INT6066 Design of Innovative Learning Environments with Technology
INT6066 Overview
- The Education University of Hong Kong
- Semester 1, 2026/27
- Postgraduate, 3 credit points
- Education
- Group project and individual report
What this course is actually asking you to do
This is a taught postgraduate course in the Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, described in its own outline as a survey of the design frameworks, principles and teaching models that current and newer tools can carry, which then goes looking at designs built on social constructivist ideas and judges how well each serves learning.
- Assessed by A group design with an in-class presentation worth thirty per cent, an individual critical reflection of about 1,500 words worth fifty, and a formative component worth twenty.
- The skill being tested Making a design decision and giving the reason for it that survives a question from someone who would have chosen differently.
- Hardest step Writing a learning objective precise enough that the space and the technology follow from it rather than the other way round.
- Where to confirm Weights, deadlines and submission settings are controlled by the course Moodle page.
How INT6066 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Formative assessment | 20% | Active participation in class and online discussions 5%, attendance 5%, post-reflection on your understanding of innovative learning environments presented through a digital artefact 10% |
| Group project | 30% | A designed innovative learning environment with an in-class group presentation, marked on organisation 5%, topic knowledge 10%, creativity 5%, visual aids 5% and presentation 5%, with an indication of the division of labour required |
| Individual project report | 50% | A critical reflection of about 1,500 words on one innovative learning environment: how it was designed, and how well it worked, marked on introduction 5%, background 10%, critical discussion 10%, reflection and conclusion 10%, clarity 10% and citations 5% |
The published Course Outline lists these three tasks and they total 100%, and the schedule and assignment document repeats the same split with the criterion weights under each task. A summary slide in the first session shows fifty per cent group and fifty per cent individual, while the detailed slides in the same session agree with the Course Outline, so the outline has been followed here. No hurdle, pass mark, attendance percentage or late penalty rate is stated anywhere in the course materials available here, which is why each hurdle cell says the condition is not stated. What the materials do state is that you are expected at every scheduled class, and that permission to hand work in late has to be agreed with the programme team a fortnight or more before the due date. Confirm the current split, the deadlines and the submission settings on the course Moodle page.
Assessment structure
Segment widths reproduce the published percentage weights and total 100%.
Current INT6066 dates
| Date | Item | Control |
|---|---|---|
| 1 September 2026 | First session | The schedule lists thirteen Tuesday sessions from 18:30 to 21:20. |
| 22 September 2026 | Reading week session | Self-directed learning on generative artificial intelligence; the schedule marks this session as one you do not have to attend. |
| 10, 17 and 24 November 2026 | Group presentations | Three consecutive sessions of group presentations, with the course wrap-up in the last of them. |
| 1 December 2026 | All assignments due, 11:59 pm | Stated in the schedule document and repeated on the individual report submission point. |
| 2 December 2026 | Group submission point closes, 11:59 pm | The group assignment on the course site shows this date while the instruction beside it says 1 December. Work to the earlier date and check the live setting. |
Dates are as published in the published course schedule and the submission points on the course site for this offering. Confirm exact deadlines and submission settings in the live LMS.
What INT6066 covers
Nine chapters follow the published teaching sequence from the learning principles behind an innovative learning environment through space, objectives, engagement, knowledge dimensions and learning theories to model choice, human and machine co-design, and the evaluation of a finished lesson.
Innovative Learning Environments and Learning Principles
what makes an environment innovative rather than equipped · the seven learning principles · the studio cycle and its five roles · when removing the technology is the honest decision02The Pedagogy, Space and Technology Framework
the three elements and the order they must be settled in · the design and operation questions · what seating in rows costs · thirty learners against two hundred03Writing Learning Objectives with ABCD and Bloom
actor, behaviour, condition and degree · verbs that cannot be checked · the six levels and their action verbs · matching the assessment to the level claimed04ICAP and Cognitive Engagement in Activity Design
passive, active, constructive and interactive · the process each mode causes · why a collaborative tool does not raise a task · the five skills named for this era05TPACK and the Seven Knowledge Dimensions
seven dimensions as seven questions · context as part of the framework · the flawed technology-rich lesson · claimed dimension against exercised dimension06Learning Theories Behind Technology Enhanced Design
three classrooms teaching identical content · conditioning and its four named outcomes · the information processing pipeline · the zone of proximal development and the jigsaw07Pedagogical Models and Classroom Strategies
framework, model, strategy and skill as four layers · the fourteen models and fifteen strategies named · where a family name is not yet a design · quoting a definition properly08Generative AI and Human AI Co Design of Lessons
the eight components a co-designed lesson carries · the five alignment tests · accept, modify, reject or develop further · the five named risks and the record the reflection needs09Designing and Evaluating a Technology Rich Lesson
the five required components · topic shapes and how to justify a choice · the published criteria and their weights · presentation format and peer evaluationThe hands-on half is where you build such an environment yourself, with artificial intelligence and educational technology inside it, and then judge your own.
Every mark on offer comes from something you make and from the reasons you give for it: a group design presented in class, a second reflection on what you take an innovative learning environment to be once the course is over, and an individual critical reflection of about 1,500 words.
