Help. Semester 3 course selection?

Hi fellow EDU8117 participants,

I am just seeking a bit of advice. I am currently selecting a course for Semester 3 and would like one that is going to be of great value in terms of practicality and ‘real’ – similar to this course we are currently in. I was wondering if you would be able make any recommendations from your experience?

Thanks for your time.

Brendon 🙂

Advertisements

DBR Feedback – Statement of Problem

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and comments in relation to me DBR inquiry via the Google Doc.

Based on the comments and feedback in the Google Doc I have noted that my ‘statement of problem’ was not specific enough and provided more of a introduction to the intervention rather than the problem. I am seeking feedback on the ‘statement of problem’.

When you get a chance would you mind reviewing based on the questions below:

  1. Is the statement of problem articulated?
  2. Should the study be targeted to a specific year level rather than being open ended. For example, focus with Yr 8’s rather than a Yr 5-12 approach?
  3. Are there any suggestions to further improve and clarify my focus?

Thanks for your time. It is greatly appreciated.

Brendon

_______

Today’s digital world demands contemporary pedagogical practice and curriculum that “clearly align with curiosities and needs to today’s youth” (Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010, p. 424). Educators frequently use contemporary digital tools and innovative teaching and learning approaches to engage their students. However, the use of online tools by themselves is not going to assist our students, rather educators need to critically reflect on their use and evaluate the pedagogical methods and appropriate e-learning strategies in order to facilitate effective learning within our ever changing global knowledge economy (Palloff & Pratt, 2003). With the overcrowded nature of the P-12 curriculum and students’ ubiquitous access to technology, there has been a shift for educators to incorporate a blended learning approach that facilitates formal learning in the ‘brick-and-mortar’ school, combined with computer-mediated activities and increased collaboration and social learning. Additionally, there has been demand for educators to record and organise evidence of successful learning and teaching. The use of e-Portfolios/Blogs provides a rich analysis and overview of a learner’s mastery of topics and reflection on learning.

The context in which these perceptions and this inquiry are entrenched, are within a regional Catholic community in Australia for the education of boys from Year 5-12. The school provides each child from Years 5-12 with an iPad or laptop, with the key educational role to provide access to digital information and communication tools anywhere, anytime. All teachers are also provided with a laptop and iPad in order to create, engage and interact with learning experiences for their students.

Argument exists to contend that contemporary learners think, behave and learn differently due to ubiquitous access and exposure to technology (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2010; Taylor, 2010). Winn, Erwin, and Becker (2013) advocate that brains of digital learners are physically different from those of learners who have not experienced ongoing exposure to technology. Moreover, these contemporary learners are equipped with hyper-connected and multi-tasking digital brains that are unprepared to endure the slow pace of instructional practices developed more than a century ago. Today’s digital world demands individuals with highly developed collaborative and social skills, which arguably need to be developed and refined while engaged in the school context. With this shift towards transformative online learning there is a suggestion that the pedagogical repertoire of contemporary educators needs to adapt in order to intensify student achievement and engagement within this emerging online environment.

Dede (2008) highlights that “no educational ICT is universally good; and the best way to invest in instructional technologies is an instrumental approach that analyses the natures of the curriculum, students, and teachers to select the appropriate tools, applications, media, and environments”. Therefore, it is sagacious that an identification of potential obstacles to ‘finding the mix, supporting the blend’ to successful implementation of a blended learning approach and utilisation of e-Portfolio/Blogs is explicitly investigated. After critical reflection, recommendations and showcasing of best practice can be developed for educators, in order to promulgate best practice for contemporary 5-12 online students.

Design-based research – Seeking feedback

Hi,

I have started thinking about our design-based research proposal and have commenced work on some preliminary thinking.

I have decided that in order to seek peer review on this research proposal I am going to use a combination of Google Docs and this Blog. In the blog I am going to seek feedback in relation to specific sections, paragraphs or ideas, while in the Google Doc will be the design-based research proposal itself.

