HowtoUseWeb2.0TechnologiesforEducation:

SevenElementsofLearningActivityDesign

KevinJenson

VisitingScholar

MacquarieUniversity

November2015

Abstract

Becauseusersdon’tknowwhattodowithWeb2.0technologies,thesehavebeenappliedin

highereducationwithlimitedsuccess.Researchindicatesthatsuccessfulengagementwith

learningintheWeb2.0environmentrequiresanactivityframeworktocreateabridgebetween

learningenvironmentsandtechnologyaffordances.ThecontextofWeb2.0andtheaffordance

frameworksforanalysingwhattechnologycandoarehighlightedastheprimaryapproachesto

developingasuccessfulintegrationofWeb2.0technologyinhighereducation.However,inthe

processofsynthesizingthisresearch,severalelementsemergedthatwerecommonlyemployed

byresearcherstosuggestthedesignofeffectivelearningactivitieswithWeb2.0technologies.

ThesesevenelementsidentifywhattodowithWeb2.0technologieswhileananalysisofseven

pedagogicalparadigmssuggesthowtheseactivitiesshouldtakeplace.Consideredtogether,the

elementsofactivitydesignandthepedagogicalframeworkscreate49uniquepedagogy/activity

intersectionsthatinformtheselectionandintegrationoftechnologyfromtheperspectiveof

studentneeds.Ashortdescriptionofeachintersectionandrelevanttechnologiesareprovided

andaproposalismadefortheiruseindevelopingfuturetechnologyaffordancesand

pedagogicalpractices.

Keywords:affordance,pedagogy,technology,Web2.0,learningactivity,behaviorism,cognitivism,

socialcognitivism,humanism,self-directed,constructivism,connectivism,plan,find,curate,

interact,create,publish,assess,teachingandlearning,learningenvironment,technologydesign,

learningdesign,human-centeredlearning,activityframework

TheEducator’sChallengeCreatingthelinkbetweentheavailabletoolsoflearningandtheneedsofthestudentis“the

artoftheeducator,”saidMontessori(2004,p.11).However,intheWeb2.0environmentwhere

asingletoolliketheblogoffersaffordancesforover50differentkindsofactivities(Collisand

Moonen,2008),thearthasbeguntolookmoreandmorelikeachallenge.Whenfailureto

succeedatthischallengecanleadtoanegativeimpactonstudentperformance(Lei,2010),this

challengehasbecomeastrategicproblem(Bryson,1995).

Thepersonalcomputer,theinternet,andnowWeb2.0technologieshaveallbeengreeted

withwavesofpublicityandhighhopesforanew‘revolutionary’modelofeducation(Collis&

Moonen,2008;Sternberg,2012;Suthers,2012).However,behindthescenes,educatorshave

beenreluctanttoembracethetechnologies(Way&Webb,2007),institutionsdonothavethe

infrastructureinplacetosupporttheiruse(Johnson,etal.,2013),andstudentsthemselvesdo

nothavethelevelofexpertisethattheythinktheydo(Bennett,Bishop,Dalgarno,Waycott,&

Kennedy,2012;Diaz,2010;Gosper,Malfroy,&McKenzie,2013).Allthishasresultedina

misapplicationofWeb2.0technologyintheuniversitysettingthathasnotenhancedthe

learningexperience(Gosper,etal.;Sternberg,2012).Infact,amisunderstandingofhow

studentsuseWeb2.0toolsforlearning(Gosper,etal.)mayevenbecausingstudentstobecome

“disaffected”withtheideaofusingthemforlearningatall(Collis&Moonen,2008).

