Weeks 2 & 3: Learning Technologies and Media – Summer 2021

Topics

Now that we have explored some foundational issues in technology-enhanced digital learning environments, over the next two weeks we will be delving into the first of the four themes covered in this course. The themes form the basis for your team and individual work in this course.

The first theme is Learning Technology and Media. By this theme we are referring to a sampling of technology and media that have gained traction, or are gaining attention, in supporting teaching and learning as well as generating discussion and, in some cases, controversy. The topics covered are:

  • Mobile devices and apps
  • Learning management systems (LMSs)
  • Digital educational games
  • Social media
  • Robots in education
  • Virtual, augmented, mixed reality
  • Personalized learning technology
  • Cloud computing, software as a service (SaaS), Google classroom

Each of these topics is connected to an aspect of learning technology and media. In this theme we focus on the tools and environments used to enhance teaching and learning beyond the traditional classroom and lecture style. Each of these technologies in some way extends the reach of the teacher and learner and enables new activities and connections. The key to understanding them, however, is to place them (as discussed in Week 1) within a cultural setting: What do we want gain by using them? Who is promoting and benefiting from them, and who may be disadvantaged by them? How do they change the way we live our lives and conduct our learning?

Resources Weeks 2 & 3

Mobile Devices & Apps

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ …. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346

Learning Management Systems (LMSs)

Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the post-LMS era: The open learning network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1), 1–9. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/3/envisioning-the-postlms-era-the-open-learning-network

Coding & Programming

Melander Bowden, H. (2019). Problem-solving in collaborative game design practices: Epistemic stance, affect, and engagement. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1563106

Social Media

Josefsson, P., Hrastinski, S., Pargman, D. & Pargman, T.C. (2016). The student, the private and the professional role: Students’ social media use. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9403-7

Robots in Education

Coelho, H. (2018). The robot take-over: Reflections on the meaning of automated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(115), 1–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1192071.pdf

Virtual, Augmented, Mixed Reality

Leung, T., Zulkernine, F., & Isah, H. (2018). The use of virtual reality in enhancing interdisciplinary research and education. arXiv, 1–6. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08585

Personalized Learning Technology

FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon, E. (2018). A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: what works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26(2095), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2095

Cloud Computing and Google

Young, N. (Host). (2018, June 8). 401: Google for education [Audio podcast episode]. In Spark with Nora Young. CBC Radio One. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/401-google-for-education-1.4694935


Learning Technology and Media

For this part of Week 2, begin by reading the course notes below and then select two or three of the resources for deeper reading. As you will later be asked to draw connections between different themes or topics, think about how they connect with the theme of interest that you described in your first blog post. For instance, if your topic is learning management systems, you might find connections with topics such as open source software and networked/collaborative learning.

Course Notes

As you might have surmised by scanning this list, there are no neatly separated categories within this theme. The lines between them blur and overlap. For instance, digital educational games can be designed as personalized learning technology and delivered as a mobile device app supported by cloud computing. Google classroom can serve as a learning management system incorporating social media for some contexts. Therefore, rather than see each of these topics as discrete items within a universe of learning technology and media, we select these as lenses from which to view the increasingly complex systems that are being used to support teaching and learning.

 

Mobile Learning and Apps

While Traxler’s (2007) paper is getting older in terms of Internet years, it demonstrates the challenges of reading about the future of learning technology while it explores some interesting issues around the challenges of understanding and researching mobile learning. In particular, Trexler notes the need for theory and related evaluation methodologies for the use of mobile learning. Because mobile learning occurs in the real world as well as in contained and more controlled environments, such as “tethered” in a classroom, the varieties of settings and contexts for study present a daunting research challenge.

As noted by Traxler, “mobile learning is essentially personal, contextual, and situated; this means it is ‘noisy’ and this is problematic both for definition and for evaluation” (2007, p. 1). Mobile learning also tends to be associated more with informal learning delivered outside the usual confines of classrooms, semesters, and so forth. As can be seen from the list on page 3, and bolstering the concept that aspects of learning technology have many overlapping features, various categories have begun to emerge in the research, including such areas as connected classroom learning, mobile training and performance support, situated mobile learning, and others.