If you get a chance, would you mind providing me some feedback in relation to my initial ‘statement of problem’ and ‘research questions’? (would you mind commenting below or directly in the Google Doc.)

Statement of problem

  • Using contemporary pedagogical practice and digital tools to increase collaboration and social learning.
    • Finding the mix, supporting the blend: transforming learning using a blended learning approach
  • Using blogs to foster learner development of ePortfolios to depict a learner’s mastery of topics and reflection on learning

Research questions

  • How can blogging assist school aged students to consolidate their learning?
    • E-Portfolio and artefact curation
  • Can an educator’s conception of pedagogy and learning be transformed through the use of a blended learning approach or does the technology just facilitate traditional methods of pedagogy?
  • ‘Is ICT the ‘Harry Potter’s Wand’ for student learning? Does it depend on whose hand is using IT and what ‘spells’ are learnt?
    • Does mastery of ‘the wand’ determine the effectiveness of the educational outcomes or is it rather the ‘sage on the stage’ pedagogical approach of Severus Snape or, rather, the ‘guide on the side’ strategies of Dumbledore?
    • Or is it the transformational ‘magic’ of the digital culture in which our latter day adolescent ‘educational magicians’ (the Harry, Hermines, Weasleys, etc) are immersed?

Thanks for your time and feedback. It is greatly appreciated.

Talk soon

Brendon

As Teacher: How can NGL inform my role as teacher?

This reflection can also be found via this link in Google Docs.

Today’s digital world calls for contemporary pedagogical practice and curriculum that “clearly align with curiosities and needs to today’s youth” (Donovan, Green, & Hartley, 2010, p. 424). Educators frequently use contemporary digital tools and innovative teaching and learning approaches to engage their students. They are also faced with the challenge of fostering students’ ability to prepare them for an unknown future, one that will involve the effective use of networked and global connections. In order for teachers to be able to educate their students, they themselves need to be equipped with skills, confidence and vision in using and teaching with information and communication technologies within our networked and global knowledge society (Couros, 2008). Veletsianos (2011) notes that “transformative learning experiences cannot be imposed” on learners, rather educators need to adopt a phased approach where learners are invited, encouraged and facilitated.

The context in which my perceptions are entrenched are within a regional Catholic community in Australia for the education of boys from Year 5-12. The school provides each child from Years 8-12 with an iPad or laptop, with the key educational role to provide access to digital information and communication tools anywhere, anytime. All teachers are also provided with a laptop and iPad in order to create, engage and interact with learning experiences for their students.

Dede (2008) highlights that “no educational ICT is universally good; and the best way to invest in instructional technologies is an instrumental approach that analyses the natures of the curriculum, students, and teachers to select the appropriate tools, applications, media, and environments”. Therefore it is essential for me as an educator not to adopt the ‘one size fits all’ approach, but rather open learning to be personalised to the individual student. However, as a core concern for this open, connected and networked approach to learning I have highlighted numerous times (1, 2 and 3) how this could impact the heightened emphasis on a schools legal accountability for student protection and privacy. Whilst it is essential to acknowledge these barriers to transformation, it can also be argued that calculated risks need to be taken in order to improve student learning, engagement and hopefully improved outcomes. Do all the positives in relation to networked and global learning far-outweighing the negatives? Furthermore, the metaphor presented by David regarding the ‘walled garden’, as “something that puts barriers between the ‘real’ world and the world of formal education” is essential to knowledge in a P-12 context. The use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) or protected social learning tools, such as Edmodo or Schoology, does start to open up holes in the wall and there are signs of this being a ‘change management strategy’. Ultimately the argument returns to everything teachers do being centrally about learning and education, and teaching students to be resilient in a variety of situations and contexts within a networked and globalised economy.

Another core element of networked and global learning that I plan on implementing within my pedagogy immediately is the concept of student blogging. It was not until Week 6 of engagement in a blogging experience that I truly saw the possibility and empowering learning that is a product of blogging. The core benefits of utilising this strategy with P-12 students is that they provide:

  • an authentic audience which could improve motivation and engagement (Patnoudes, 2014);
  • promote reflective thinking and relationship building through collaboration;
  • “extend learning outside the classroom walls”;
  • “increase perceived accountability and therefore quality of student work”; and
  • “increase opportunities for students to receive feedback” (MacBride & Lachman, 2008, p. 173).

