), these constraints
can weaken the innovative educational process.
These limitations reveal the need to ensure that
academic projects integrate actors’ innovations;
otherwise, the initiative may be considered so dis-
satisfactory that some will abandon it completely.
The authors of the case study (Lamine & Petit,
2014) point out that training design is based on
educational research results. Constructivist, socio-
cultural and socio-cognitive approaches to deve-
lopment have led university Pedagogical Support
Services to focus on: taking into account the pre-
conceptions of science students (Smith, diSessa,
& Roschelle, 1993); teaching situations that allow
these preconceptions to be overcome (McDermott,
1991); and interactive educational situations among
students (Hake, 1998). The think–pair–share (TPS)
technique, which is commonly used in auditoriums
in the United States (Bruff, 2009), has led to the use
of electronic voting boxes. Educational research is
at the heart of the training process, and introducing
ICT also mobilizes educational research (didac-
tics) in order to design learning activities. Both,
2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
43
IJTHE • RITPU
together, inuence learning activities. This case is
emblematic of any situation where research can im-
prove quality. One interesting point is that the study
accounts for how the introduction of ICT leads to
educational research, in a context where higher
education teachers receive little training in pedago-
gy. This raises a question as to whether educational
research should be added to De Ketele’s model as a
full-edged component.
The teachers’ professional activity also appears to
grow thanks to a new form of reection on action,
a reection beyond the time of action. In reference
to the tradition of the reective practitioner (Argy-
ris & Schön, 1974; Schön, 1983), this experience
seems to sustain self-assessment for a more thou-
ghtful, self-regulated activity. This is similar to the
approach of “reective practitioners” (Brookeld,
1995; Jorro & De Ketele, 2011; 2013).
A mechanism that supports the curricular
approach and uses of
ICT
The second case is the DevSup project (Loisy &
Sanchez 2016). Here, the methodology is a form
of design-based research, or DBR (The Design-
Based Research Collective, 2003; Wang & Han-
nan, 2005), an approach that combines pragmatic
and heuristic goals. In terms of design, the projects
aim to design and implement a digital environment
to support the program-based approach. The De-
vSup project brings together researchers from the
University of Montreal in designing an application
called ALOES (online assistant for operationali-
zing teaching in higher education), which forma-
lizes and disseminates training projects, and from
the University of Sherbrooke for research on digital
teaching systems and support to educational teams.
As this theory is grounded in naturalistic contexts,
a pedagogical team also participates in the Dev-
Sup project. The teachers on this pedagogical team
work at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in
Lyon, France.
Six months after the project began, a rst version
of ALOES was implemented. It is an online edi-
tor that allows participants to share lesson plans,
competency frameworks, teaching situations, and
the modalities of student learning assessments. One
year later, the effects of the DevSup project were
measured using a qualitative methodology (Loisy
& Sanchez, 2016). The authors state that the project
leads to better program: all the participants rate the
curriculum as good in quality. Respondents judged
the quality based on the fact that it is more com-
plete and more coherent and that it seems to better
account for knowledge or skills acquisition by the
students. Participation in the project also seems to
affect teaching and learning practices (Loisy, Van
de Poël, & Verpoorten, 2017). In particular, tea-
chers use more collaborative learning activities
with students by exploiting the possibilities of digi-
tal environments.
On the diachronic axis of De Ketele’s model
(2010), the program-based approach reinforces the
relationship between curriculum, educational ac-
tivities, and learning outcomes. The relationships
are not only strengthened in the “downstream”
direction proposed by the author, but also in the
opposite direction. Indeed, constructive alignment
(Biggs, 1996) emphasizes the development of lear-
ning activities conducive to achieving anticipated
performances. Implementation of the DevSup pro-
ject inuences what De Ketele calls “the student’s
context.” The source of student motivation is not
identied by the members of the teaching team
alone: students themselves help build their curricu-
lum at meetings where they are asked to share their
views on the program (Loisy & Sanchez, 2016).
Their regular feedback is used to better adapt the
curriculum to the relevant profession.
