Instructional Design Models for Pervasive Learning Environment: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning in Collaborative Social Learning

Abstract

In Indonesia, there is a significant gap between the skills, creativity, innovation abilities, and job awareness of college graduates as well as the demands of the modern workforce. This gap originates from a curriculum and learning design that has not kept pace with the rapidly evolving needs of society. In an era characterized by digitalization and the rapid development of technology, content, infrastructure, human, and environmental resources, it is essential to create an open and pervasive learning environment (PLE). Therefore, this research aimed to describe the design process and determine the feasibility and validity of a PLE model that integrated formal and informal cooperative social learning. Research and Development (R&D) for Education model was adopted in this study following the phases of analysis, design, development, and evaluation (ADDIE). Furthermore, the research procedure included two main stages, namely the development of the PLE model and validation of the product. The product validation process further included 13 experts in material design, 15 experts in learning media, and 95 students from state and private universities across Indonesia. Subsequently, descriptive statistical analysis was used in analyzing the obtained data from the validation process. The results showed that the developed PLE model design has utilized the power of technology, social interaction, and everyday environment, both formally and informally. The developed learning model design was suitable for implementation in educational settings. This learning design model offers a comprehensive, flexible, and inclusive learning ecosystem that is tailored to the needs of the twenty-first century.

1. Introduction

Entering the era of Society 5.0 is an aspect that presents society with increasing challenges in life and competition in the workplace [1]. Jobs are becoming increasingly difficult, with many roles being replaced by machines or robots that operate automatically and tirelessly [2,3]. To thrive in this era, possessing routine skills is insufficient. Individuals should further adapt, think critically, be creative and innovative, and possess collaborative social skills [4].

Creativity is increasingly recognized as a key factor in achieving individual well-being and making significant contributions to humanity [5]. Similarly, innovation abilities are considered characteristic of individuals in the current global landscape [6]. Various types of jobs, businesses, and organizations now emphasize the need for employees who are creative and innovative, particularly those capable of solving new problems successfully [7].

The results of research by Dobbs and Madgavkar [8], which examined college graduates in Asia, including Indonesia, showed a significant gap in skills, creativity, innovation abilities, and job awareness among college graduates in meeting the demands of the modern workforce. Other research also showed that higher education institutions have not produced graduates who were sufficiently creative and innovative [9,10].

Several issues have been identified in the context of higher education learning, particularly in the “Teaching Materials Development” course. This course, which is a cross-study program offered by the Educational Technology Study Program at Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, is available to various education study programs at the university and similar programs at other universities. Teaching Materials Development is one of the compulsory courses for students registered in study programs at the Teacher Education institution, which is tasked with producing prospective professional teachers in Indonesia [11,12]. This course is designed as an effort to respond and adapt to the rapid development and progress of information and communication technology (ICT) lately and to create various teaching material resources that will be used in teacher training. This course is also intended to support the formation of pedagogical competence for prospective teachers. The course covers a broad range of material, including theoretical, practical, and empirical content. The primary objective is to equip students with attitudes, knowledge, and skills in the design, development, adoption, evaluation, and assessment of teaching materials. Despite the importance, the course is allocated only to three credits with one credit equating to 50 min, providing limited classroom time relative to the breadth of the material.

Current learning in schools and universities faces several problems, such as the use of theoretical, monotonous, and unengaging materials [13]. Low levels of student-teacher, student-to-student, student-material, and student-technology interactions in learning process contribute to student passivity [14]. Additionally, students’ weak interest and focus make it difficult for them to learn independently [15,16]. The lack of challenging teamwork activities further hinders creativity and innovation among students [17]. Achieving comprehensive learning outcomes cannot rely solely on formal environments as lifelong understanding is essential [18]. Some students may also feel overwhelmed by formal demands of structured thinking and action [19].

Rethinking and efforts are needed in teaching strategies and challenging old teaching styles to motivate students to become future professionals with creativity and innovation skills that are needed and valued as essential skills in the twenty-first century. Therefore, out-of-class/pervasive lectures are the right solution to solve these problems. A pervasive learning environment (PLE) is a method that focuses on integrating formal and informal learning [20] while leveraging technology and daily environments to create a more holistic, collaborative, and continuous learning experience. The integration of formal and informal learning with the support of technology has a very important role in creating an educational ecosystem that is inclusive, relevant, and adaptive to the challenges of the twenty-first century. This method is particularly relevant to Generation Z, who are characterized by the frequent use of technology, independence, responsibility, social nature, and open-mindedness [21].

Several previous research have explored the concept of pervasive learning. For instance, Pontefract [22] examined how connected, collaborative, and effective organizations could be created through different leadership methods to overcome personal and organizational barriers. Beckmann and Ehmke [23] further emphasized the application of formal and informal learning to improve the competencies of prospective teachers. Research by Won et al. [24] and Ngeow [25] also showed that collaborative social learning design could enhance student engagement and critical thinking. Additionally, Suartama [26] found that learning management system (LMS) technology supported learning occurring anytime and anywhere. These publications suggest that pervasive learning offers opportunities for learning daily, beyond structured programs. The method enables students to gain valuable insights by leveraging evolving technologies and environments.

PLE design proposed in this research incorporates several key components essential for pervasive learning, including technology integration, collaborative, social, formal and informal design, flexibility and mobility, creativity and innovation drivers, personal monitoring and feedback, as well as reflection and evaluation. Integrating technology into learning provides several benefits, such as flexible access [27], increased interaction and engagement [28], real-life experience [29], and personal adjustment [30]. Formal learning activities can also be conducted through learning activities in the classroom (face-to-face), virtual classes, game-based learning, e-learning, conferences, and forum discussions [31]. Furthermore, informal activities include mentoring, web conferences, webinars, workshops, podcasts, and case studies [32]. In a social context, learning can be conducted online through platforms such as wikis, blogs, microblogs, friendships, user-generated content, messaging platforms, and other social media [33].

The current major challenge in education lies in creating PLE using technological solutions that foster a more contextual and collaborative learning experience, connecting formal and informal learning [34]. Implementing pervasive learning requires careful planning, adequate infrastructure, and a clear understanding of how technology can enhance the learning process [35]. Based on the background, this research aims to describe the design process and determine the feasibility or validity of a PLE model design that integrates formal and informal collaborative social learning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

Research on learning design models could be classified into three types, namely (1) model development, (2) validation, and (3) use [36]. This study focused on the development and validation of the model. After the model was developed, it underwent a validation process. The validation aimed to carefully collect and analyze empirical data to either support each component of the model or to prove the practical usefulness [37]. Validation could be conducted internally, externally, or through a combination of both methods. After validation, the learning design model was ready to be tested or implemented in actual learning activities.