Furthermore, the benefits of students receiving peer review and feedback from a wide audience are confirmed by Hattie (2003), who recognises that the single greatest influence on student learning is ‘feedback’. In this context the feedback could come from peers, teachers or any other individual in the learner’s network. It is the process of students writing their ideas down and making the tacit explicit that enables them “reflection upon it, and reanalyse it in light of the new and sometimes conflicting information” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, & Ives, 2010, p. 11). Conversely, there is also an argument that if this blogging process is to be made public rather than within the ‘walled garden’ of an LMS, or similar, we might be doing some of our students a dis-service when they are trying to secure employment. Will our students want their ‘messy’ process of learning and discovery, when they are a school student, visible to their potential employers?

According to Darling-Hammond (2008, p. 93) “teachers learn best by studying, doing, and reflecting; by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing what they see”. Therefore, the promotion of teacher’s blogging within my context will not only facilitate the development of a personal learning community (PLC) which can improve teaching practice and student achievement, but also by teachers engagement in blogging may transfer to implementation of the strategy for their students. Within a PLC there can be an improvement in teaching culture as there is an increase in collaboration, a focus on student learning, teacher empowerment and continuous learning (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). Through engagement in a PCL that is focused on changing instructional practices of teachers, a measurable improvement in student achievement occurred (Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2003). However, Little (2003, p. 913) cautions that PLC’s could be limited by their own “horizons of observation”, thus it is essential we seek external perspectives and turn towards our wider networks for support.

Another key realisation that is important for ‘me as teacher’ is differences in students learning styles and personality types. The Introvert/Extrovert debate in online learning is important to recognise as “extroverts choose higher levels of noise in a learning situation and perform better in the presence of noise, while introverts perform better in quiet (Ornstein, 1995, p. 57). Consequently, the introvert may have less difficulty entering the virtual community as they have time to think about information before responding. Therefore, the current practice of consistent face-to-face and collaborative delivery of professional learning may be restricting for introverts and engagement in an online dialogue may allow diverse personality types to engage. Siemens (2014) asserts this difference and states that “learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions”. While this diversity in learning styles and abundance of resources in multiple formats is enabling for learners as teachers are able to cater for their preferences and interests, it can be difficult as the decision-making required to scaffold and ‘cull’ resources for students.

Another clear possibility from networked and global learning is the omission of textbooks from schools. There is an abundance of resources and the networked student can access knowledge within the network at any time (Drexler, 2010). Why do we need textbooks?  In order to change a teachers conception of learning and pedagogical approach to facilitate more of a ‘guide on the side’, rather than ‘sage on the stage’ should leadership be challenging staff on use of textbooks and promoting a more constructivist approach through facilitation of networked tools? Relating this back to the Harry Potter analogy I presented earlier, transformational learning with a digital wand. The uniformity and conversely the creativity in the clip below presents the need for us as educators to allow flexibility for our learners and realise that learning is not constrained to chairs and desks with a specific time limit. Growth and success can come from understanding the basics and individual experimentation and creative thinking, as evident from the Weasley Twins – Fred & George. This argument of creativity in schools leads to my post on ‘Do schools kill creativity?’.  The latest in education is seeking teachers provide students opportunities to inquire, create their own questions, do their own research, and form their own conclusions with their learning. Consequently, I am going to seek to implement ‘20% time’ or ‘Genius Hour’ within my teaching in order to promote innovation and creativity.

This ‘increasing rate of technological change undermines stability’ (Glastra, Hake, & Schedler, 2004, p. 297). The barriers of adequate time, negative attitudes, lack of professional learning and status quo comfort can inhibit the development of educators and consequently students. However, it could be argued that this is not a negative aspect for contemporary educators, rather disruptive technology is initiating change and reflective practice amongst educators, which is ultimately positive for preparing students for the challenges they will face in building the capacity for a competitive global market. The demands of the competitive future society require educators to be lifelong learners and personal development and career success is going to be a pivotal challenge (Kolb, 1984).