Because of the multiple potential meanings of mobile learning, Traxler problematizes definitions limited to technology and hardware, which are “constraining, techno-centric, and tied to current technological instantiations” (2007, p. 4). Traxler therefore switches over to other perspectives to explore what is different about mobile learning, leading to a number of discussion points. One such area is increased focus on learners and how they are able to use the devices for learning, including such areas as “informality, mobility, and context that will always be inaccessible to conventional ‘tethered’ e-Learning’” (Traxler, 2007, p. 4).

The informality and situatedness of mobile learning enables learning via the ability to “look up” information as needed, thereby creating a new need for information search strategies. Used in “knowledge work” settings, mobile learning provides new ways to access knowledge needed to do work that were not possible in earlier methods of training, professional development, and performance support systems. Learners also may reorganize knowledge over time based on the primacy of specific knowledge needed at certain times rather than gaining a larger overview of the structure and relationships (“ontologies”) of knowledge. These and other aspects explored by Traxler imply “mobile learning is not about ‘mobile’ as previously understood, or about ‘learning’ as previously understood, but part of a new mobile conception of society” (2007, p. 5).

It is interesting to notice that Traxler makes some flawed predictions about the evolution of mobile devices in future, particularly in his assumption that devices will not be able to integrate multiple functions such as phones that are also a handheld computer, camera, media player, and location awareness or navigation tool (GPS). As we now know, all of these, and much more, have occurred over the past decade in the convergence of multiple technologies into one device. This indicates the hazards of making overly confident predictions about future developments in technologies. These developments have greatly increased the potential and continually growing uses of mobile devices for media capture (photography, video, audio recording, etc.), editing, production, and sharing in multiple outputs. Along with social media and online collaboration tools, the power of mobile devices is greatly multiplied across networks, which opens new potential for learning engagement.

Traxler makes cautious reference to pedagogical aspects such as personalized learning, situated and authentic learning, as well as issues in developing countries associated with access and the challenges of evaluating mobile learning. This, again, demonstrates how different aspects of technology overlap in different ways.

Use TRU Library to access Traxler’s article:

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ …. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346

 

Learning Management Systems

This course is available to you courtesy of a learning management system (LMS). As described by Mott (2010), the LMS has become ubiquitous in educational institutions that offer online distance learning. Such names as Moodle, Canvas, Brightspace, and Blackboard are visible across online learning websites of schools and universities. These different brands are either open source or proprietary software. Some are offered as enterprise systems that can be hosted institutionally or across an education sector such as a province or school district, or as a service hosted online by vendors or affiliates. For vendors, particularly of proprietary LMSs, it is a large business.

In their early days LMSs were seen as a way of solving what was perceived as the problem of individual faculty developing their own standalone course support websites that in many cases were creative and well designed, but also lacked institutional technical support, IT backup, maintenance, and so forth. If the instructors no longer taught that particular course, the website might go dormant or even vanish. The LMS centralized the function of instructors putting their course materials and lessons online. However, the idea of an online classroom or online learning webspace also rapidly grew into something much larger that supported such enterprise IT systems as student registration, gradebooks, and class setups. In the early days of the World Wide Web and through Web 2.0, the potential for access to information—as well as modifying and adding content to the web—created much interest among educators. However, as online learning continued to grow through the 1990s and beyond, at the institutional level it became increasingly associated with the LMS and enclosed learning spaces. Rather than learning on the open web, students were directed into online courses delivered through an LMS. Mott (2010) describes the problem in terms of the way in which the LMS replicates, rather than assists in transforming, the classroom in online teaching and learning.