On the synchronic axis, external factors clearly ap-
pear to have an inuence, according to the respon-
dents (Loisy & Sanchez, 2016). The teaching team
continually tries to better factor in the expectations
of the professional community that will be hiring
the students. To do so, professionals and students
are invited to assist in developing the skills repo-
sitory, which is adjusted regularly. As the training
concerns an emerging profession, the educational
2017 - Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 14(2)
www.ritpu.org
44
RITPU • IJTHE
team also seeks to raise awareness about the trai-
ning and to show the interest of the curriculum.
The design of the mechanism naturally relies on
educational research, including work on the pro-
gram-based approach (S. Johnson & C. D. Johnson,
2003; Prégent et al., 2009) and related matters. One
study (Loisy et al., 2017) shows that this profes-
sional experiment inuences pedagogy: teachers
use technology to create the conditions of collabo-
rative, active and contextualized learning for their
students. In this case, contrary to the previous one,
theoretical models developed by the research team
for training design are not, in the strictest sense,
taught to teachers: the teachers experience collabo-
rative work. This experience gives them the chance
to see how digital environments facilitate interac-
tion, and this interaction helps them better unders-
tand their work as teachers, in other words, to deve-
lop further knowledge. This prompts the teachers to
reproduce these collaborative situations with their
students.
Teachers’ professional development is another goal
of the DevSup project. Thus, the authors (Loisy
& Sanchez, 2016) also believe, in reference to the
approach initiated by the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, or SoTL, movement (Boyer, 1990;
Hubball & Burt, 2006), that ICT must give teachers
opportunities for professional development. SoTL
promotes sustaining practices with theory and va-
lues the role that research can play in practice when
the practitioner plays an active role in developing
the reference frameworks (Bédard, 2014). Through
this mechanism, development is supported by the
fact that teachers must leave traces of their teaching
in the ALOES application as well as in various tools
and spaces and must share and exchange. Indeed,
the results seem to show that respondents develop
a curiosity about educational research and are thus
aware of how important theory is to practice. Re-
ection on action grows. As such, research is also
found in the “researcher on practices” teaching ap-
proach that the system is trying to develop.
Are there benets to completing De
Ketele’s model?
The results of the case studies suggest that (1) the
range of components identied by De Ketele is still
relevant provided ICT is incorporated into the “eld
of university pedagogy,” or the eld of teaching and
learning in higher education. Two new aspects re-
sulting from this analysis indicate that other aspects
of the model should be reconsidered: (2) educatio-
nal research appears to be an integral component;
and (3) new relationships between components
have been identied.
What place for ICT in De Ketele’s model?
In the rst case, the effects of ICT concern Pedago-
gical activities and Results on the diachronic axis
of De Ketele’s model (2010). ICT is mobilized by
the university’s Pedagogical Support Services in
training session design and by teachers in their di-
dactics and evaluation mechanisms.
In the second case, ICT inuences the synchronic
and diachronic axes of De Ketele’s model (2010).
Technologies are set up to contribute to the program-
based approach; in particular, collaborative online
environments are mobilized to help teachers to co-
develop curricula, co-evaluate their coherence, and
share didactic information. Combining the results
of both cases studies, it is clear that ICT interacts
with the educational dimensions Curriculum, Pe-
dagogical activities, and Results on the diachronic
axis. On the synchronic axis, ICT is inuenced by
External factors and Contexts. Their effects must be
considered in order to better understand the “eld
of university pedagogy.” De Ketele’s model (2010)
must therefore be completed by introducing ICT as
a component unto itself.
Educational research as another full-
edged component
Additionally, the case studies reveal that the actors
trigger educational research when they integrate
ICT. Although ICT and educational research are
found concurrently in the eld, they are present
2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
45
IJTHE • RITPU
to varying degrees. In the rst case, Pedagogical
activities and Results on the diachronic axis of De
Ketele’s model (2010) are jointly inuenced by the
effects of ICT and educational research. Both are
mobilized by the university’s Pedagogical Support
Services in training session design and by teachers
in their didactics and evaluation mechanisms. Edu-
cational research (developmental approaches) and
artefacts (clickers) are applied concomitantly for
more personalized instruction and deeper concep-
tual learning. In the second case, the entire “eld of
university pedagogy” seems to be affected by ICT
and educational research. Afterward, and because
teachers see how interactions affect knowledge
development, they go on to use ICT (the collabo-
rative online environments used earlier in the pro-
gram-based approach) to create more active and
collaborative learning conditions for their students.