The research method used was Research and Development (R&D) for Education, following the phases of analysis, design, development, and evaluation (ADDIE), as proposed by W. W. Lee and Owens [38]. This model was selected for the systematic, comprehensive, and tested method, which was further presented in Figure 1.

2.2. Procedure

The procedure for developing the PLE model design included detailed stages, activities, results, and targeted achievement indicators, as described in Table 1.

2.3. Model Development

The design of the model was based on the pervasive learning design model promoted by Pontefract [22] and the five phases of collaborative social learning by Ngeow [25]. Additionally, formal and informal learning design by Beckmann and Ehmke [23] and the support of LMS technology [39] was further adapted by the design model.

2.4. Product Validation and Trial

The developed product underwent validation by experts in content or learning material, design, and media. These experts were selected based on the appropriate educational background and extensive experience in the fields. Expert validation was crucial to obtain feedback for improving the product and to ensure that the developed PLE model was feasible for implementation in learning environments.

A field trial was conducted, including the application of the developed model design to 95 students from state and private universities in Indonesia. The trial aimed to assess the utility and quality of the product before the actual use in learning settings. After the product was implemented, students completed a product assessment questionnaire. The data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed, and the product was revised based on the trial results to produce a final version. This trial process was intended to enhance the quality of the developed model design.

2.5. Instrument

A questionnaire was administered to material, design, and learning media experts and students as users to validate the PLE model. The questions for material and learning design experts were developed based on the theory of Walker and Hess [40]. The questionnaire for learning media experts was adapted from the comprehensive standard or rubric for online learning design developed by Debattista [41]. The student questionnaire used in the trial was compiled based on the assessment criteria from the material and media experts with adjustments made to reflect student perspective as users of the developed product. There were two types of questions in this questionnaire, namely closed-ended and open-ended. Closed-ended questions were formatted using a 5-point Likert scale, while open-ended were used to request opinions or suggestions from experts and students regarding the developed product. The questionnaire grids for material/design experts and learning media experts were presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

2.6. Data Analysis

The data obtained from the validation of the pervasive learning system was classified into two categories, namely qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative data consisted of critiques and suggestions provided by material experts and learning media experts. The data was analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis techniques [42]. These critiques and suggestions were collected and summarized to improve the developed pervasive learning system. Furthermore, quantitative data comprised scores for each item on the instrument, filled in by the same experts. Descriptive statistical analysis methods were used to assess the quality of the developed pervasive learning system. The scores were totaled, averaged, and then converted into values using a 5-scale criterion-referenced test table, adapted from Sukardjo [43], as shown in Table 4.

In this research, a minimum feasibility value of “good” was established. When the final overall assessment received a minimum of a “good” score from the experts, the developed PLE model was considered feasible for application in learning environments.

3. Results

3.1. Design of Pervasive Learning Model Based on Formal and Informal Collaborative Social Learning in the Course of Learning Material Development

The design of the pervasive learning design model based on formal and informal collaborative social learning followed the framework promoted by Pontefract [22]. It also incorporated the five phases of collaborative social learning, including engagement, exploration, transformation, presentation, and reflections, as outlined by Ngeow [25], formal and informal designs proposed by Beckmann and Ehmke [23], and supported by LMS technology [39]. The based on this collaborative method was applied in the course of learning material development and adhered to the structure presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 showed that formal and informal collaborative social learning design is based on an analysis of the environment, courses, and student characteristics. This design is also supported by constructivism theory, which emphasizes the active participation of students in building their own knowledge based on experience and interaction with the environment. Educational communication theory directs the importance of directed interaction between teachers (or facilitators) and students in the process of delivering information, understanding concepts, and developing skills and attitudes. Cooperative and collaborative learning emphasizes social interaction between students to achieve common learning goals, with a focus on cooperation and mutual support in the learning process. Ubiquitous learning directs learning activities anytime and anywhere by utilizing information and communication technology that is integrated into everyday life.

These theories are implemented in the five phases of collaborative social learning, namely engagement, exploration, transformation, presentation, and reflection. The activities in each phase were detailed in Table 5.

The phases of collaborative social learning outlined in Table 1 were implemented across various formal and informal learning activities and resources, as depicted in Figure 3.

The components of the learning model design (materials or topics, methods, resources, and activities) were systematically organized into a scenario or learning design in the form of a program mapping. This program mapping consisted of a table that included materials/topics, types of teaching materials, sequence of learning phases or methods, resources, and activities for one semester. Each element in the table was connected to the complete material, following the method described by Suartama et al. [39].

The program mapping facilitated the accurate and efficient connection of these elements in developing P-learning courses. To create a course, learning materials were prepared in digital formats, including documents (doc, pdf, xls, and txt), presentations (ppt), images (jpg, gif, and png), videos (mp4, mpg, and wmv), sound files (mp3, au, and wav), and animations (swf and gif), as well as AR/VR content. The sequence of the phases or methods used was collaborative social learning, supported by Moodle LMS features that included resources (book, file, folder, IMS content package, label, page, and URL/uniform resource locator) and activities (assignments, chat, choice, database, feedback, forum, glossary, lesson, lti/external tool, quiz, scorm, survey, wiki, and workshop). The final element was correlated with the implementation of formal and informal learning activities and resources. The program mapping for pervasive learning based on formal and informal collaborative social learning in the course of developing teaching materials was presented in Table 6.

3.2. Final Product

The final product of this research consisted of a portal and P-learning course centered on formal and informal collaborative social learning in the subject of teaching material development. This course served as a bridge, integrating various activities and resources of collaborative social learning, as well as formal and informal learning. The P-learning course was divided into 16 learning activities or weeks, including the following:

• Learning Activity 1: Introduction to the course

• Learning Activity 2: Position of teaching materials in learning system.

• Learning Activity 3: Basic concepts of teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 4: Types and characteristics of teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 5: Identification of teaching material content.

• Learning Activity 6: Principles of teaching material design.

• Learning Activity 7: Phases for developing teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 8: Mid-semester exam.

• Learning Activity 9: Development of printed/visual teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 10: Development of audio teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 11: Development of video teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 12: Development of multimedia teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 13: Development of electronic/online modules (e-modules/online)

•             module/LMS.

• Learning Activity 14: Development of digital student worksheets.

• Learning Activity 15: Evaluation of teaching materials.

• Learning Activity 16: Final semester exam.