In summary, networked and global learning principles have changed my conceptions of learning and teaching and I am going to strive to:

  • Develop a phased approach to further implementing NGL principles with my students;
  • Use and LMS as a ‘change management strategy’;
  • Implement reflective blogging;
  • Promote a PLC at my context;
  • Recognise diversity of students and knowledge as a strength;
  • Challenge the conception of textbooks;
  • Strive more to be the ‘guide on the side’, rather than the ‘sage on the stage’;
  • Promote ‘20% time’ or ‘Genius Hour’; and
  • Continue to engage in reflective practice and sharing via blogging.

Overall, as educators we need to continually remember that technology in an educational setting should focus on learning goals rather than technology innovation and be cognisant that “the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (Weiser, 1991, p. 94). However, amidst all the forces of discontinuity we must maintain compassion towards students’ individual circumstances and protection.

References

Couros, A. (2008). What does the network mean to you?   Retrieved 7 September 2014, 2014, from http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/open-educational-resources-and-the-personal-learning-environment

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for intelligence, 2, 91-100.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43-62): Springer.

Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423-441.

Drexler, W. (2010). The Networked Student Model for Construction of Personal Learning Environments: Balancing Teacher Control and Student Autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.

Glastra, F. J., Hake, B. J., & Schedler, P. E. (2004). Lifelong learning as transitional learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(4), 291-307.

Glazer, C., Abbott, L., & Harris, J. (2004). A teacher‐developed process for collaborative professional reflection. Reflective Practice, 5(1), 33-46.

Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2010). Situated learning: Conceptualization and measurement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 215-240.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity: Teachers College Press.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? : Australian Council for Educational Research Melbourne.

Kalantzis, M., & Harvey, A. (2004). New teaching, new learning: A vision for Australian education: Australian Council of Deans of Education.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1): Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. The Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

MacBride, R., & Lachman, A. L. (2008). Capitalizing on Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Classroom Blogging. School Science & Mathematics, 108(5), 173-183.

Ornstein, A. C. (1995). Teaching: Theory into practice: Allyn & Bacon.

Patnoudes, E. (2014). Empowering Students Through Blogging.   Retrieved 7 September 2014, from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/08/empowering-students-through-blogging

Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 2(1), 3-10.

Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. The Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Supovitz, J., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs. (pp. 1-9). Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.

Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing Opportunities for Transformation with Emerging Technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.

Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.

As a student, participation in NGL was useful for me.

This reflection can also be found at this Google Doc link.

The explosive growth and development of networked learning technologies in recent years has changed the way students generate, analyse, sort and disseminate this ever-increasing wealth of information (Harley, 2008). A core challenge for students involved in formal and informal learning is managing and traversing this overwhelming growing mountain of knowledge and rapid multiplication in techniques for capturing, exploring and distributing this knowledge. There is a demand on individuals to develop a Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM) in order to make sense of our world (Jarche, 2011) and as Downes (2011) notes aggregation, remixing, repurposing, and feeding forward are particularly connected to how students engaged in a connectivist perspective. Personally, through active participation and engagement in principles of networked learning I have seen a vast improvement in my ability to manage and access endless sources of information, build relationships with others, and collaborate to develop knowledge, consequently enhancing personal and professional learning opportunities.

An argument can be made that networked learning is “akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 1).  When I initially started engagement in this course I was clearly within a ‘troublesome’ state, as highlighted by Kligyte (2009, p. 541). I was overwhelmed by the abundance of resources, and the emphasis on generating knowledge and maintaining relationships within a network rather than accentuating what is actually known (Siemens, 2014). It is believed that this “industrialist consumption-based model of learning” (Downes, 2011) where I was practiced in reading all the materials and using all the tools was left remnant from previous courses of study.  I was now challenged to understand, embrace and transform to a new way of how learning and development is understood. Through the process of engaging on and with an online learning community I found myself in a state of ‘liminality’ – “messy journeys back, forth and across conceptual terrain” (Kligyte, 2009, p. 541). I had not engaged in the use of social bookmarking or blogging previously; therefore, in the initial stages, the comfortable and traditionalist strategies I had developed from the past were evident. However, through social engagement with others in the knowledge-based learning community I soon realised that as a student I needed to find my own unique pathway to transformative understanding of networked learning and that there was not going to be a simple and straightforward way to mastery (Riel & Polin, 2004).

