Lifelong learning as a tool for the development of smart cities: technology enhanced learning as an enabler

Volume 4, Issue 4
Pages: 134—143

K. Brown
— Letterkenny Institute of Technology (Letterkenny, Ireland)
V. A. Larionova
— Ural Federal University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
V. Lally
— University of Glasgow (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Download full text

This paper considers the ubiquity of technology as an enabler for lifelong learning in modern society and the impact this dependence on technology has on the strategic design of learning systems. The role of lifelong learning in modern economies and the diversity of activities associated with lifelong learning requires targeted resourcing and understanding of the meaning of lifelong learning. The dominance of technology enhanced learning in modern education is accepted as a de-facto component in the design of any learning programme. The literature on the technology enhanced learning – smart city nexus explores the technology in depth with a strong focus on learning analytics and big data applications. Evidence of the pedagogical paradigm requirements is not quite so visible and this lack of understanding of the complete model creates tensions in the design of lifelong learning systems. The agency of active learning is considered in the sense of the triune of human, education and economic, systems for the sustainable growth of a knowledge economy. Structured approaches to learning are demonstrated and comparison is drawn with smart city projects in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Keywords: lifelong learning; technology enhanced learning; smart cities; e-learning; smart learning; massively open online courses; Russia; Ireland; United Kingdom 



  1. Andone, D., Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2014). Learning Communities in Smart Cities. Case Studies. In 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL), 25-27 Nov. 2014. Dubai: United Arab Emirates, IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICWOAL.2014.7009244
  2. Giffinger, R. et al. (2007). Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT. Retrieved from
  3. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
  4. Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking Sustainability Indicators: Local Perspectives of Urban Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.698984
  5. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart Cities: A Conjuncture of Four Forces. Cities, 47, 95–106. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004
  6. Anthopoulos, L. G. (2015). Understanding the Smart City Domain: a Literature Review. In M. P. Rodríguez-Bolívar (Ed.), Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities (pp. 9–21). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03167-5_2
  7. Gianni, F., & Divitini, M. (2015). Technology-Enhanced Smart City Learning: a Systematic Mapping of the Literature. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 27, 28–43.
  8. Hammad, R., & Ludlow, D. (2016). Towards a Smart Learning Environment for Smart City Governance. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing – UCC ’16 (pp. 185–190). Shanghai, China: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2996890.3007859
  9. Goodchild, T., & Speed, E. (2018). Technology Enhanced Learning as Transformative Innovation: a Note on the Enduring Myth of TEL. Teaching in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1518900
  10. Skinner, B. F. (1965). Review Lecture: the Technology of Teaching. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 162(989), 427–443. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1965.0048
  11. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
  12. Traxler, J. (2018). Learning with Mobiles: The Global South. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 152–175. doi: 10.1177/1745499918761509
  13. Brown, K., & Lally, V. (2017). Myths, Rhetoric and Opportunities Surrounding New Teaching Technologies: Engineering Mathematics Education. In EDCRUNCH Ural: New Educational Technologies at the University: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Methodological Conference. 25–27 Apr. 2017 (pp. 2–10). Ekaterinburg: Ural Federal University. Retrieved from
  14. Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2018). Critical Perspectives of Technology-Enhanced Learning in Relation to Specialist Communication Design Studio Education within the UK and Australia. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 92–116. doi: 10.1177/1745499918761706
  15. Lally, V., Sclater, M., & Brown, K. (2018). Technologies, Learning and Culture: Some Emerging Themes. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 227–235. doi: 10.1177/1745499918770951
  16. Bystrova, T. Yu., Larionova, V. A., Osborne, M., & Platonov, A. M. (2015). Introduction of Open E-Learning System as a Factor of Regional Development. R-Economy, 1(4), 587–596. doi: 10.15826/recon.2015.4.021
  17. Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond Hype and Underestimation: Identifying Research Challenges for the Future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149–158. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.920752
  18. Czerniewicz, L. (2018). Inequality as Higher Education Goes Online. In B. N. Dohn, S. Cranmer, J.-A. Sime, M. de Laat, & Th. Ryberg (Eds), Networked Learning: Reflections and Challenges (pp. 95–106). Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_6
  19. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Williams, S. A., & Adams, A. A. (2013). The Impact and Reach of MOOCs: a Developing Countries’ Perspective. eLearning Papers, 38–46. Retrieved from
  20. Honeychurch, S., & Patrick, F. (2018). Massive Open Online Courses as Affinity Spaces for Connected Learning: Exploring Effective Learning Interactions in One Massive Online Community. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 117–134. doi: 10.1177/1745499918768112
  21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Quinlan, O. (2017). Changes to Academic Practice in the Twenty-First Century. In N. Kucirkova, & O. Quinlan (Eds), The Digitally Agile Researcher (pp. 1–11). London, UK: Open University Press.
  23. Redecker, C., & Johannessen, O. (2013). Changing Assessment – Towards a New Assessment Paradigm Using ICT. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 79–96. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12018
  24. Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory-of-Mind Development: Retrospect and Prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274–290. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2004.0018
  25. Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2006). Precursors of Metamemory in Young Children: the Role of Theory of Mind and Metacognitive Vocabulary. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1007/s11409-006-6585-9
  26. Schwab, K. (2015, December 12). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means and how to respond. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from fourth-industrial-revolution
  27. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  28. Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic Self-Efficacy: from Educational Theory to Instructional Practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
  29. Dearden, R. F. (1979). The Assessment of Learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 27(2), 111–124. doi: 10.1080/00071005.1979.9973540
  30. Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (1992). Management and Motivation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Penguin Group.
  31. Azeiteiro, U. M., Akerman, M., Leal Filho, W., Setti, A. F. F., & Brandli, L. L. (Eds.) (2018). Lifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-69474-0
  32. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: the Challenge of Design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
  33. Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring Feedback and Student Characteristics Relevant for Personalizing Feedback Strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011
  34. Brown, K., & Lally, V. (2018). Rhetorical Relationships with Students: A Higher Education Case Study of Perceptions of Online Assessment in Mathematics. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1177/1745499918761938
  35. Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-Assessment: Practitioner Cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715–721. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032
  36. Wang, T.-H. (2010). Web-Based Dynamic Assessment: Taking Assessment as Teaching and Learning Strategy for Improving Students e-Learning Effectiveness. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1157–1166. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.001
  37. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
  38. Markkula, M., & Kune, H. (2015). Making Smart Regions Smarter: Smart Specialization and the Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 7–15. doi: 10.22215/timreview/932
  39. Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond Hype and Underestimation: Identifying Research Challenges for the Future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149–158. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.920752
  40. Holotescu, C., Slavici, T., Cismariu, L., Gotiu, L. O. L., Grossek, G., & Andone, D. (2016). MOOCs for Innovative Entrepreneurship in Smart Cities. World Journal on Educational Technology, 8(3), 245–251. doi: 10.18844/wjet.v8i3.832
  41. Yeager, C., Hurley-Dasguptaand B., & Bliss, C.A. (2013) cMOOCs and Global Learning: an Authentic Alternative. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(2), 133–147. Retrieved from
  42. Vygotskij, L. S. (1996). Pedagogical psychology. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press. (In Russ.)
  43. Genisaretskiy, O. I. (2010). Design Culture and Conceptualism. Retrieved from (In Russ.)
  44. Drysdale, J. J., Graham, Ch. R., & Borup, J. (2014). An Online High School «Shepherding» Program: Teacher Roles and Experiences Mentoring Online Students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1), 9–32.
  45. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First-Century. Paris: UNESCO.
  46. Jones, J. Ch. (1970) Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures. Wiley, UK.
  47. Bake, J.-I. (2010). The Project Method (Die Projektmethode). Theory and Practise. Seminer paper. GRIN-Verlag.
  48. Frey, K. (1997). Die Projektmethode. Berlin: Baeltz.
  49. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  50. Thomas, V., Wang, D., Mullagh, L. & Dunn, N. (2016). Where’s Wally? In Search of Citizen Perspectives on the Smart City. Sustainability, 8(3), 207. doi: 10.3390/su8030207
  51. Kitchin, R., Coletta, C., Evans, L., Heaphy, L., & Mac Donncha, D. (2017). Smart Cities, Urban Technocrats, Epistemic Communities and Advocacy Coalitions. The Programmable City Working Paper 26. doi: 10.31235/
  52. Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2018). Being a “Citizen” in the Smart City: Up and Down the Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8
  53. O’Brolchain, N., Ojo, A., Porwol, L., Minton, D., & Barry, C. (2018). Examining the Feasibility of a Smart Region Approach in the North West Atlantic and Borders Region of Ireland. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, April 4–6, 2018 (pp. 568–574). Galway, Ireland. doi: 10.1145/3209415.3209512
  54. Borkowska, K., & Osborne, M. (2018). Locating the Fourth Helix: Rethinking the Role of Civil Society in Developing Smart Learning Cities. International Review of Education, 64(3), 355–372. doi: 10.1007/s11159-018-9723-0
  55. UNESCO Recommendation. (2015, October 22). Retrieved from