So the useful question while reading is never what does this framework say, but which decision in my own design would change if I took it seriously.
Innovative Learning Environments and Learning Principles
The opening chapter separates two sentences that get used interchangeably. This environment uses technology describes what is in the room and can be true of a lesson in which nobody learns anything new.
This environment is innovative claims something about what learners are now able to do and previously were not.
Seven learning principles then act as tests rather than slogans, running from learners as the central participants and learning as something people build with each other, through motivation, prior knowledge and workload, to expectations stated clearly with feedback that arrives in time to matter, and knowledge that reaches across subjects and out beyond the school.
The chapter also sets out the studio approach the course runs on, in which a team works through seven named stages and puts three or more versions of its idea in front of an audience outside the class across the semester.
The Pedagogy, Space and Technology Framework
Three elements in a fixed order.
Settle the teaching approach by naming the learners, what they should end up knowing, being able to do and caring about, and how that is to come about. Ask what space enables it, which is where a design meets its first hard constraint. Then ask what technology closes the gap the space leaves.
The framework is also an evaluation instrument, because it asks the same three questions again once the environment is running, and that second column is where the evidence for your written reflection comes from.
The chapter works two scenarios that differ only in class size, thirty learners against two hundred, to establish that the same pedagogy does not imply the same physical layout.
Writing Learning Objectives with ABCD and Bloom
The course takes one weak objective apart and rebuilds it from four parts: an actor, who is always the learner; a behaviour that leaves something a marker can look at; a condition naming setting and resources; and a degree naming what counts as having got there.
It then supplies a taxonomy of six levels, revised from nouns into verbs, so that remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create each carry a sorted list of action verbs.
Most weak designs are not short of ideas; they are built on an objective that cannot be observed, and every activity and assessment downstream inherits that fault.
ICAP and Cognitive Engagement in Activity Design
Engagement is defined as a compound of how much notice, interest and curiosity a learner brings and how warmly they are tied to the work, none of which can be installed directly.
What can be designed is the task, and this framework sorts tasks into four modes: receiving, manipulating what was presented, generating something the material did not contain, and dialoguing so that both parties generate. Each mode names a different cognitive process and predicts a different outcome, from knowledge that cannot be recalled outside its original context through to understanding that transfers.
The chapter's practical lesson is that a tool does not set the mode; the task instruction does.
TPACK and the Seven Knowledge Dimensions
The overarching framework of the course, read as seven questions rather than a diagram. Three are ordinary preparation, asking what learners need to learn, how they should learn it and what the technology can do.
Three more sit in the overlaps and are where a technology decision becomes right or wrong: which teaching approach suits this content, how technology represents or transforms it, and how technology changes the activity. The seventh is a verdict on whether all three are working together.
The chapter works the course's own flawed lesson, in which four defensible tools are used and no step requires the learner to perform either verb in the objective.
Learning Theories Behind Technology Enhanced Design
Three classrooms teach identical vocabulary in three ways, and each is the visible form of a different account of how learning happens.
Behaviourism explains change through what follows a behaviour, and the chapter fixes the four names that come out of adding or taking something away, which is the highest-risk confusion in this material. Cognitivism explains it through attention, working memory, schema and retrieval, each stage supplying a design rule.
Social constructivism explains it through people working on meaning together, with the zone of proximal development as its central idea and the jigsaw as its worked strategy. Most real designs carry two of the three for two different jobs.
Pedagogical Models and Classroom Strategies
Four layers that are routinely collapsed into one.
A framework outlives the unit and decides how the design is judged; a model organises the unit and decides its sequence; a strategy occupies part of one lesson and decides who talks to whom; and the skills sit beside all of it as what the design is for.
The chapter lists the models and strategies the course names, explains why four of the models carry a note that a specific model is still needed, and uses the course's own quoted definition of seamless learning as a worked example of what the citation criterion wants.
Generative AI and Human AI Co Design of Lessons
The reading week puts you inside a design system and studies how you behave with it.
The task is to choose an authentic problem spanning at least two disciplines, co-design a lesson carrying eight named components, and reflect. Five alignment questions test each suggestion against your objectives, your chosen approach, how genuinely the subjects are woven together, the learners in front of you and the learning itself, after which you may take it, change it, turn it down or push it further.
The chapter argues that modify is usually the correct decision, because it is the only one that forces you to name which test failed and what the minimum change is.
Designing and Evaluating a Technology Rich Lesson
The production chapter.
Five components are required of the group work: the environment design, the frameworks and models behind it, the technology used, a reflection on advantages and challenges, and citations with a reference list, with an indication of the division of labour alongside.
The published criteria put ten of the thirty marks on topic knowledge, which is the only criterion that asks for frameworks and technology genuinely integrated and supported by literature.
The chapter closes on the presentation format set for this offering and on the peer evaluation every member completes after the final submission.
How to use the last two chapters
A practice chapter drills the four attributions this course keeps asking for, each with the one discriminating feature that settles it: what changes the learner, what the learner must generate and whose output they must answer, what the tool did that the previous medium could not, and which layer a named thing belongs to.