Each segment of the course was structured according to the collaborative social learning phase. These phases were implemented through formal or informal learning activities and resources. A detailed explanation of the forms of formal and informal learning was provided in Appendix A. The activities and resources for the complete Teaching Materials Development course, which could also be accessed through the guest feature/login/access, were made accessible at the provided URL: https://p-learning.site/course/view.php?id=2 (accessed on 2 September 2024).

3.3. Product Validity

The developed product underwent internal testing to ensure smooth operation, followed by an evaluation phase. This evaluation included (1) validation by 13 material or design experts who were lecturers responsible for Teaching Materials Development course and 15 media experts who were Doctors in Learning Technology from six different universities, as well as (2) trials conducted on 95 students from state and private universities in Indonesia. The results of the assessment by material/design experts on product quality were presented in Table 7.

The data in Table 7 showed that the average overall assessment score for the material or learning content aspect reached 4.32. According to the quantitative data conversion table, this score fell in the “Very good” category on a 5-point scale, showing that the developed learning material was suitable for application in educational settings.

The material or learning design experts provided several comments and suggestions for improvement, which included the following.

• (1). Beginning with a clear outline of learning objectives, students should achieve before presenting the material.

• (2). Enriching the material with updates, including the study of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in learning.

• (3). Developing content to support student higher-order thinking skills (HOTS).

• (4). Prompting the “offering constructive ideas” phase to be more concrete by adding a real action plan in line with social collaborative learning and current educational trends, such as problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL).

• (5). Incorporating features to facilitate interaction between lecturers and students in each activity.

• (6). Ensuring the relevance of classroom learning to daily life and the professional world.

Furthermore, the results of the media expert’s assessment of product quality were further presented in Table 8.

The data in Table 8 further showed that the average overall assessment score for learning media aspect reached 4.34. This figure was also classified as the “Very good” category, suggesting learning media was appropriate for use in educational settings.

Further comments and suggestions for revision/improvement from learning media experts included the following.

• (1). Offering diverse learning sources and multimedia to accommodate different student preferences and learning styles.

• (2). Increasing the number of informal learning activities by including a wider variety of practitioners and experts.

• (3). Providing open access features to enable students to search for additional references, allowing students to compare materials on the platform.

• (4). Adding a tutoring service feature for interaction between teachers and students.

• (5). Including a feature for tracking student learning progress.

• (6). Adding a “display ongoing score” menu for students to monitor learning progress.

Furthermore, the assessment results from the trial activities carried out on 95 students were presented in Table 9.

The data in Table 9 signified that the average overall assessment score of P-learning course aspects based on formal and informal collaborative social learning in Teaching Materials Development course reached 4.35. This score, according to the quantitative data conversion table, was categorized as “Very good”, implying that the developed product was considered suitable for use in learning environments.

Student feedback from the product trials was generally positive, including the following points:

• (1). The use of LMS and various features, such as forums, chats, and quizzes, greatly supported collaborative learning.

• (2). More learning activities outside the classroom using case methods were suggested to apply knowledge in different contexts.

• (3). P-learning material presentation was highly structured and easy to understand, facilitating independent learning.

• (4). Learning became more flexible as the course could be accessed anytime and anywhere.

• (5). Assignments were clearly described, aiding completion.

• (6). Group assignments stimulated students to exchange experiences, complement each other, and collaborate.

• (7). Group projects allowed students to apply the learned theories and knowledge learned, and

• (8). This course was user-friendly.

A comparison of the average overall scores from expert validation and student assessments in the product trial was presented in Figure 4.

The data in Figure 4 showed that the average overall assessment score for learning material/content aspect by 13 material experts was 4.32. Additionally, the average overall assessment score of the media aspect by 15 media experts was 4.34, and the 95 student assessment score in the product trial was 4.35. All these scores fell in the “Very good” category on a 5-point scale, confirming that the material and media aspects of the developed product were suitable for application in learning.

Based on the feedback and suggestions from experts and students, the following product improvements were made to the products.

• (1). Provide a brief overview of the learning plan, including objectives, resources, and activities for each stage.

• (2). Adding practical applications of AI in teaching materials development.

• (3). HOTS assignments were introduced, requiring critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity through case studies and team-based projects.

• (4). Additional chat features and online discussion forums were added to facilitate interaction between lecturers and students.

• (5). A variety of media elements and learning resources, such as text, images, sound, animation, video, and multimedia, were incorporated.

• (6). Expert and practitioner-sharing activities were added.

• (7). Experience points (XP) and progress bar features were introduced in the P-learning courses.

4. Discussion

The process of developing a pervasive learning model based on formal and informal collaborative social learning in Teaching Materials Development course progresses through design, development, and validation stages. Despite several challenges, such as limited resources, difficulties in integrating formal and informal learning, alignment with student needs, comprehensive validation, environmental and technological changes, stakeholder participation, and curriculum compatibility, these obstacles have been successfully addressed. Needs assessment combined with systematic planning ensures a solid foundation for the quality and success of the learning model.

Considering the positive assessments from material and media experts, as well as student trials, this study concluded that the pervasive learning model that integrates formal and informal collaborative social learning met the eligibility criteria for broader implementation in educational settings. The success of the model is achieved by incorporating student-centered, varied, and comprehensive methods.

A collaborative social method is implemented across five phases/stages of learning, namely (1) engagement phase aiming to make learning engaging and relevant by using questions, stories, and games; (2) exploration phase in which students explore deeper into concepts through research, experiments, and group discussions; (3) transformation phase including working on projects or writing assignments; (4) presentation phase in which students present the results; and (5) reflection phase in which students assess learning progress, personal growth, and future learning objectives. Collaborative social activities foster open communication, diverse participation, unrestricted thinking, constructive conflict, democratic structures, varied knowledge sources, and deep participation [44].

The use of open-source LMS and social media are widely used to support collaborative social activities. Moodle LMS features are also particularly effective in promoting collaboration [45]. The increasing use of social networks and social media for knowledge exchange underlines the importance of promoting collaboration skills to meet the demands of twenty-first-century education [46].

Collaborative social learning phases are further implemented through various formal and informal activities. Formal learning spaces are areas specifically designed for structured teaching activities. This includes classrooms, auditoriums, laboratories, and libraries where methods such as tutorials, presentations, demonstrations, drills and practices, questions and answers, as well as discussions are adopted. Formal learning environments offer several advantages that affect student experiences on campus, including increased concentration, reduced stress, development of discipline and responsibility, and structured social interaction [47]. However, there are also disadvantages, such as a lack of flexibility and high academic pressure, making it essential to balance formal and informal learning environments.