In France, universities are pedagogically autono-
mous when it comes to dening curricula, which
means that pairing ICT and educational research
also seems to impact the curricula themselves. In
a context where a curriculum is imposed, this phe-
nomenon is not observed. As such, it was particu-
larly interesting to carry out this study in the French
context where there is a certain didactic freedom.
The changes introduced by ICT highlight the need
for higher education teachers to understand and en-
gage in a training process to help them better un-
derstand the phenomena at work: both cases ana-
lyzed here involve a vision of the relationship and
interdependence between teaching and learning
shown by scientic advances in our understanding
of the learning process since the early 20th century
(Poteaux, 2013). In the rst case, the teacher also
engages in research on teaching. Although educa-
tional research used to be far removed from higher
education teaching, it is now part and parcel of the
occupation. It seems plausible that educational re-
search should be incorporated into De Ketele’ mo-
del as a new component. After all, it is essential to
interpreting and improving educational activities.
Interrelations that need strengthening
Another element seems obvious: a strengthening
of the connection between components. As repre-
sented in De Ketele’s model, External factors and
Contexts affect the diachronic axis. And each of
the three elements on the axis (Curriculum, Peda-
gogical activities, Results) affect the next, in that
order. Our results conrm theses effects, but also
indicate that their interrelations exceed the one-
way effects.
In both cases, Results inuence the design of Pe-
dagogical activities. In the rst case, unsatisfactory
previous learning outcomes lead to a re-examina-
tion, and the following Results serve to control the
effects of new Pedagogical activities. Consequent-
ly, Results can be seen as driving new Pedagogical
activities. In the second case, the authors also point
out that Results lead to a revision of the curriculum
because they provide evidence of Curriculum’s
capacity to meet the requirements of the students’
job market integration or pursuit of further educa-
tion. Although rather new in the French context, it
is congruent with the program-based approach in
which curricula are built to focus on training pro-
jects that dene the person targeted at the end of
the program and the skills to be acquired. Teaching
and learning activities and assessment systems are
developed on the basis of the training project thus
dened. In the model, a double arrow must be intro-
duced between Results and Pedagogical activities,
and an arrow must also be added between Results
and Curriculum (see Figure 1).
As expected in De Ketele’s model, even though
Contexts produces effects on the diachronic axis,
retroactive effects are also expected. In the rst
case analyzed, the innovative educational process
is weakened by the constraints of the university
context, and actors demand reduced contradic-
tions. The university context must evolve so that
the innovative process can be maintained. A dual
movement of inuence should then occur between
Contexts and the diachronic axis. In the second
case analyzed, thanks to information sessions orga-
2017 - Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 14(2)
www.ritpu.org
46
RITPU • IJTHE
nized around the curriculum and the involvement
of professionals in dening the curriculum, the tea-
ching team can be seen, to some extent, as trying
to inuence companies to hire students after their
education. A dual movement of inuence should
thus occur between External Factors and the dia-
chronic axis: double arrows must be inserted on the
synchronic axis.
De Ketele’s model,
revised
Following De Ketele’s model (2010) and based on
the results of case studies, Figure 1 includes ICT
and educational research as full-edged compo-
nents interacting everywhere and as driving forces.
The “eld of university pedagogy” is organized in
synchronic and diachronic axes. This representation
better reects the interactions between components:
the inuence of External factors and Contexts is
not only downstream, like the forces acting on the
ow of the educational process. The link between
Curriculum and Results is no longer one-way. The
“eld of university pedagogy” should be conside-
red holistically, where each component interacts
dynamically with others, as indicated by the dou-
ble arrows and the dual movement of inuence
between Results and Curriculum, added separately
for a better understanding. This systemic view of
interacting components shows the complexity and
richness of the eld.