A closing chapter takes the individual report section by section against its published weights, and lists the submission requirements that can all be checked a week early and none of which can be checked on the night.
Give three tools a job, or take them out of the design
- 3Separate the platforms that host from the tools that act on the content.
- 4Give each remaining tool one claim tied to a framework.
- 2Say which tool carries no pedagogical claim, and keep it anyway.
Key terms
- Instructional Design
- The deliberate arrangement of objectives, activities, resources and assessment so that a stated learning outcome becomes reachable.
- Intended Learning Outcome
- What a participant will be able to do on completing the course, published here as three statements covering understanding frameworks, evaluating designs, and designing and evaluating environments.
- Social Constructivism
- The position that knowledge grows out of dealings with other people and with a culture, which the Course Outline names as the reference point for the designs you judge.
- Formative Assessment
- Assessment carried out while learning is still in progress so that it can change what happens next, and also the name of the twenty per cent component of this course.
- Behaviourism
- The account of learning in which behaviour is acquired through conditioning and shaped by the consequences that follow it.
- Cognitivism
- The account of learning as a matter of taking information in, making sense of it and ordering it in the mind, concerned with attention, memory, reasoning and transfer.
- Prior Knowledge
- What a learner already holds, which new material has to connect to before it becomes meaningful, and one of the individual differences the learning principles name.
- Cognitive Load
- The amount a learner has to hold and process at one time, which is limited and which chunking a task into stages is intended to reduce.
- Dual Coding Theory
- The account in which verbal and non-verbal information are processed through separate channels that can reinforce each other, used here to explain why an image paired with a word aids retention.
- Retrieval Practice
- Recalling material from memory rather than rereading it, used in the course's cognitivist classroom as the step that follows organising and connecting.
- Computational Thinking
- Decomposing a problem, recognising patterns, abstracting away irrelevant detail and designing steps, so that a large problem becomes a structured and manageable process.
- Twenty First Century Skills
- The five capabilities the course names for the current era: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity and computational thinking.
INT6066 FAQ
How is this course assessed?
Three components totalling one hundred per cent. A formative component worth twenty per cent covers participation in class and online discussion, attendance and a post-reflection on your understanding of innovative learning environments. A group project worth thirty per cent covers the environment you design and the presentation you give in class.
An individual report of about 1,500 words worth fifty per cent is a critical reflection on the design and on how well it worked. All of it is due on the same day.
What counts as an innovative learning environment in this course?
An environment whose pedagogical design has changed so that learners produce, decide or collaborate in ways the previous arrangement did not allow, shown through what they made rather than through a list of devices. The course gives seven principles as tests, and two sessions deliberately ask whether a tool is needed at all, so a design able to recommend removing a technology is treated as more credible than one that cannot.
What does the group project have to include?
Five components: the environment design itself, the pedagogical design frameworks, models and strategies behind it, the artificial intelligence or educational technology used, a reflection on the advantages and challenges, and in-text citations with a reference list. An indication of the division of labour is required, and the submission checklist names a lesson plan together with a one-page poster or other materials.
How is the individual report marked?
By six criteria with published weights: a concise introduction with a report title at five per cent, background and literature at ten, critical discussion of the design and its evaluation with evidence at ten, reflection and conclusions at ten, clarity of content, structure and language at ten, and citations and references in the seventh edition of the American Psychological Association style at five.
Roughly three hundred words buys each ten per cent section.
Which frameworks should I name in my design?
The project guidance divides the work between them. The knowledge-dimensions framework is the overarching one for the pedagogical design as a whole, the engagement ladder guides and evaluates specific learning activities, and the substitution-to-redefinition model is for a holistic evaluation of the design with technology.
You are told you need not include all of them, and two used precisely reads far better than three used decoratively.
Can I use a generative tool for this course?
You are encouraged to explore such tools sensibly and asked to cite or acknowledge their use explicitly. The reading week is built around exactly that, with a design activity that studies how you revise, select, accept and reject what a system proposes.
For the written individual work you must declare any use, submit a word processor file with tracked changes, and the report notes rule out generated text in the submission itself.
Is attendance compulsory, and what happens if I submit late?
The session materials say you are expected at every scheduled class, that a single absence should be flagged by email beforehand, and that anything beyond one needs the programme leader to approve a leave application first. Handing work in late has to be agreed in advance with the programme team, and the request has to reach them a fortnight or more ahead of the due date.
No numeric attendance threshold or penalty rate is stated in the materials available here, so confirm the current position on Moodle.
How to prepare for the assessments
Pick one real learning problem in week one and carry it through every chapter, so that each framework costs you a decision rather than a summary. Keep one page with three columns as you go: what you chose, what you rejected, and the sentence that explains why.
That page is the backbone of the individual report, the answer to most questions after the presentation, and the only part of the work that genuinely cannot be reconstructed the week before the deadline.
Your AI Education tutor for INT6066
Stuck on a hard INT6066 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Education tutor — ask any INT6066 Design of Innovative Learning Environments with Technology question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.