Informal education occurs outside the campus environment, offering more flexibility and a less rigid structure [48]. In this model, informal learning methods include expert sharing, practitioner sharing, visiting professors, community practices, mentoring, wikis, coaching, case studies, podcasts, networking, tagging, and blogs. These methods provide significant advantages, such as high flexibility, a comfortable learning environment that enhances concentration, and full personal control over the process. Decius et al. [49] further outlined these benefits in the publications that asserted the significant positive impact of informal methods on the learning experience. Although formal education remains relevant, the informal method allows continuous learning and development without rigid boundaries.

Expert and practitioner-sharing activities further allow for the exchange of knowledge, giving students deeper insights into specific topics through interactions with experienced professionals [50]. Knowledge shared by experts and practitioners is often more credible and can inspire students to pursue specific fields or develop certain skills [51]. Success stories and insights from experts and practitioners can further inspire individuals to pursue the same field or develop certain skills. Through expert and practitioner sharing, individuals can expand their professional networks by connecting with experienced practitioners to open up opportunities for collaboration and further learning [52].

In community of practice (CoP) activities, groups of students with common interests and objectives in a particular field interact, share roles, exchange knowledge, and learn together through online discussion forums. This current interaction helps students stay updated on knowledge and adopt best practices, positively impacting both academic and non-academic performance [53].

A P-learning course further includes activities using the wikis module. Wikis enable collaboration and open knowledge sharing, allowing students to contribute to wiki pages, share knowledge and resources, or engage in discussions. Research by Zalavra et al. [54] further found that the wikis feature could build extensive, complete, and in-depth knowledge, as well as strengthen collaborative learning behavior.

Assignments in the course include creating podcasts. Students produce podcasts on specific topics, interview experts, or explore contemporary issues related to teaching material development. The use of podcasts increases interest and enthusiasm, enhances the enjoyment of the listening process, stimulates motivation to learn more about the topic, and makes the sources in the podcast appear more credible, resulting in higher overall ratings for the podcast [55,56].

Another informal activity is case studies, which include complex learning scenarios closely related to realistic problems relevant to the material being examined [57]. In this course, students receive case studies focused on developing and using teaching materials. Case studies emphasize maximum student activity as learning subjects by searching, finding, connecting, and applying concepts that have been learned [58]. This method helps develop skills such as teamwork, critical thinking, and cultural awareness [59].

Additionally, students use blogs to reflect on learning by writing about the understanding, questions that arise, or learning experiences. Blogs serve as a medium for sharing information, knowledge, and insights on specific topics. Lecturers can write posts to explain concepts, provide examples, or review course materials, while students can use blogs as digital portfolios to publish works, projects, or assignments relevant to the course. Blogs in learning can be a useful tool for sharing knowledge, stimulating reflection, and facilitating discussion among students [60].

Sharing and tagging content on social media is another activity, allowing students and lecturers to share text, images, videos, links, and other resources through social media platforms. Lecturers share learning materials, assignments, and information with students, while students share the understanding, questions, or work results with classmates or lecturers. This practice fosters collaboration and discussion, increasing student engagement by using familiar social media platforms [61,62].

The design of the developed model further addresses key pedagogical elements, such as material depth, novelty, flow of material presentation, and linguistic aspects. In terms of learning media, the model considers course openings, instructional resources, interaction and community, learner support, technology design, course closings, teaching assessments, and the instructional design cycle. Additionally, providing richer content, effective strategies, and learning environment relevant to student experiences can enhance the performance [63].

The use of LMS features in the form of messages, chats, and forums is intended to create interaction between lecturers and students, as well as among students during the completion of assignments [64]. Online computer-mediated social interaction is also important in education because it can provide benefits such as flexibility and efficiency in terms of cost and time. Furthermore, the results of research by Araújo et al. [65] showed that social interaction and collaborative work in an online learning environment improved student performance. This implies that interactive features enhance collaborative learning interactions and improve the teaching process.

The design of a pervasive learning model based on formal and informal collaborative framework is built based on the environment, preferences, and learning modalities of students. An effective environment considers individual differences and student surroundings. Students learn in various methods and at different speeds based on the needs, interests, desires, and environment [66]. This pervasive learning model provides an integrated architecture with three key components, including collaboration, activities/content, and teaching services. It further offers an intuitive method for identifying the right collaborative teaching methods, appropriate content, and suitable services at the right time and place.

Finally, based on the feedback provided by the material experts, a good pervasive learning model emphasizes the importance of clarity of learning objectives, as well as encouraging the development of HOTS. In addition, it is recommended to strengthen collaborative learning through concrete action plans, such as PBL and PjBL; increase interaction between teachers and students; and ensure the relevance of the material to everyday life and the professional world. Furthermore, media experts emphasize the importance of diversifying learning resources with multimedia, increasing informal activities through practitioners, and open access to additional references. It is also recommended that tutoring services, progress tracking features, and running score displays be provided to monitor student progress transparently and motivate better results. This combination can create a more effective and inclusive learning platform.

5. Conclusions

The development of a pervasive learning model design based on formal and informal collaborative social learning in the Teaching Materials Development course included two stages, namely model development and product validation. The design of the pervasive learning model as a result of this research focuses on the integration of formal (classrooms and labs) and informal learning (expert sharing, wikis, podcasts, case studies, and blogs) in collaborative social learning (engagement, exploration, transformation, presentation, and reflection) while utilizing technology (open-source LMS and social media) and everyday environments to create a more holistic, collaborative, and sustainable learning experience. The integration of formal and informal learning with the support of technology has a very important role in creating an inclusive, relevant, and adaptive educational ecosystem. Furthermore, the design of this pervasive learning model proved feasible for application in educational settings. This learning design model highlighting its potential to enhance student engagement, creativity, and innovation in educational settings.

6. Recommendations

Based on the results of this research, the following recommendations were suggested:

• (1). The developed learning model should be implemented among student groups at universities enrolled in courses focused on teaching material development.

• (2). For students using this learning model for the first time, lecturers should guide the use despite being designed to offer flexible learning opportunities.

• (3). The model design should be disseminated through various channels, such as academic seminars organized by universities, training sessions on developing learning media, collaboration with educational institutions, and other forums to ensure wider adoption and usage, particularly in teaching materials studies.

• (4). Efforts to enhance pervasive learning should focus on optimizing the variety of presentation methods.

• (5). Further research should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of this model in enhancing student creativity and innovation skills. This was critical for the twenty-first century using classroom action and experimental research on a broader range of participants.

7. Limitations

The development of the pervasive learning model further possessed the following limitations:

• (1). The application required the use of a computer or mobile device.

• (2). Adequate internet access was necessary.

• (3). The model was limited to teaching material development content.