InsearchofasolutiontothechallengeofusingWeb2.0technologiesforeducation,research

hasfocusedontwoprimaryangles.Thefirstexplorestheinfluenceofeducationalenvironments

ontheuseoftechnology(Brown,Dehoney,&Millichamp,2015;Fareed,2010;Mishraand

Koehler,2006;Shahsavar,2013).Thesecondangleexplorestheaffordancesoftechnologyfor

substitution,augmentation,modification,orredefinition(Puentedura,n.d.)ofthelearning

experience(Bower,2015;Drexler,Baralt,&Dawson,2008;Kuswara&Richards,2011;Looi,et

al.,2009;Sun&Chen,2014).Inthepast,researchershavesuggestedactivityframeworksasa

linkbetweenthelearningenvironmentandthetechnology(Conole&Fill,2005;Levin&

Bertram,1997),butthesehavenotbeenupdatedtoincludeWeb2.0capabilities.Nevertheless,

morerecentresearchcontinuestoemphasizeresponsibilityoftheeducatortobridgethis

applicationgapthroughthedesignoflearningactivities(Bower,2008;Collis&Moonen,2008).

Furthermore,asynthesisofmultiplestudies(Barnes&Tynan,2007;Collis&Moonen,2008;

Conole,2010;Diaz,2010;Oxnevad,2013;&Bower,2015)suggestsapreviouslyunrecognized

emergenceofseveralfundamentalelementsoflearningactivitydesign,whichenableeffective

selectionanduseofWeb2.0technologiesforeducation.

TheContextofWeb2.0Educationtechnologydoesnotexistinisolation,butispartof“anenvironmentor

ecosystem–adynamicinterconnected,ever-evolvingcommunityoflearners,instructors,tools

andcontent”(Brown,Dehoney,&Millichamp,2015).LearningManagementSystemshave

largelyfocusedon“thedisseminationofcontentandinformation”(Herrington&Kervin,2007),

buttheyhavepotentialtoincorporateWeb2.0processesthatenablealearningcontextin

whichtheuserassumesthedualroleofreceivingandcreatingcontent(Brown,etal.)Such

interactiveuseoftechnologyexemplifiestheread/writewebthatTimBernersLeeenvisioned

intheearlydaysofdevelopingtheinternet(Richardson,2010).Itisacontextinwhichthe

technologyprovidesaframeworkforanongoing,evolvingexchangewhosedatasourcesgrow

richerwithtime(O’Reilly,2007).

SeveralmodelshavebeenprofferedforanalysisanddesignofthisdynamicWeb2.0

learningenvironmentusingfactorsliketechnologyaffordance,pedagogy,content,andsocial

affordance(Fareed,2010;MishraandKoehler,2006;Shahsavar,2013).Forpurposesofthis

study,thefinaltwofactorsofcontentandsocialaffordanceareviewedasalens(likesubjectof

studyorageofstudents)throughwhichusersengagewiththeWeb2.0environment,rather

thanpartoftheenvironmentitself(Bates,2005;Cram&Richards,2008;Fowley,2008,2011;

Suthers,2012).Itisthecombinationoftechnologyandpedagogythatdetermineshowtheusers

willinteractwithcontentandotherusers.Furtherexplorationofresearchonthesetwofactors

revealsthatneithertechnologyaffordancesnorpedagogicalrequirementsontheirownare

sufficientfordesigninganeffectiveWeb2.0learningexperience.

ImplicationsofTechnologyAffordancesTomakesenseofthedizzyingspectrumofavailabletechnologies,manyresearchershave

madeuseoftheaffordanceframeworkdevelopedbyGibsonin1977todescribethe“available

functionalityoftheenvironmentwhetherornotitwasused”(Fowley,2011).Inadditiontothe

15conceptualisationsidentifiedbyFowley,affordanceshavetakenmanyshapesinthe

literature:functionalaffordances(Bower,2008),mobileaffordances(Looi,etal.,2009),social

affordances(Kuswara&Richards,2011),andamulti-dimensionalapproachtoaffordances(Sun

&Chen,2014).Theusefulnessofsuchframeworkscomesfromtheirabilitytoidentifyand

differentiatethebroadrangeofpotentialusesfortechnologyinagivensetting.Gibson(1979)

concedesthat“evenforthemost‘basic’affordances…perceptionmightneedtodevelopinsome

way”(ascitedinOliver,2005).Withoutsuch“perception,”theuserwillbeunabletotakefull

advantageofwhatthetechnologycando(Norman,1999).