As an alternative approach, Mott describes personal learning environments (PLEs) or networks (PLNs) to put the tools of learning more directly in the hands of students. PLEs involve tools that students themselves can use: “Whether termed PLEs or PLNs, these approaches ‘represent a shift away from the model in which students consume information through independent channels such as the library, a textbook, or an LMS, moving instead to a model where students draw connections from a growing matrix of resources that they select and organize’” (Wheeler, 2009, as cited in Mott, 2010, p. 2).

As a loose aggregation of tools curated by individuals, and used for multiple and possibly enduring purposes beyond individual courses delivered through an LMS, the PLN can support the building of a widening set of connections known as the personal learning network. The PLN can exist both within and beyond individual learning experiences, and supports more of a continuing or lifelong learning strategy along with a set of skills, tools, and a network which supports that learning. A further development is the concept of an open learning network, which aggregates a number of functions using more loosely connected elements to administer multiple aspects of online learning. This is just one of many models that institutions have conceptualized and experimented with, and in some cases more of the PLE concept has been taken up in the development of MOOCs (discussed elsewhere in this course) than in large, complex institutional learning technology support systems. The challenges of the LMS and its alternatives remain complex, particularly with the growth of learning and communication tools provided via Google, Facebook, and other massive companies. These tools bring with them a whole new set of problems, but that too is discussed elsewhere in the course.

Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the post-LMS era: The open learning network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1), 1–9. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/3/envisioning-the-postlms-era-the-open-learning-network

 

Coding & Programming

There has been much talk the media about coding in schools. To some it is seen as a new, critical skill in today’s employment market. However, many educators contest this idea and see the value of coding or programming not so much in the technical skills required but rather in the social, collaborative problem-solving that accrues with some programming tools. Melander Bowden (2019) takes a deep dive into the interactions of two children as they engage with a program called Scratch, a block-style programming language and online community started by MIT for use mainly by children. An underlying concept in this research, as well as more broadly within education, is to encourage students to move beyond being consumers of technology, to becoming producers and creators as well. As described in the article “programming can be conceptualized as a form of creative media production…and as a form of literacy” (Melander Bowden, 2019, p. 1) in support of “computational thinking” that expands to include the “social, collaborative, identity making, and creative processes of programming” (p. 2).

By carefully analyzing the subtleties of social interactions between the two children, Melander Bowden unpackages the complex activities underlying their engagement with the software. In this setting programming is seen as much more than just developing technical programming skills for the job market. Melander Bowden’s discussion of epistemic (cognitive) and affective (emotional engagement) aspects of the children’s participation and problem-solving activities in a game-building exercise using Scratch informs us that “coding and digital game design seem to be particularly fruitful ways of incorporating children’s everyday lived experiences into school activities in ways that allow for personal agency and ownership as well as creativity” (2019, p. 17). Finally, and of particular note, the article challenges the notion of the digital native and assumptions around competence in not only technical but also broader skills and competences in the creative, cultural, and social processes of programming and coding.

Access this reading via TRU Library:

Melander Bowden, H. (2019). Problem-solving in collaborative game design practices: Epistemic stance, affect, and engagement. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1563106

 

Social Media

Since the introduction of Web 2.0 and the associated growth of social media, which has enabled more collaboration and building of online communities, educators have been interested in how these developments could be used in learning environments, particularly in online learning but also in face-to-face settings. Blogs, wikis, and other social media could enable more active and engaged participation via user-generated content in a larger online network. Communities of learners make possible increased sharing and collaboration. As discussed elsewhere, learning management systems absorbed much of the attention among educators, so institutions began to deploy LMSs. Nevertheless, educators continue to experiment with and deploy a variety of social media. Some have become massive platforms in their own right, such as Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram for example.