• (4). Students as the subjects of this research only come from state and private universities in Indonesia.

• (5). Effectiveness testing was not conducted.

• (6). The evaluation in this research did not extend to the impact evaluation stage (long term).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.K.S.; Data curation, I.N.Y.; Formal analysis, I.N.Y.; Investigation, I.N.Y.; Methodology, I.K.S.; Project administration, I.K.S.; Resources, E.T.; Software, E.T.; Supervision, I.N.Y.; Validation, E.T.; Visualization, E.T.; Writing—original draft, I.K.S.; Writing-review and editing, I.K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Phases for developing PLE model.

No.	Phases	Activity	Targeted Results and Indicators
1.	Analysis	Need assessment, namely identifying problems in learning. Front-end analysis, including identifying student characteristics, technology, or learning support facilities provided on campus and learning environment conditions. Analyzing course descriptions, competency standards, and course objectives that follow curriculum demands referring to Indonesia Qualification Framework, demands of the Industrial Revolution 4.0. This activity is carried out through interviews, observations, documentation studies, and questionnaires filled out by lecturers and students.	Profile of characteristics/preferences/learning modalities of students. Profile of supporting facilities and infrastructure. Instructional analysis of Teaching Materials Development course.
2.	Design	Designing a model design development schedule. Determining platform, hardware, and software specification needs. Determining learning materials/resources and strategies/activities. Designing resources and design activities or scenarios for the PLE model in formal, informal, and social collaborative categories in the form of learning scenarios and program mapping.	Hardware and software specifications. Identification of resources and activities. Learning scenarios. Program mapping.
3.	Development	Creating PLE system, this phase consists of: Developing P-learning with LMS: Creating a portal with the following phases: (1) obtaining server or web hosting, (2) changing the portal identity (site name and site description), (3) setting up the Moodle mobile application, (4) changing the theme, (5) creating categories, and (6) creating and raising user status. Creating a course subject with the following phases: (1) creating and changing course settings, (2) entering resources (book, file, folder, IMS content package, AR (augmented reality)/VR (virtual reality), artificial intelligence (AI), label, page, URL/uniform resource locator), and (3) creating activities (assignments, chat, choice, database, feedback, forum, glossary, lesson, LTI/external tool, quiz, SCORM, survey, wiki, workshop). Designing a social media community portal such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, podcasts, and videos. Identifying and determining experts, practitioners, professors, and lecturers in informal activities. Validating the design model that has been developed by material experts and design experts learning.	P-learning portal. P-learning course. Social media community portal. Identification of experts and practitioners.
4.	Implementation	Organizing/implementing/trialing pervasive learning model designs oriented toward formal and informal collaborative social learning in the subject of developing teaching materials.	Trial results report.
5.	Evaluation	Conducting student evaluations and product revisions.	Product feasibility document.

Table 2

Grid for learning material assessment instruments.

Aspects Assessed	Indicators
Learning Aspect	- Learning objectives. - Motivation. - Summary.	- Clarity of learning indicators. - Provision of exercises. - Suitability of images and videos given to clarify the material.
Material Aspect	- Suitability of material to the competencies to be achieved. - Conceptual truth - Material up-to-datedness	- Order of presentation of material. - Suitability of examples given.
Language Aspect	- Suitability of language to student thinking level. - Language clarity. - Term accuracy.	- Accuracy of grammar and spelling. - Ability to arouse student curiosity.

Table 3

Online learning media assessment instrument grid.

Main Standards	Specific Standards
Course opening	- Accessibility - Role - Description - Behavior	- Integrity - Technical competences - Ownership
Instructional resources for teaching and learning	- Provision - Application - Entitlement	- Variety - Openness - Academic integrity
Interaction and community	- Fostering - Management	- Peer learning
Learner support	- Instructional support - Academic support	- Technical support - Administrative support
Technology design	- Support - Centricity - Openness - Authentication	- Access - Interface - Investment - Management
Course closing	- Assessment - Resolution	- Archiving
Assessment of learning	- Goals and objectives - Strategies - Grading	- Feedback - Management
Instructional design cycle	- Academic review - Technical review	- Administrative review

Table 4

Scores converted on a five scale.

Value/Category	Score
	Formula	Calculation
Very good	X > ${\overline{X}}_i$ + 1.80 Sbi	X > 4.21
Good	${\overline{X}}_i$ + 0.60 Sdi < X ≤ ${\overline{X}}_i$ + 1.80 Sdi	3.40 < X ≤ 4.21
Quite good	${\overline{X}}_i$ − 0.60 Sdi < X ≤ ${\overline{X}}_i$ + 0.60 Sdi	2.60 < X ≤ 3.40
Not good	${\overline{X}}_i$ − 1.80 Sdi < X ≤ ${\overline{X}}_i$ − 0.60 Sdi	1.79 < X ≤ 2.60
Bad	X ≤ ${\overline{X}}_i$ − 1.80 Sdi	X ≤ 1.79

Description: Ideal average (${\overline{X}}_i$) = 1/2 × (max score + minimum score); standard deviation ideal (Sdi) = 1/6 × (max score − minimum score); maximum score = 5; minimum score = 1; ${\overline{X}}_i$ = 1/2 × (5 + 1) = 3; Sdi = 1/6 × (5 − 1) = 0.67; X = actual score.

Table 5

Description of activities in collaborative social learning phase.

Phase		Description
Engagement	:	Students answer the trigger questions about the material or topic to be examined.
Exploration	:	Students explore initial ideas by examining learning material connection.
Transformation	:	Students analyze, synthesize, and discuss the material or topic being examined and connect the material or topic being explored to daily living.
Presentation	:	Students present the results.
Reflection	:	Students prepare the results summary of the analysis, identifying strengths and weaknesses, as well as offering constructive ideas.

Table 6

Program mapping for pervasive learning based on formal and informal collaborative social learning in the course of developing teaching materials.