Figure 1 : A revised model of university pedagogy from De Ketele
(2010): a multidirectional system integrating ICT and
educational research (based on Lameul & Loisy, 2014)
Conclusions and perspectives
In his model of the “eld of university pedagogy”
based on international literature—to the best of our
knowledge, the only model that exists to date—De
Ketele (2010) does not specically introduce the
ICT aspect. Two case studies were conducted in or-
der to answer the two following questions: “Where
should ICT be located in the model?” and “Does
introducing ICT lead to other changes in the mo-
del?”
The case studies attest to the relevance of De Ke-
tele’s model of the “eld of university pedagogy,”
in which ICT can be added as a component unto
itself. They show that this model must be comple-
ted by introducing not only ICT, but educational
research as well—itself a full-edged component
closely tied to the introduction of ICT. Educational
research is at the heart of the eld and is the basis
of teachers’ professional development. It appears in
two different ways: rst, research strengthens prac-
tice through theory; second, when research over-
laps with practice, actors tend to get involved in
research actions.
In De Ketele’s model, the components form a sys-
tem, as the author points out. However, the case
studies also strengthen its systemic aspect. Holis-
tically, each component interacts dynamically with
the others, separately and globally, as the entire
system is in balance. From a systemic perspective,
2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
47
IJTHE • RITPU
the many factors that make up university pedagogy
in the digital era are characterized in two comple-
mentary ways. First, they appear to be specic (i.e.,
they cannot be merged) and heterogenic (i.e., they
are different in nature). Second, they should be
viewed as consubstantially associated. The eld can
therefore be considered a system with multiple in-
teractions, each subjected to a double characteriza-
tion: that of each component at play and that of the
interactions between these components. This sup-
ports a strengthening of the systemic dynamics of
teaching and learning in higher education. The case
studies seem to illustrate an organic relationship
between educational research and the introduction
of ICT in teaching and learning. This relationship
may offer opportunities to assess learning quality
in higher education (Albero, 2014).
Once introduced, ICT seems to alter the system in
which pedagogical activities take place. ICT ser-
ves as an analyzer in the sociological sense of the
term (Lapassade & Lourau, 1971), that is, it em-
phasizes and renews questions on teaching and
learning (Gueudet, Lameul, Trouche, 2011). The
questions it generates regarding practices appear
to be a source of pedagogical development (Loisy,
sous presse). The use of digital teaching and lear-
ning systems accelerates and amplies reections
on education because it systematically confronts
education actors with fundamental questions on
teaching and learning—a Trojan horse, as it were
(Odyssey, Homer, eighth century B.C.E.). ICT ap-
pears to be secondarily introducing the educational
issue, like the wooden horse in the Athenians’ plot
to defeat the city of Troy. ICT cannot be considered
a trivial matter that embellishes higher education.
The advent of ICT brings about change because it
increases awareness and generates a disturbance
that leads to a quest—on the educational research
side—for the keys to a better understanding of tea-
ching and learning.
Indeed, ICT seems to be everywhere, with each
component of the model more or less directly im-
pacted by ICT development: in political, social,
cultural and economic expectations; in students’
expectations in terms of organizational innovation;
in the search for meaning in knowledge; and in cer-
tain educational activities that promote learning.
This leads to another question: “Can there be ‘di-
gital pedagogy in higher education’?” This would
allow ICT to be included in a general educational
questioning, while bearing in mind its specicity
and interrelations with learning processes. “Digi-
tal pedagogy in higher education” has temporarily
been dened as “a eld of research and interven-
tion that, in higher education, aims to render un-
derstandable training situations using the potential
of digital technologies, considering the various di-
mensions that partially characterize it (including
the political, cultural, engineering and technical
dimensions).” (Lameul & Loisy, 2014, p. 200).