So how might these and other platforms be used in educational settings? There have been many efforts to experiment with such ideas, and Josefsson, Hrastinski, Pargman, and Pargman (2016) explore this topic in terms of students’ perception of roles in their participation in social media. To begin with, students often see a separation between private and educational use of social media. Developing a team-based annotated historical photo archive online for a history course may not necessarily be compatible with personal discussions about birthday parties or catching fish. But beyond these two uses or roles, Josefsson et al. note a third, professional use. They summarize these roles as the student role in education, a career-focused professional role, along with a private role—with different audiences for each and perceived dissonance between each of the roles. As they conclude:

…awareness about different roles becomes important when social media is introduced in educational settings. When teachers decide to interact and communicate using social media, they might unintentionally lead the students to perform roles that contradict the expected reaction. This is a risk in particular if the use of social media differs from what is considered appropriate in each social situation. (Josefsson, Hrastinski, Pargman, & Pargman, 2016, p. 1593)

This study supports the idea that technology does not exist just in itself, but forms part of a complex social environment that requires careful analysis and understanding by educators.

Access this reading via the TRU Library here: The student, the private and the professional role

Josefsson, P., Hrastinski, S., Pargman, D. & Pargman, T.C. (2016). The student, the private and the professional role: Students’ social media use. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9403-7

 

Robots in Education

Robots have been a mainstay in science fiction for many decades, and variations of the idea of automatons go back much further in history. More recently, in the realm of education there have been many discussions and examples of using robots to teach or provide other assistance in learning situations. It is not unusual to hear provocative statements by individuals on the lecture circuit or in the high-tech industry proclaiming that such a scenario is just around the corner. Robots would incorporate technologies, such as reading facial expressions of students, and surpass the skills of teachers in meeting the individual needs of students.

Coelho (2018) traces different historical conceptions of robots as fictional forms of machine-humans or task performers that undertake physical work; therefore, leaving out primarily knowledge work as teaching. Coelho cautions readers about loosely applying terms such as intelligence and embodiment against robots, and thereby in some way ascribing to them human characteristics. The discussion thus moves beyond the mechanical machine idea and focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) and in particular how a definition of AI that includes autonomous action raises serious questions, where action means to take initiative rather than execute or even process what has already been done or given to the AI software. Coelho uses Hanna Arendt’s delineation of different types of work to isolate action as a unique aspect of human work. Coelho describes how teaching, if it is to work within the given parameters of AI, is reduced to behaviour rather than action. Thus teaching becomes diminished rather than enhanced. This topic is further discussed in the topic of behaviorism.

Coelho, H. (2018). The robot take-over: Reflections on the meaning of automated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(115), 1–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1192071.pdf

 

Virtual, Augmented, Mixed Reality

Early use of 3-D and virtual reality (VR) started in training simulations as well as video games accompanying the improvement of computing capacities and video monitors. The potential of alternative realities has captured the attention of educators for a long time with particular early use in flight and medical simulations. Powerful mobile technologies make it ever easier to develop portable systems. As described by Leung, Zulkernine, and Isah (2018), VR can not only allow the ability to interact with a simulated reality and collaborate with others in that reality, but also overcome barriers such as safety, cost, and location as the reality portrayed is immediately available to the learner.

The authors provide a vivid array of examples where VR may support or enhance learning:

With VR headset students can explore 3D spaces and experience dangerous, expensive or inaccessible places and events. VR can be utilized to simulate emergencies, witness volcanic activity from close-by, to walk through ancient cities, and fly through the solar system. Those studying Architecture can evaluate their buildings in new ways, pilots training can be simulated, power engineering students can simulate surge and how to control it in electric power systems, and medical students can learn about the body in 3D. (Leung, Zulkernine, & Isah, 2018, n.p.)

They provide a taxonomy of VR levels and types that helps create categories for further addition and growth. However, more important than the technology itself is the learning theory that underlies its use in education. Constructivist learning theory, as well as situated learning, embodied cognition, and social cognition theories, are presented as lenses through which to understand and create VR-based learning for different needs and settings. Multiple examples of implementation are described.

Outside of VR, augmented and mixed reality are open for similar exploration, and the important thing again is to ensure fit with relevant learning theories and the application at hand. There are many variations of these concepts, and misalignment of their application will cause more problems and distraction than improvements in learning, regardless of the novelty factor.