Topic	Type of Teaching Materials	Pervasive Learning Environment
		Collaborative Social Learning Syntax	Formal	Informal
Position of teaching materials in learning system	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Question and answer in Classrooms
		Exploration	Study learning material link at P-learning
		Transformation		Case examination
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Blogs
Basic concepts of teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Presentation
		Exploration	Discussion forum
		Transformation		Problem-solving
		Presentation		Videos
		Reflection		Sharing/tagging in social media
Types and characteristics of teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)Multimedia (exe)	Engagement	Demonstration
		Exploration		Experts sharing
		Transformation		Case method
		Presentation		Podcast
		Reflection		Wikis
Identification of teaching material content	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Question and answer in Classrooms
		Exploration	Study learning material link at P-learning
		Transformation		Case examine
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Blogs
Principles of teaching material design	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Presentation
		Exploration	Problem-solving
		Transformation		Case examine
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Wikis
Phases in developing teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Question and answer in Classrooms
		Exploration	Study learning material link at P-learning
		Transformation		Case examine
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Blogs
Evaluation of teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Presentation
		Exploration	Study learning material link at P-learning
		Transformation		Case examine
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Blogs
Development of printed or visual teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement		Expert sharing
		Exploration		Practitioner sharing
		Transformation		Team-based project
		Presentation		Videos
		Reflection		Blogs
Development of audio teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Demonstration
		Exploration		Practitioner sharing
		Transformation		Coaching
		Presentation		Podcast
		Reflection		Blogs
Development of video teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Demonstration
		Exploration		Practitioner sharing
		Transformation		CoachingTeam-based project
		Presentation		Videos
		Reflection		Sharing/tagging in social media
Development of multimedia teaching materials	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Demonstration
		Exploration		Practitioner sharing
		Transformation		CoachingTeam-based project
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Sharing/tagging in social media
Development of electronic/online modules (e-modules/online modules/LMS)	Document (pdf) Presentation (ppt) Video (mp4)	Engagement	Demonstration
		Exploration		Practitioner sharing
		Transformation		MentoringCommunity of inquiry
		Presentation		Videos
		Reflection		Blogs
Development of digital student worksheets	Document (pdf)Presentation (ppt)Video (mp4)	Engagement	Question and answer in Classrooms
		Exploration		Visiting professors
		Transformation		MentoringCommunity of inquiry
		Presentation		Community of practices sharing
		Reflection		Sharing/tagging in social media

Table 7

Results of validation by material experts on development products.

Assessment Aspects	Average Score	Category
Learning Aspect	4.33	Very good
Material Aspect	4.29	Very good
Language Aspect	4.35	Very good
Overall Average Score	4.32	Very good

Table 8

Results of media expert validation of product development.

Assessment Aspects	Average Score	Category
Opening	4.40	Very good
Learning resources	4.36	Very good
Interaction and communication	4.31	Very good
Student/learner support	4.30	Very good
Technology design	4.37	Very good
Course closing	4.28	Very good
Assessment	4.30	Very good
Learning cycle	4.42	Very good
Overall Average Score	4.34	Very good

Table 9

Student assessment in development product trial.

Assessment Aspects	Average Score	Category
Material Aspect	4.32	Very good
Learning Aspect	4.38	Very good
Language Aspect	4.38	Very good
Opening	4.40	Very good
Learning resources	4.35	Very good
Interaction and communication	4.38	Very good
Student/learner support	4.32	Very good
Technology design	4.29	Very good
Course closing	4.39	Very good
Assessment	4.39	Very good
Learning cycle	4.34	Very good
Overall Average Score	4.35	Very good

Appendix A

Table description of learning activities.

Presentations	:	Method of expressing ideas, concepts, and feelings in front of students by one or more lecturers by including a script of teaching materials or not.
Demonstrations	:	Method used to show a process or how an object works related to the subject matter.
Drills and practice	:	Learning method that focuses on repetition and practice to strengthen certain skills or knowledge.
Tutorials	:	Learning method that includes direct and personal interaction between tutors and students, usually in small groups or one-on-one. This method aims to provide more in-depth and personal guidance, customized to the needs of individual students to improve understanding and skills.
Discussions	:	Learning method that includes active interaction between participants to exchange information, ideas, and views on a particular topic.
Games and simulations	:	Method used to model, analyze, and solve problems through real-world representations in the form of games or simulations.
Problem-solving	:	The process of systematically identifying and solving problems includes several phases designed to understand the problem, find possible solutions, and implement those solutions.
Classrooms	:	Classroom teaching methods with various strategies used by educators to deliver subject matter, facilitate learning, and increase student engagement.
e-Learning	:	An educational method that uses electronic and digital technology to provide and support teaching and learning. It allows students and instructors to interact, access learning materials, and conduct educational activities through the Internet or other electronic devices.
Videos	:	A method of learning and communication that utilizes video media as the primary tool. This method is used to communicate information, teach skills, or entertain through visuals and audio.
Forums	:	An online platform where students can interact, discuss, and share information on a variety of topics. Forums usually consist of several subforums, each focused on a specific topic. Students can create posts, reply to other people’s posts, and participate in current discussions.
AR/VR	:	Technologies are changing how interaction is conducted with the digital and physical world. AR is a technology that adds digital elements, such as images, sounds, or text to the real world. VR is a technology that completely replaces the real world with a virtual world generated by a computer.
Animations	:	A tool or method that uses animation to deliver educational material. This animation can be in the form of moving images, animated videos, or interactive simulations designed to help students understand complex concepts or processes more easily and enjoyably.
Multimedia	:	The use of various types of media, such as text, images, audio, video, animation, and interactivity, to deliver learning materials. The main objective is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the teaching and learning process by providing multiple ways to understand and absorb information.
Experts sharing	:	The process by which experts in a particular field share knowledge, experience, and skills with others. This can be carried out through various methods, such as presentations, seminars, webinars, podcasts, articles, videos, and online discussions.
Practitioner sharing	:	A method for sharing knowledge, ideas, experiences, or skills from an individual, department, organization, agency, or company. This method can improve course knowledge, think about teaching strategies in different ways, and learn new ideas to try in the classroom. The type of collaborative activity also increases innovation in the classroom and builds self-confidence.
Visiting professors	:	Professors who visit a university or college to teach, give lectures, or conduct research on a topic that the host deems valuable.
Visiting lectures	:	Lectures include external speakers who visit a university or college. The speakers can be practitioners, authorities, or experts in a particular field to expand the knowledge and insight of lecturers and students by bringing new perspectives and outside experiences.
Community of practices sharing	:	A group of individuals with a common interest or profession who come together to engage in collective learning, knowledge sharing, and networking.
Community of inquiry	:	A group of individuals engaged in the process of empirical or conceptual investigation into a problem.
Mentoring	:	The process by which someone with more experience helps others learn new knowledge.
Wikis	:	A website (or other collection of hypertext documents) that allows users to add to or edit the content of the site. The term can also refer to collaborative software used to create websites.
Coaching	:	The process of coaching individuals, groups, or organizations to achieve optimal performance. This process is carried out in a planned, orderly, and directed manner to improve knowledge, attitudes, and skills in handling assigned responsibilities as well as overcoming obstacles and barriers.
Case studies	:	The process of investigating or examining in depth, in detail, and in detail a particular event that occurs.
Podcast	:	Audio content is specifically designed for learning purposes that focuses on delivering information, knowledge, and insights relevant to a particular topic.
Networking	:	A method that uses networks as a supporting tool in the teaching and learning process.
Tagging	:	The process of labeling or marking content that is related to certain keywords or topics.
Blogs	:	A teaching strategy or method that uses blogs as the main tool or platform for delivering learning materials, interacting with students, and facilitating online learning.