Another discussion concerns the necessity of asso-
ciating the words “digital” and “pedagogy.” Since
it is argued that ICT is part of every component
interacting in the eld, the need for further speci-
cation can be reasonably questioned. This choice
is above all contextual. Today, as has been pointed
out, the educational applications of ICT are still
growing and its use continues to spread; however,
in the near future, this association, which both binds
ands separates, may no longer be useful. This paper
should be viewed as an attempt to draw attention
to the need for more extensive research in order to
consolidate the effects identied. This exploratory
work has enhanced De Ketele’s model. The next
step is to use this augmented model to study other
cases and other mechanisms in different contexts.
By combining these studies, this augmented model
of the “eld of university pedagogy” could be de-
nitively validated by factoring in changes in the
digital era. The model would then become both a
framework for new research and a basis for work
intended for the pedagogical support service units
at universities, provided it is completed by more
operational and pragmatic tools and designs.
2017 - Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 14(2)
www.ritpu.org
48
RITPU • IJTHE
References
Albero, B. (2014). La pédagogie à l’université entre
numérisation et massication. Apports et ris-
ques d’une mutation. In G. Lameul & C. Loisy
(Eds.), La pédagogie universitaire à l’heure
du numérique. Questionnement et éclairage de
la recherche (pp. 27–53). Brussels, Belgium:
De Boeck.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learn-
ing: A new paradigm for undergraduate educa-
tion. Change, 27(6), 13–25. Retrieved from
University of Nebraska Omaha repository:
http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu
Bédard, D. (2014). Être enseignant ou devenir ensei-
gnant dans le supérieur: telle est la question…
de posture! In G. Lameul & C. Loisy (Eds.),
La pédagogie universitaire à l’heure du
numérique. Questionnement et éclairage de
la recherche (pp. 97–109). Brussels, Belgium:
De Boeck.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through construc-
tive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3),
347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to
curriculum objectives (Imaginative Curricu-
lum Project, LTSN Generic Centre). Retrieved
from Higher Education Academy website:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Washing-
ton, DC: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Brookeld, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reec-
tive teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response
systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cosnefroy, L. (Ed.) (2015). État des lieux de la forma-
tion et de l’accompagnement des enseignants
du supérieur (Research report). Lyon and
Paris, France: IFÉ-ENS and MiPNES-DG-
ESIP. Retrieved form IFÉ website:
http://ife.ens-lyon.fr
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers
in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
De Ketele, J.-M. (2010). La pédagogie universitaire:
un courant en plein développement. Revue
française de pédagogie, 2010(172), 5–13.
Retrieved from http://rfp.revues.org
Gueudet, G., Lameul, G., & Trouche, L. (2011). Intro-
duction : questions relatives à la « pédagogie
universitaire numérique », regard et rôle de la
recherche. Revue internationale des technolo-
gies en pédagogie universitaire, 8(1–2), 7-10.
https://doi.org/10.18162/ritpu.2011.189
Jorro, A., & De Ketele, J-M. (Eds.) (2011). La profes-
sionnalité émergente : quelle reconnaissance?
Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Jorro, A., & De Ketele, J-M. (Eds.) (2013). L’engage-
ment professionnel en éducation et formation.
Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus
traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses. American Journal of Physics,
66(1), 64–74. Manuscript retrieved form ERIC
website: http://eric.ed.gov
Hubball, H. T., & Burt, H. (2006). The scholarship
of teaching and learning: theory-practice
integration in a faculty certicate program.
Innovative Higher Education, 30(5), 327–344.
Retrieved from CiteSeerx:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada,
V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC
Horizon Report 2016 (Higher education edi-
tion). Retrieved from New Media Consortium
website: http://cdn.nmc.org
Johnson, S., & Johnson, C. D. (2003). Results-based
guidance: A systems approach to student sup-
port programs. Professional School Counse-
ling, 6(3), 180–184.
Lamine, B., & Petit, L. (2014). Les boîtiers de réponse
pour un apprentissage interactif en amphi-
théâtre. Une expérience d’accompagnement
et d’évaluation par la recherche. In G. Lameul
& C. Loisy (Eds.), La pédagogie universitaire
à l’heure du numérique. Questionnement et
éclairage de la recherche (pp. 129–145). Brus-
sels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Lapassade, G., & Lourau, R. (1971). Clefs pour la
sociologie. Paris, France: Seghers.