In Russian:

К. Браун — Институт технологий Леттеркенни (Леттеркенни, Ирландия)
В. А. Ларионова — Уральский федеральный университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
В. Лэлли — Университет Глазго (Глазго, Великобритания)

Непрерывное обучение в качестве инструмента для развития умных городов: технологии, способствующие обучению

В этой статье рассматривается повсеместное распространение технологий в качестве инструмента для непрерывного обучения в современном обществе, а также влияние их связи на технологии для стратегического проектирования систем обучения. Роль непрерывного обучения в современной экономике и разнообразие видов деятельности, связанных с ним, требуют целенаправленного выделения ресурсов и понимания смысла непрерывного обучения. Доминирование технологии улучшенного обучения в современном образовании признается де-факто компонентом в разработке любой учебной программы. Литература о технологиях, развивающих взаимосвязь между обучением и умным городом, подробно исследует эту технологию, уделяя особое внимание обучающей аналитике и приложениям для работы с большими данными. Доказательства требований педагогической парадигмы не так очевидны, и это непонимание полной модели создает напряженность в разработке систем непрерывного обучения. Учреждение активного обучения рассматривается в смысле триединства человека, образования и экономики, систем устойчивого роста экономики знаний. Показаны структурированные подходы к обучению и проведено сравнение с проектами «умный город» в Ирландии и Великобритании.

Ключевые слова: непрерывное обучение; технология улучшенного обучения; умные города; электронное обучение; умное обучение; массово открытые онлайн-курсы; Россия; Ирландия; Великобритания

© K. Brown, V. A. Larionova, V. Lally