Downes (2006) notes, “learning occurs in communities, where the practice of learning is the participation in the community”. Through engagement in a blogging process and development of connections with others, a knowledge-based learning community was developed. This facilitated and challenged my perceptions of concepts as there was a ‘diversity in opinions’ presented on all of the participants blogs which enabled the connection of ‘specialised nodes or information sources’ (Siemens, 2014). Additionally, given the abundance of opinions, connections and links to other content, one of the key realisations I had ‘as student’ was deciding what was important for my personal and professional learning, and what was not. Siemens (2014) recognises that this ‘decision-making’ is itself a learning process. Initially, I found myself gravitating towards certain participant’s blogs as I believed there was a commonality in their thinking, context and opinions, as my own. Goodyear (2014) notes that when this homophily is present, communication is more likely to be rewarding for participants in the learning community; however, there is also a caution here in that without diversification and openness to others thoughts and opinions there is a limit of our “horizons of observation” (Little, 2003, p. 913). The double-edged sword is that in order to develop an effective learning network we need diversification in ideas, while also ensuring that we have a filter and PKM process to manage the abundance of resources. Jarche (2011) offers an analogy of breathing to conceptualise this process – when we breathe in we filter information, we sense, create something new, discern and share content back out as we exhale.

Through engagement in the concept Bigum and Rowan (2013, p. 2) refer to ‘Public Click Pedagogy’ – a “public sharing of the steps made as one attempts to climb a ladder: mistakes, mess and missteps as well as ‘aha’ and ‘click’ moments” I have developed my blog and archive of my understanding of connectivist perspectives in learning. In multiple blog posts (1, 2, 3) I noted the benefits I was experiencing of the blogging process, particularly the critical reflection and consolidation of thinking. Connectivist learning relies on the active participation and artefact creation of self-directed learners (Anderson, 2009; Downes, 2012). Learning artefact creation (as in this blog), required cognitive engagement, and amalgamation of networking opportunities through construction and sharing artefacts on the open network, where they are both accessible and tenacious. Coherence in much of the subject matter came from dialogue and an ability to contextualise content through blog contributions (Siemens, 2009). Overall, the power of the social network in information connection, sharing, filtering and aggregation was utilised in order to take advantage of the collective knowledge (Downes, 2011; Wang, Chen, & Anderson, 2014).

Additionally, given we are blogging in an online community it is the comments, feedback and pingbacks from others to confirm or challenge our thinking, which in turn lead to deeper learning. As a peer (Annelise) noted – “It is through writing our ideas down that we make what we learn explicit, thus enabling us to “reflect upon it, and reanalyse it in light of new and sometimes conflicting information” (Goel, Johnson, Junglas, & Ives, 2010). This is further emphasised by Glazer, Abbott, and Harris (2004) who recognise that when individuals reflect internally, they miss valuable alternative perspectives, do not always work systematically through their problems as they would when discussing with peers, and may not take the time to reflect on practice. I also noted that by engaging in blogging as part of my ‘sense’ and ‘share’ elements of my PKM routine I was engaged in the higher-order thinking process of synthesising. Additionally, though engagement in this knowledge-based learning community I decided to share my formal assessment blogs (via my blog and also Google Docs) for ‘looking forward, looking back’ for ‘as learner’, ‘as teacher’ and this ‘as student’ in order to receive feedback and critique from my network. Even though I found this a very anxious and risk-taking exercise, the benefits and critique I received far outweighed the negatives. On the other hand, this was also a disheartening element in my experience of networked learning, as I perceived my network to be larger than the reality, the amount of comments and feedback was minimal and also the engagement of others in the polls (1, 2) I developed was more minimalist than anticipated. Moreover, another core benefit of blogging that I experienced ‘as student’, was having my thoughts and opinions archived online for reference anywhere, anytime on any device. The asynchronous nature of engagement with the blog and others in the course also made the experience able to embed into my working life routine. Through engagement in the blogging process I also noted that my level of motivation was increased, when compared to other courses of study, as I was working with a group of members who are active participants in the learning process and there was a development of a trust relationship (Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007) all with a common learning goal (Brindley, Blaschke, & Walti, 2009). Overall, the ‘as student’ experience of blogging allowed my engagement in authentic experiences involving the active manipulation and experimentation of ideas and artefacts, ultimately leading to a deeper consolidation of understanding (Riel & Polin, 2004).