Lebrun, M. (2015). eLearning pour enseigner et ap-
prendre, allier pédagogie et technologie. Lou-
vain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Academia Bruylant.
2017 - International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 14(2)
www.ijthe.org
49
IJTHE • RITPU
Lenoir, Y. (2015). Curricular and didactic conceptions
of interdisciplinarity in the eld of education:
A Socio-Historical Perspective. Issues in inter-
disciplinary studies, 33, 39-93.
Loisy, C. (sous presse). L’approche-programme du
point de vue du développement des ensei-
gnants. In C. Loisy & J.-C. Coulet (Eds.),
Savoirs, compétences, approche-programme
en formation. Outiller le développement
d’activités responsables (pp. 183–213). ISTE
Éditions.
Loisy, C., & Lameul, G. (2014). À la croisée des
regards de chercheurs et de praticiens. In G.
Lameul & C. Loisy (Eds.), La pédagogie
universitaire à l’heure du numérique. Ques-
tionnement et éclairage de la recherche (pp.
121–125). Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Loisy, C. & Sanchez, E. (2016). Mettre en œuvre
l’approche-programme en s’appuyant sur
une application numérique: @LOES. Revue
internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement
supérieur, 32(1). Retrieved from
http://ripes.revues.org
Loisy, C., Van de Poël, J.-F., & Verpoorten, D. (2017).
Regards croisés sur deux dispositifs de for-
mation techno-pédagogique et l’évaluation de
leurs bénéces. In P. Detroz, M. Crahay, &
A. Fagnant (Eds.), L’évaluation à la lumière
des contextes et des disciplines (pp. 275–304).
Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
McDermott, L. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we
teach and what is learned – Closing the gap.
American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16539
Nygaard, C., Højlt, T., & Hermansen, M. (2008).
Learning-based curriculum development.
Higher Education, 2008(55), 33-50. Retrieved
from Chaffey College Outcomes and Assess-
ment website: http://www.chaffey.edu/SLO
Peraya, D. (2015). Professionnalisation et développe-
ment professionnel des enseignants universi-
taires: une question d’actualité. Distances et
médiations des savoirs, 2015(10). Retrieved
from http://dms.revues.org
Poteaux, N. (2013). Pédagogie de l’enseignement supé-
rieur en France : état de la question. Distances
et médiations des savoirs, 2013(4). Retrieved
from http://dms.revues.org
Prégent, R., Bernard, H., & Kozanitis, A. (2009). Ensei-
gner à l’université dans une approche-pro-
gramme. Montréal, Canada: Presses Interna-
tionales Polytechnique.
Rudolph, A. L., Lamine, B., Joyce, M., Vignolles, H.,
& Consiglio, D. (2014). Introduction of inter-
active learning into French university physics
classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics
– Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010103.
Retrieved from A. L. Rudolph’s personal web-
site: http://www.cpp.edu/~alrudolph
Sanchez, R. (2004). Understanding competence-based
management: Identifying and managing ve
modes of competence. Journal of Business
Research, 57(5), 518–532.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00318-1
Schön, D. (1983). The reective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. London: Temple
Smith.
Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Miscon-
ceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis
of knowledge in transition. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. Manuscript
retrieved from CiteSeerx:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a
response to globalization: Radical shifts in
university environments. Higher Education,
53(1), 81–105. Retrieved from Federation
University Australia website:
http://federation.edu.au
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-
based research: An emerging paradigm for
educational inquiry. Educational Researcher,
32(1), 5–8.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
Walkner, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies. A
capabilities approach. Maidenhead, U.-K.:
SRHE / Open University Press.
Wang, F., & Hannan, M. J. (2005). Design-based re-
search and technology-enhanced learning en-
vironments. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher
education: Moves towards theory and the
enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher
Education, 45(4), 477–501.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023967026413