References

1. Deguchi, A.; Hirai, C.; Matsuoka, H.; Nakano, T.; Oshima, K.; Tai, M.; Tani, S. What is society 5.0. Society 5.0; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 5, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2989-4_1]

2. Bieser, J.C.T.; Hilty, L.M. Conceptualizing the impact of information and communication technology on individual time and energy use. Telemat. Inform.; 2020; 49, 101375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101375]

3. Baldwin, R. The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019.

4. Aquilani, B.; Piccarozzi, M.; Abbate, T.; Codini, A. The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition from industry 4.0 to society 5.0: Toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12218943]

5. Nakano, T.C.; Wechsler, S.M. Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21^st century | Criatividade e inovação: Competências para o século XXI. Estud. Psicol. Camp.; 2018; 35, pp. 237-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000300002]

6. Bledow, R.; Frese, M. A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity University of Amsterdam. Perspective; 2009; 2, pp. 305-337.

7. Cropley, D.H.; Kaufman, J.C.; Cropley, A.J. Measuring creativity for innovation management. J. Technol. Manag. Innov.; 2011; 6, pp. 13-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242011000300002]

8. Dobbs, R.; Madgavkar, A. The world at work: Matching skills and jobs in Asia. Prospects; 2014; 44, pp. 197-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9300-7]

9. Edwards-Schachter, M.; García-Granero, A.; Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M.; Quesada-Pineda, H.; Amara, N. Disentangling competences: Interrelationships on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Think. Skills Creat.; 2015; 16, pp. 27-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.006]

10. Vila, L.E.; Perez, P.J.; Morillas, F.G. Higher education and the development of competencies for innovation in the workplace. Manag. Decis.; 2012; 50, pp. 1634-1648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741211266723]

11. Astuti, M.; Arifin, Z.; Mutohhari, F.; Nurtanto, M. Competency of Digital Technology: The Maturity Levels of Teachers and Students in Vocational Education in Indonesia. J. Educ. Technol.; 2021; 5, pp. 254-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23887/jet.v5i3.35108]

12. Zein, S. Pre-service education for primary school English teachers in Indonesia: Policy implications. Asia Pac. J. Educ.; 2016; 36, pp. 119-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.961899]

13. Dhawan, S. Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. J. Educ. Technol. Syst.; 2020; 49, pp. 5-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018]

14. Irfan, M.; Kusumaningrum, B.; Yulia, Y.; Widodo, S.A. Challenges During the Pandemic: Use of E-Learning in Mathematics Learning in Higher Education. Infin. J.; 2020; 9, 147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i2.p147-158]

15. Yusnilita, N. The Impact of Online Learning: Student’s Views. Eternal Engl. Teach. J.; 2020; 11, 393297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v11i1.6069]

16. Susiani, K.; Dharsana, I.K.; Suartama, I.K.; Suranata, K.; Yasa, I.N. Student Motivation and Independent Learning in Social Studies, English, and Math: The Impact of the Classroom Environment. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud.; 2022; 5, pp. 258-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v5i4.681]

17. Yunus, M.; Amirullah, A.; Safiah, I.; Ridha, S.; Suartama, I.K. Development of the CPOL design to improve the ability to develop teaching materials. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci.; 2022; 17, pp. 1655-1670. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i5.7257]

18. Adnan, M. Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students perspectives. J. Pedagog. Res.; 2020; 1, pp. 45-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309]

19. Tight, M. Reflection: An assessment and critique of a pervasive trend in higher education. Eur. J. High. Educ.; 2024; 14, pp. 324-342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2193345]

20. Kjällander, S.; Åkerfeldt, A.; Mannila, L.; Parnes, P. Makerspaces Across Settings: Didactic Design for Programming in Formal and Informal Teacher Education in the Nordic Countries. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ.; 2018; 34, pp. 18-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387831]

21. Mayildurai, R.; Karthik, K.; Ashokkumar, R.; Daniel, S. Teaching Methodologies for Engaging Generation Z Learners: Strategies, Challenges, and Implications. Transforming Education for the 21st Century-Innovative Teaching Approaches; OrangeBooks Publication: Bhilai, India, 2024; 152.

22. Pontefract, D. Flat Army: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization; Elevate Publishing: Boise, ID, USA, 2016.

23. Beckmann, T.; Ehmke, T. Informal and formal lesson planning in school internships: Practices among pre-service teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 2023; 132, 104249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104249]

24. Won, S.G.L.; Evans, M.A.; Carey, C.; Schnittka, C.G. Youth appropriation of social media for collaborative and facilitated design-based learning. Comput. Human. Behav.; 2015; 50, pp. 385-391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.017]

25. Ngeow, K.Y.-H. Enhancing Student Thinking Through Collaborative Learning; ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Indiana University: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1998.

26. Suartama, I.K.; Triwahyuni, E.; Suranata, K. Mastering knowledge construction skills through a context-aware ubiquitous learning model based on the case method and team-based projects. Int. J. Educ. Pract.; 2024; 12, pp. 1094-1112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18488/61.v12i3.3842]

27. Müller, C.; Mildenberger, T. Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educ. Res. Rev.; 2021; 34, 100394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394]

28. Suartama, I.K.; Sudarma, I.K.; Sudatha, I.G.W.; Sukmana, A.I.W.I.Y.; Susiani, K. Student engagement and academic achievement: The effect of gamification on case and project-based online learning. J. Educ. Learn.; 2024; 18, pp. 976-990. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i3.21349]

29. Mayer, S.; Schwemmle, M. Teaching university students through technology-mediated experiential learning: Educators’ perspectives and roles. Comput. Educ.; 2023; 207, 104923. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104923]

30. Alamri, H.A.; Watson, S.; Watson, W. Learning Technology Models that Support Personalization within Blended Learning Environments in Higher Education. TechTrends; 2021; 65, pp. 62-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3]

31. Nichols, M. Transforming Universities with Digital Distance Education: The Future of Formal Learning; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.

32. Moore, A.L.; Klein, J.D. Facilitating informal learning at work. TechTrends; 2020; 64, pp. 219-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00458-3]

33. Garau, P.; Boratto, L.; Carta, S.; Fenu, G. UP SCHOOL: Introduction of Pervasive Learning Technologies to Enhance Classic Educational Models. Bull. IEEE Tech. Comm. Learn. Technol.; 2015; 17, pp. 10-13. Available online: http://tc.computer.org/tclt/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/01/Garau.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2024).

