Development of a Technology-Oriented Curriculum Planning Model to Enhance Agentic Engagement and Cognitive–Motor Flexibility: A Philosophical Reappraisal of the Human–Technology Boundary
Keywords:
Technology-oriented curriculum planning, agentic engagement, cognitive–motor flexibility, learner agency, philosophy of technology, embodied learningAbstract
This study aimed to develop and validate a technology-oriented curriculum planning model for enhancing students’ agentic engagement and cognitive–motor flexibility through a philosophical reconsideration of the human–technology boundary. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was implemented through philosophical-conceptual analysis, qualitative model development, and quantitative validation. In the qualitative phase, 22 experts in curriculum planning, philosophy of education, educational technology, educational psychology, cognitive science, and motor learning in Tehran were selected through purposive sampling and participated in semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, and the initial model was evaluated by 15 experts over two rounds. In the quantitative phase, 402 upper-secondary students from Tehran public schools were selected through multistage cluster sampling. Data were collected using a 48-item Technology-Oriented Curriculum Planning Questionnaire, an Agentic Engagement Scale, and a Cognitive–Motor Flexibility Scale. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity assessments, and structural equation modeling were used to analyze the data. The qualitative analysis identified nine main components, 27 subcomponents, and 86 conceptual codes. The nine-factor structure explained 67.13% of the total variance, and the structural model demonstrated satisfactory fit. Technology-oriented curriculum planning had a positive and significant direct effect on agentic engagement (β = 0.61, p < 0.001) and cognitive–motor flexibility (β = 0.46, p < 0.001). Agentic engagement also significantly predicted cognitive–motor flexibility (β = 0.36, p < 0.001). The indirect effect of technology-oriented curriculum planning on cognitive–motor flexibility through agentic engagement was significant (β = 0.22, p < 0.001). Overall, the model explained 58% of the variance in cognitive–motor flexibility. The developed model indicates that human-centered, ethical, interactive, and embodied integration of technology into curriculum planning can enhance cognitive–motor flexibility by strengthening students’ proactive participation in learning. Technology should therefore be employed as a means of expanding agency, choice, feedback, and adaptation rather than replacing human judgment and responsibility.
Downloads
References
Brinck, J., Leinonen, T., Lipponen, L., & Kallio‐Tavin, M. (2023). Open Design Pedagogy: Revealing Openness in Early Childhood Education With Digital Technology. International Journal of Education Through Art, 19(2), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta_00128_1
Chamo, N., Biberman-Shalev, L., & Broza, O. (2023). ‘Nice to Meet You Again’: When Heutagogy Met Blended Learning in Teacher Education, Post-Pandemic Era. Education Sciences, 13(6), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060536
Falloon, G. (2023). Twelve Years of iPads and Apps in Schools: What Conditions Support Effective Practices in K-6 Classrooms? Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1122522
Guan, J., Zhang, J., & Zhang, X. (2023). The Influence of Generative Artificial Intelligence on High School Students’ Academic Planning – ChatGPT. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 24(1), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/24/20230705
He, L., & Chen, Z. L. (2026). AI ‐Powered Auditory Training and Its Role in Strengthening Musical Memory: A Systematic Review in Higher Music Education. European Journal of Education, 61(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70569
Jiang, J., Bai, W., Yin, Z., Liao, Z., & Zhong, X. (2025). Application of Digital-Intelligent Technologies in Physical Education: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Public Health, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1626603
Karagianni, E., & Drigas, A. (2023a). New Technologies for Inclusive Learning for Students With Special Educational Needs. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (Ijoe), 19(05), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v19i05.36417
Karagianni, E., & Drigas, A. (2023b). Using New Technologies and Mobiles for Students With Disabilities to Build a Sustainable Inclusive Learning and Development Ecosystem. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (Ijim), 17(01), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i01.36359
Kee, T., Zhang, H., & King, R. B. (2023). An Empirical Study on Immersive Technology in Synchronous Hybrid Learning in Design Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(3), 1243-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09855-5
Khan, R. S. (2026). Beyond the Surface: A Critical Analysis of Superficial Differentiation and the Pursuit of Purposeful and Meaningful Inclusion in Mainstream Schools. Support for Learning, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.70056
Li, Q., & Chang, Y. L. (2026). Advancing Early Childhood Music Education: A Three‐Decade Review of Cognitive, Linguistic, And Instructional Developments. European Journal of Education, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70467
Niu, S. J., Malinen, O. P., Ruókonen, I., Melasalmi, A., Siklander, P., Wang, X., Zhang, H., Hurme, T.-R., Moilanen, J. H., Li, X., & Wang, L. (2024). A Comparative Study of Early Childhood Education and Care National Documents Between China and Finland. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1392920
Patrick, L., & Bakar, K. A. (2024). Integration of Music in Teaching and Learning in Preschool: Teacher Readiness. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v13-i4/23641
Ramdass, K., & Mokgohloa, K. (2023). Curriculum Design in Higher Education: A Reflection. European Conference on E-Learning, 22(1), 252-260. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecel.22.1.1883
Rubaia’an, M. A. B. (2023). Dental Education: A Guide for Novice Tutors. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.43227
Shi, R., & Chen, X. (2026). From Training to Transformation: Exploring the Role of Continuous Professional Development in Early Childhood Teacher Effectiveness. European Journal of Education, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70466
Shohel, M. M. C., Ashrafuzzaman, M., Ahmed, S. B., Tasnim, N., Akter, T., Islam, G. M. R., Siddik, M. A. B., & Mitu, S. R. (2024). Participatory Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education: Understanding From the Practices in Bangladesh, the UK and the USA. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.114070
Syaikhu, A. (2026). Hybrid Video Tactical Learning Model as an Integrative Framework for Physical Education. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10272840/v1
Tokuhama‐Espinosa, T., & Borja, C. (2023). Radical Neuroconstructivism: A Framework to Combine the How and What of Teaching and Learning? Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1215510
Topolovčan, T. (2023). What Is Wrong With Constructivist Teaching? Elaboration, Recapitulation and Synthesis of Theoretical and Historical Controversies. Školski Vjesnik, 72(1), 183-208. https://doi.org/10.38003/sv.72.1.9
Triana, H., & Supena, A. (2023). The Impact of Universal Design for Learning on Student Learning Effectiveness in Elementary Schools (Process and Outcomes). Prisma Sains Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Dan Ipa Ikip Mataram, 11(2), 596. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i2.7895
Trifonova, A., Destéfano, M., & Barajas, M. (2024). Teaching AI to the Next Generation: a Humanistic Approach. Digital Education Review(45), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2024.45.115-123
Tu, Z., Zhong, L., & Xie, J. (2025). Traditional Chinese Martial Art Wushu to Improve the Mental State and Physical Fitness of Students: Designing Space for Optimal Practice and Training. Frontiers in psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1581226
Wei, R., You, Y., Liang, Z., & Cho, T. (2025). Analysing the Limitations of Bauhausian Pedagogies in Contemporary Design Education From a Neuroscience Perspective. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 45(2), 509-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12616
Downloads
Publication Timeline
- Submitted
- Revised
- Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hamed Ebadi Barbin , Maryam Ashrafi , Mehdi Akbarzadeh Sagay , Fatemeh Riazi (Author); Parisa Masoudian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
