Embodied and embedded theory in practice: The student-owned learning-engagement (SOLE) model

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 1-18

  Atkinson, Simon ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Constructive alignment; Learning design; Pedagogical planners; Toolkit

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952239695     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14923831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.929     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Atkinson, S. (2010). SOLE learning design. Educational technologies to enable social change [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://spatkinson.wordpress.com/sole-learning-design/.
2. Barker, P. (2008). Re-evaluating a model of learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 127. doi:10.1080/14703290801950294.
3. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.
4. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
5. Bloom, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.
6. Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
7. Burden, K., & Atkinson, S. (2009). Personalising teaching and learning with digital resources: DiAL-e Framework case studies. In J. O'Donoghue (Ed.), Technology supported environment for personalised learning: Methods and case studies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
8. Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 17-33.
9. Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal Article. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/11725/.
10. Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). Disruptive technologies, pedagogical innovation: What's new? Findings from an in-depth study of students' use and perception of technology. Computers and Education, 50, 511-524.
11. Dick, W. O., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2004). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol (United Kingdom): Technical & Educational Services Ltd.
13. JISC. (2006). Design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/designlearn.aspx.
14. Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319-339.
15. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
16. Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2) 139-154.
17. Laurillard, D., & Masterman, E. (2010). TPD as online collaborative learning for innovation in teaching. In J. Ola Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development (pp. 230-246). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
18. LDSE. (2010). LDSE. Learning design support environment. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/lkl.ac.uk/ldse/.
19. NSSE. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success (Annual Report). Bloomington, IL: Center for Postsecondary Research.
20. Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145-158. doi:10.1177/1469787402003002004.
21. Shulman, L. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 48-53.