34. Kay, J. Grand Challenges for Pervasive Technology to Transform Pervasive Education. IEEE Pervasive Comput.; 2022; 21, pp. 32-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2022.3199104]

35. Stojanović, D.; Bogdanović, Z.; Petrović, L.; Mitrović, S.; Labus, A. Empowering learning process in secondary education using pervasive technologies. Interact. Learn. Environ.; 2023; 31, pp. 779-792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1806886]

36. Richey, R.C.; Klein, J.D. Design and Development Research; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007.

37. Richey, R.C. Validating instruction design and development models. Innovations in Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill; Spector, J.M.; Wiley, D.A. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 171-185.

38. Lee, W.W.; Owens, D.L. Multimedia Based Instructional Design: Computer Based Training Web Based Training Distance Broadcast Training, Performance Based Solutions; 2nd ed. Pfeiffer: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 2004.

39. Suartama, I.K.; Setyosari, P.; Sulthoni, S.; Ulfa, S. Development of Ubiquitous Learning Environment Based on Moodle Learning Management System. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. IJIM; 2020; 14, pp. 182-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i14.11775]

40. Walker, D.F.; Hess, R.D. Instructional Software: Principles and Perspectives for Design and Use; Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, TN, USA, 1984.

41. Debattista, M. A comprehensive rubric for instructional design in e-learning. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol.; 2018; 35, pp. 93-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2017-0092]

42. Elliott, R.; Timulak, L. Essentials of Descriptive-Interpretive Qualitative Research: A Generic Approach; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.

43. Sukardjo,. Evaluasi Pembelajaran: Buku Pegangan Kuliah [Learning Evaluation: Lecture Handbook]; PPs Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta: Sleman, Indonesia, 2010.

44. Schusler, T.M.; Decker, D.J.; Pfeffer, M.J. Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour.; 2003; 16, pp. 309-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920390178874]

45. Calvani, A.; Fini, A.; Pettenati, M.; Sarti, L.; Masseti, M. Design of Collaborative Learning Environments: Bridging the gap between CSCL theories and Open Source Platforms. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc.; 2006; 2, pp. 61-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/701]

46. Maresca, P.; Guercio, A.; Stanganelli, L.; Arndt, T. Maresca Experiences in Collaborative Learning. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc.; 2014; 10, pp. 121-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/961]

47. Leijon, M.; Nordmo, I.; Tieva, Å.; Troelsen, R. Formal learning spaces in Higher Education—A systematic review. Teach. High. Educ.; 2024; 29, pp. 1460-1481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2066469]

48. Degner, M.; Moser, S.; Lewalter, D. Digital media in institutional informal learning places: A systematic literature review. Comput. Educ. Open; 2022; 3, 100068. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100068]

49. Decius, J.; Hein, J. Motivated to learn? Investigating the link of achievement goals and informal workplace learning of lecturers in higher education. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q.; 2024; 35, pp. 213-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21513]

50. Sallán, J.G.; Diaz-Vicario, A.; Barrera-Corominas, A.; Duran-Bellonch, M. Teachers’ informal learning and organizational learning in Spain. J. Workplace Learn.; 2022; 34, pp. 74-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JWL-02-2021-0017]

51. Grundmann, R. The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies. Minerva; 2017; 55, pp. 25-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7]

52. Brown, B. Practice Partnerships in Education: Benefits for Researchers and Practitioners. Alta. J. Educ. Res.; 2021; 67, pp. 421-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.55016/ojs/ajer.v67i4.70073]

53. de Carvalho-Filho, M.A.; Tio, R.A.; Steinert, Y. Twelve tips for implementing a community of practice for faculty development. Med. Teach.; 2020; 42, pp. 143-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1552782]

54. Zalavra, E.; Papanikolaou, K. A wiki-based framework for collaborative learning design in teacher education. Educ. Inf. Technol.; 2022; 27, pp. 6407-6435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10874-9]

55. König, L. Podcasts in higher education: Teacher enthusiasm increases students’ excitement, interest, enjoyment, and learning motivation. Educ. Stud.; 2021; 47, pp. 627-630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1706040]

56. Galán-Arribas, R.; Herrero-Gutiérrez, F.J.; Frutos-Esteban, F.J. Podcasting: The Radio of Generation Z in Spain. Soc. Sci.; 2022; 11, 252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci11060252]

57. Sanjaya, D.B.; Suartama, I.K.; Suastika, I.N. The Effect of the Conflict Resolution Learning Model and Portfolio Assessment on the Students’ Learning Outcomes of Civic Education. Int. J. Instr.; 2022; 15, pp. 473-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15127a]

58. Ertmer, P.A.; Koehler, A.A. Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2014; 62, pp. 617-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9]

59. Yadav, A.; Bozic, C.; Gretter, S.; Nauman, E. Benefits and challenges of implementing case-based instruction: A student perspective. Int. J. Eng. Educ.; 2015; 31, pp. 1554-1563.

60. Aravind, B.R.; Bhuvaneswari, G. Utilizing Blogs on ESL learners’ vocabulary learning through social constructivist theory: A descriptive study. MethodsX; 2023; 10, 101970. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101970]

61. Cook, J.; Pachler, N. Online people tagging: Social (mobile) network (ing) services and work-based learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol.; 2012; 43, pp. 711-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01346.x]

62. Cochrane, T.; Antonczak, L. Implementing a mobile social media framework for designing creative pedagogies. Soc. Sci.; 2014; 3, pp. 359-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci3030359]

63. Hao, S.; Dennen, V.P.; Mei, L. Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.; 2017; 65, pp. 101-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2]

64. Suartama, I.K.; Triwahyuni, E.; Suranata, K. Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning Based on Case Methods and Team-Based Projects: Design and Validation. Educ. Sci.; 2022; 12, 802. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110802]

65. Araújo, R.D.; Brant-Ribeiro, T.; Mendonça, I.E.S.; Mendes, M.M.; Dorça, F.A.; Cattelan, R.G. Social and collaborative interactions for educational content enrichment in ULEs. Educ. Technol. Soc.; 2017; 20, pp. 133-144.

66. Suartama, I.K.; Setyosari, P.; Ulfa, S.; Yunus, M.; Sugiani, K.A. Ubiquitous Learning vs. Electronic Learning: A Comparative Study on Learning Activeness and Learning Achievement of Students with Different Self-Regulated Learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn.; 2021; 16, pp. 36-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i03.14953]