Leung, T., Zulkernine, F., & Isah, H. (2018). The use of virtual reality in enhancing interdisciplinary research and education. arXiv, 1–6. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08585

 

Personalized Learning Technologies

For a long time now, personalization of learning with technology has been viewed as a prize goal for educators. The underlying concept, that each student learns at their own speed and in their own way, challenges typical classroom teaching methods that ostensibly treat all students the same and puts them on the same learning timeline. FitzGerald, Jones, Kucirkova, and Scanlon (2018) define personalization in terms of multiple aspects including learner age, levels of knowledge, and other personal characteristics. Personalization includes:

…giving adaptive quizzes that get harder as more questions are answered correctly…. It is intended to address a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may disadvantage learners and can provide tailored support dependent on our engagement with online course materials and peer interaction. The idea is that we should be taught on an individualized basis that addresses the differences between us. (FitzGerald, Jones, Kucirkova, & Scanlon, 2018, pp. 1–2)

At the same time, there are many who question personalized learning, finding it to consist more of rhetoric than reality. Along with the element of personalization the authors consider the element of control; i.e., the extent to which learners can make decisions about how the personalization works for them: “Control is strongly linked to the notion of choice and is a core aspect of any personalised system, yet can be easily overlooked, particularly by those who favour a more technical or systematic/top-down solution” (2018, p. 3).

After listing some possible benefits of personalized learning based on a review of literature, FitzGerald et al. summarize critiques of personalized learning in technology-enhanced learning.

Some of the problems include frequent use of “learning styles” in personalized learning, a theory that has long been discredited in the research literature in education. The costs of personalized learning can be severe, and questions arise, as noted above, as to student control over the process: “Who is the active agent when learners are provided with a personalized learning experience? There is still much debate over who has control (or who should) and under what circumstances” (2018, p. 11).

While remaining open to potential benefits of personalized learning, the authors caution as to the investments in this area being made by technology companies, and the need to ensure the technologies are supported by evidence and that they ensure learner choice and control.

FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon, E. (2018). A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: what works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26(2095), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2095

 

Cloud Computing and Google

Our last resource in the learning technologies and media theme is a podcast (54 minutes) produced by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC). Google tools such as Google Apps for Education (GAFE) and Google Classroom are an example of cloud computing used in education. Most of the storage of files and computer processing of programs is done on large banks of remote networked computers available via the Internet (i.e., the “cloud”) rather than on one’s own device.

There are many benefits to cloud computing. It reduces the burden on overtaxed IT departments to host and manage all computer systems at local institutions or districts, and it allows users to access their cloud-based suites, programs, and services almost anywhere. These benefits extend into education, for instance with the use of a cloud-based tool such as Google’s education suites. G Suite for Education is an increasingly sophisticated set of tools for use by students and teachers in the classroom requiring only a device with Internet access and an account.

In the CBC podcast, the story is told of a parent who receives a permission form to sign for his child to be able to use a GAFE account at school. Concerned about privacy of data, he refused and complained. The podcast investigates this parent’s concerns, particularly his lack of trust in a large company like Google. He questions how Google will use and connect his child’s data with other information and make it available elsewhere. As well, the podcast explores concerns about Google’s long-term profit motive in promotion of their tools and suites to young children. An alternative doesn’t exist at the school district, exacerbating the problem.

As the use of cloud computing increases, including social media which is discussed elsewhere in this course, the question of privacy and profit motives in companies steering schools and students to the cloud becomes increasingly problematic, especially where special legislation exists for privacy of information.

Young, N. (Host). (2018, June 8). 401: Google for education [Audio podcast episode]. In Spark with Nora Young. CBC Radio One. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/401-google-for-education-1.4694935

Assessments

Assignment 2: Team Presentation Topic Selection (20%)

The class was divided into teams for this assignment in the previous week; now your team will select topics and schedule a date to present later in the course. But first, each team will lead an online forum discussion.