After watching the clip ‘Obvious to you, Amazing to others’ it was not just the formal education assessment requirements of the course that has ignited the continuation of my blogging experience, but also realisation that what seems obvious to me is amazing to someone else, hence, I need to share my learning publically. I have also reflected on an analogy for networked learning of driving a car on the road. When we are in the car we are seeking an intentional destination, sometimes the destination changes, sometimes we stop at lights and wait for the ‘hussle’ to pass, sometimes we are stuck on a roundabout, sometimes we reach a dead-end, sometimes we are going faster or slower, sometimes we drive past neon signs that attract our attention for a moment, but we drive on towards our destination and transformation.

Overall, I have found that through engagement and participation in networked learning aligned with Connectivist principles, I have had the opportunity to practice and develop important lifelong and life-wide learning skills, such as the management of complexity, ambiguities, and large capacities of information (Siemens, 2005). Moreover, through consistent involvement, strong social presence and practical application, global online learning communities can create platforms for students and educators to share information and construct knowledge through interaction with diverse sources and dialogue (Brindley et al., 2009; Siemens, 2005).

“The forces of technological change, new opportunities to create and share information, and increased ability for interact with peers globally require a new model based on networks and ecologies. The current age should be one of throwing open doors of learning to bring as many potential contributors to our future as possible.” (Siemens, 2008, p. 18)

References

Anderson, T. (2009). The dance of technology and pedagogy in self-paced distance education.   Retrieved 13 September, 2014, from http://hdl.handle.net/2149/2210

Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2013). Ladders, Learning and Lessons from Charlie: exploring the potential of public click pedagogy.   Retrieved 31 August 2014, from http://chrisbigum.com/downloads/LLL-PCP.pdf

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).

Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge.   Retrieved 24 November 2013, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html

Downes, S. (2011). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge.   Retrieved 30 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/connectivism-and-connecti_b_804653.html

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks.   Retrieved 13 September, 2014, from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf

Glazer, C., Abbott, L., & Harris, J. (2004). A teacher‐developed process for collaborative professional reflection. Reflective Practice, 5(1), 33-46.

Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2010). Situated learning: Conceptualization and measurement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 215-240.

Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive Learning Networks: The Evolution of Research and Practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 23-47). London: Routledge.

Harley, R. (2008, 25-27 June). The fall of the wall: Beyond walled gardens in higher education. Paper presented at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation International Conference: Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons, Brisbane.

Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153-169.

Jarche, H. (2011). PKM — Personal Knowledge Mastery.   Retrieved 13 Sept, 2014, from http://www.jarche.com/pkm/

Kligyte, G. (2009). Threshold concept: A lens for examining networked learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ascilite 2009 Conference.

Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. The Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising.   Retrieved 13 September, 2014, from http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/ETLreport4.pdf

Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Actas do encontro sobre web, 2, 7-23.

Siemens, G. (2009). George Siemens discusses Connectivism and connective knowledge. ED-MEDIA 2009-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications.  Retrieved 13 September, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5-Wk2cwb68&list=PL209BAC7DAACFEDBC

Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 2(1), 3-10.

Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2).