and its representation in current research, UK policy and legislation
Introduction
Contemporary learning theories – Andragogy, Heutagogy, Paragogy, and Connectivism – move beyond didactic instruction, emphasising learner autonomy, collaboration, and adaptability. Andragogy leverages experience and relevance; Heutagogy positions learners as self-directed agents; Paragogy foregrounds peer knowledge construction; and Connectivism embeds learning in distributed digital networks. Together, they expose the gap between traditional institutions and the demands of flexible, lifelong learning.
Learning technology operates within this tension: it is not simply a tool for innovation, but a sociomaterial (Wang et al. 2026) practice co-constituted by social norms, institutional priorities, pedagogical design, and technological infrastructure. Educational success emerges not from technology alone but from these complex interactions. This assignment argues that understanding learning technology requires an integrated lens encompassing pedagogy, governance, equity, and professional capability, rather than treating it as a neutral instrument. Critically, this perspective challenges deterministic assumptions that technological advancement inherently drives educational improvement.
Learning technology is frequently defined as the use of digital tools to support teaching, learning, and assessment (ALT, 2026). This functional definition risks reducing technology to presence rather than educational progress. In my workplace the use of OneFile
(e-portfolio), present challenges. E-portfolios are designed to capture a learner’s unique “voice” and genuine reflection; over-reliance on AI which can lead to homogenised, “hollow” entries that lack the nuance of real-world experience. Selwyn (2016, 2022) critiques this narrow framing, highlighting how political and economic pressures often drive adoption more than pedagogical need. In contrast, Laurillard (2012, 2024) situates technology meaningfully within learning design, emphasising its role in supporting interaction and reflective practice. Critical digital pedagogy frames technology as a site where power, access, and participation are negotiated. For example, while AI can enable personalised learning (Azare et al., 2026; Holmes et al. 2022), its impact depends on contextual integration, ethical oversight, and professional competence rather than technical sophistication alone.
Socio-technical theory (Desveaud and Bawack 2025) emphasise that technology and practice are mutually constitutive: institutional structures, cultural norms, and educator agency shape not only adoption but also how learning outcomes are realised.
Effective edtech requires vision, pedagogy, training, and ethics procurement alone is insufficient. Holmes et al. (2022) present AI as a supportive tool, Selwyn (2016, 2022) cautions that technology can produce inequitable outcomes and reinforce existing structural disparities. UNESCO (2021) and OECD (2030) positions itself to the ‘transitioning an global initiative’ encompassing frameworks and tools developing a range of transformative competent skills, notably critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, adaptability, and well-being. This underscores Wang et al. (2026) argument that educational change arises from interactions between people, systems, and practice rather than from technology alone. Learning analytics can enhance learning outcomes through predictive feedback (Liu & Khalil, 2023), but ethical concerns, such as surveillance, consent, algorithmic bias, and potential misuse of data require careful attention. A continuous integration of technology into reflective pedagogy, robust governance, and equitable practice ensures meaningful and sustainable learning outcomes (Ferguson, 2019). Generative AI as a paradigmatic shift in learning technology discourse, challenges assumptions about knowledge production, assessment, and academic integrity.