Each team will select one topic from each of two course themes. For instance, a team could combine “Social Media” from the “Learning Technologies and Media” theme (in column 1), and “Open Pedagogies” from the “Open Educational Practices” theme (in column 3) to produce a focused topic. The topic must be different from the ones used by any of the team members in the Final Project.

After leading a week’s forum discussion on the topic, each group will then plan and deliver an online presentation on the topic with feedback from the rest of the class. The presentation must include:

  • The relationship between the combined topic and its impact on teaching and learning. (10 minutes)
  • A discussion period that includes not only topics that relates to the team presentation, but also a summary and recommendations from the discussion held the previous week. (20 minutes)

Sign-up for team presentation dates on the Google signup sheet provided by your Open Learning Faculty Member.

You can view Assignment 2 on the Assignments Overview page.

Assignment 3: Discussion Posts and Participation (10%)

Discussion Post 2

The discussion takes place as per the schedule on the sheet.

The discussion should include:

  • Brief introduction to the topic and why it is of importance to educators
  • Claims and questions made about the technology

The first post of the discussion should be approximately 300–500 words in length. The first post should be made by noon of the Monday of week 3, and subsequent discussion and responses should end by noon Friday of the week 3.

You can view Assignment 3 on the Assignments Overview page.

Assignment 1: ePortfolio and Blog Posts (20%)

Blog Post 2

This assignment is part 2 of the five-part blogging assignment. Last week’s blog post was designed to introduce yourself and your professional background, as well as to start you thinking and drafting ideas about learning technologies and environments of interest for more attention in this course, as well as a research question.

In your second blog post, you will build on the work done at the beginning of this course to start firming up your Final Project’s topic. If you want to change it, now is the time as it will be more difficult to do later on. Use this blog post as a sketch pad for your paper, i.e. a rough introduction and outline. The blog post should be a more in-depth discussion about your topic, including:

  • Connect your topic to at least two other topics among the course themes. They may come from any area of the chart, as well as from your earlier reading and forum discussions.
  • What you see as the advantages and challenges of implementing one of the technologies you’ve described.
  • What you would like to see improved in the choice you discussed.
  • Make reference to at least three additional research articles, as well as the resources listed in this course for the topics you identified to connect to your own topic.
  • Update your research question based on how your thinking, research and writing have developed.

Provide a minimum of three published academic articles you plan to incorporate as part of your literature-based research as you develop your paper. This post should be a minimum of 600 words. Provide feedback to two other students’ blog posts.

You can view Assignment 1 on the Assignments Overview page.

Summary

Over the past two weeks we have explored resources in a variety of topic areas within the category of learning technology and media. One of the most basic things to learn at this stage is the vastness and continuing expansion of the field. However, while much of the focus in the media is on the “wow” factor of technology, the realities are of much more interest to educators as the many issues and challenges that emerge with the implementation of technology in the learning environment become increasingly known. A critical mindset along with a willingness to explore and learn go hand-in-hand in this field.

References

Coelho, H. (2018). The robot take-over: Reflections on the meaning of automated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(115), 1–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1192071.pdf

FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon, E. (2018). A literature synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: what works and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26(2095), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2095

Josefsson, P., Hrastinski, S., Pargman, D. & Pargman, T.C. (2016). The student, the private and the professional role: Students’ social media use. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1583–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9403-7

Leung, T., Zulkernine, F., & Isah, H. (2018). The use of virtual reality in enhancing interdisciplinary research and education. arXiv, 1–6. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08585

Melander Bowden, H. (2019). Problem-solving in collaborative game design practices: Epistemic stance, affect, and engagement. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1563106

Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the post-LMS era: The open learning network. Educause Quarterly, 33(1), 1–9. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/3/envisioning-the-postlms-era-the-open-learning-network

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ …. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346

Young, N. (Host). (2018, June 8). 401: Google for education [Audio podcast episode]. In Spark with Nora Young. CBC Radio One. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/401-google-for-education-1.4694935

Copy link
Powered by Social Snap