Implementing technology-enhanced learning

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 289-306

  Laurillard, Diana ^a   Oliver, Martin ^a   Wasson, Barbara ^b   Hoppe, Ulrich ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Higher education; Implementation; Pedagogy; Technology enhanced learning (TEL); User engagement

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649338320     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_17     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Bannon, L., & Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.). Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer intetface (pp. 227-253). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Barab, S. & Squire. K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1-14.
3. Barab. S. A., Dodge. T., Thomas. M., Jackson. C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the docial agendas they carry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 263-305.
4. Braund, M., & Reiss. M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373-1388.
5. Chen. W., & Wasson. B. (2003). Coordinating collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer and Applications, 25, 1-10.
6. Chen. W., & Wasson. B. (2004). An instructional assistant agent for distributed collaborative learning. In J. C. Lester. R. M. Vicari & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 609-618). Berlin. Germany: Springer-Verlag.
7. Conole, G., White, S. & Oliver. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structures. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in E-Leaming research (pp. 67-79). London: Routledge.
8. Cuban. L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transfonning learning and children's sen'ices. Retrieved June 28. 2008, from http://www.dfes.gov. uk/publications/estrategy/doc s/e-strategy, pdf.
10. Elton. L. (1999). New ways of learning in higher education: Managing the change. Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 207-225.
11. Falconer, I. (2007). Mediating between practitioner and developer communities - the LADi E experience. ALT-J: The Journal of Research in Learning Technology, 15, 155-170.
12. De Freitas, S., Oliver, M., Mee, A., & Mayes, T. (2007). The practitioner perspective on the modelling of pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 26-38.
13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.
14. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J: The Journal of Research in Learning Technology, 3, 5-34.
15. Hoppe, H. U. (2009). The disappearing computer - consequences for educational technology? In P. Dillenbourg, J. Huang & M. M. Cherubini (Eds.), Collaborative artefacts and interactive furniture supporting collaborative work and learning. New York: Springer.
16. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Baker, A. (2006). Techno-mathematical literacies and functional mathematics in 14-19 education. In A. Brown & A. Pollard (Eds.), 14-19 education and training: A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme (pp. 42-46). London: Institute of Education, Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
17. IMS (2003). IMS learning design specification. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign
18. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators' knowing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12, 87-111.
20. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
21. Laurillard, D. (2007). Technology, pedagogy and education: Concluding comments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16, 357-360.
22. Laurillard, D. (2008a). Open teaching: The key to sustainable and effective open education. In T. Iiyoshi & M. S. Vijay Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
23. Laurillard, D. (2008b). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 139-154.
24. Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills: Final report. London: HM Treasury.
25. Lingnau, A., Harrer, A., Kuhn, M., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Empowering teachers to evolve mediaenriched classroom scenarios. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 2, 105-129.
26. Ludvigsen, S., & Rasmussen, I. (2005). Modellerpti reise: En analyse av endringer i Icererutdanningen [Models that travel: Analysis of changes in teacher education]. Oslo, Norway: Rapport ITU.
27. Luhmann, N., & Schorr, K. E. (1982). Das Technologiedefizit der Erziehung und die Padagogik [Pedagogics and the technology deficit of education]. In N. Luhmann & K. E. Schorr (Eds.), Zwischen Technologie und Selbstreferenz (pp. 11-40.). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
28. Netteland, G., Wasson, B., & Mørch, A. (2007). E-learning in a large organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 9, 392-411.
29. Oliver, M., Price, S., Boycheva, S., Dugstad Wake, J., Jones, C., Mjelstad, S., et al. (2005). Empirical studies of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on roles and practices in higher education. (Tech. Rep. No. 30-03-01-F). [n. p.]: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
30. Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, H. U., Bollen, L., & Fuhlrott, E. (2002). Group-oriented modelling tools with heterogeneous semantics. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Berlin, Germany.
31. Price, S., Oliver, M., Fartunova, M., Jones, C., Van Der Meij, H., Mjelstad, S., et al. (2005). Review of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on roles and practices in higher education. (Tech. Rep. No. 30-02-01-F). [n. p.]: Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://teleam.noe-kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/Price-Kaleidoscope-2005. pdf.
32. Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2009). The hedgehog and the fox: A discussion of the approaches to the analysis of ICT reforms in teacher education of Larry Cuban and Yijo Engestrom. Mind, Culture and Activity, 16(1), 83-104.
33. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Schoonenboom, J., & Levene, M. (2007). Introduction: The perfect start for a trail. In J. Schoonenboom, M. Levene, J. Heller, K. Keenoy & M. Turcsanyi-Szabo (Eds.), Trails in education: Technologies that support navigational learning (1st edn., pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.
35. Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioner's design for learning: Principles of effective resources and interventions. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Design for learning: Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age (pp. 117-128). London: Routlege Falmer.
36. Wake, J. (2002). How instructors organise their work in a collaborative telelearning scenario. Unpublished Masters dissertation. University of Bergen, Norway.
37. Wasson, B., & Ludvigsen, S. (2003). Designing for knowledge building. Oslo, Norway: Unipub.
38. Wasson, B., Guribye, F., & Mørch, A. (2000). Design and use of collaborative telelearning artefacts. Oslo, Norway: Unipub Forlag.
39. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.