Thesheernumberandvarietyofavailabletechnologiesmakesitdifficulttomaintainan

awarenessoftechnologicalaffordances.Bower’s(2015)taxonomyofWeb2.0toolsinvolved

lookingatover2000differentlinkstofind212technologiesusefulforteachingandlearning.

Researchersdevelopinganonlinedatabasehaveanalysedover800potentialtoolsforlearning

andteaching(Drexler,Baralt,&Dawson,2008),butthenumberofaffordancesforexistingtools

continuetogrow(Snowden&Boon,2007).Thisrapidlychangingsoftwarelandscapemeans

that“teacherscannolongerexpectoneortwotechnologistsataschooltokeepupwithallnew

developments”(Drexler,etal.,2008,p.282).

Evenifitwerepossibletoperceiveallaffordances,thisisnoguaranteethattheywouldbe

useful.Despitetheirabilitytoexplainwhattechnologycando,affordanceframeworksare

limitedintheirabilitytoexplainwhattechnologyshoulddo.Forthisreason,“technology-led

innovationsdonotinthemselvesleadtoimprovededucationalpractices”(Kirkwood&Price,

2013,p.333),butthereisa“dearth”ofresearchontheapplicationofWeb2.0toolstolearning

design(Bower,Hedberg,&Kuswara,2010).Inanattempttomakeuseofthesetools,some

researchershavesuggestednewpedagogicalparadigmslike‘onlinecollaborativelearning’

(Harasim,2012)orthe‘flippedclassroom’(Bergmann,2014).Thesupposedneedforsuch

proposalshighlightstheideathatinaneducationalcontextthetechnologyislessimportant

thanthe“educationalpurposeandactivity”thatitsupportsorenables(Kirkwood&Price,

2012).

ImplicationsofPedagogyAlthoughitiseasytoblamethetechnologyfordifficultieswithdesigningaWeb2.0learning

experience,manyresearcherssuggestthattherealproblemisactuallythepedagogyortheway

inwhichthetechnologyisapplied(Conole,2010;Gosper,Malfroy,&McKenzie,2013;

Herrington&Kervin,2007).Wheretechnologywaslinkedtoanimprovementinstudent

performance,researchersfoundthatitwasnotthepresenceofthetechnology,butthewayin

whichitwasusedthatdeterminedtheresults(Hew&Cheung,2013).Theysuggested,“certain

pedagogyandinstructionalstrategyshouldbedevelopedandpracticed,alongwiththeuseof

Web2.0technologies,inordertoachieveincreasedstudents’performance”(p.58).Ashort

overviewofsevenpedagogicalparadigmsexploressomeofthewaysinwhichpedagogymay

haveanimpactonthewaythattechnologyisused.

BehaviourismLearning,inbehaviourism,takesplaceasalearnerresponsetoanenvironmentshapedby

theteacherorthetechnology(McLeod,2013).Behaviouristtechnologyprovidesthis

environmentinwhichastimulusisprovidedandtheresponseofthestudentismeasured

(Merriam,Caffarella&Baumgartner,2007;Pavlov,1960).Withtime,studentsbegintoassociate

certainresponsestogivenstimulithroughtheuseofreinforcementliketheadditionofpositive

orremovalofnegativestimuli(Skinner,1953).Thetechnologyisoptimizedwiththeability“to

predict,giventhestimulus,whatreactionwilltakeplace”(Watson,1930)andshouldreward

goodeffort(Marchionini,2006).

CognitivismCognitivisttechnologycontinuestodependontheenvironmenttostimulatealearning

response,butenablesstudentstoreachhigherlevelsofcognitiveprocessing,likethose

identifiedbyBloom(1956),throughthesupportofmentalandrelationalsupportstructures

(McLeod,2008).Theselevels,asdefinedbyBloom’sRevisedTaxonomyprogressfrom

remember,understand,andapplytoanalyse,evaluate,andcreateresultinginhigherlevelsof

recall(Sousa,2011).Thetechnologicalenvironmentshouldreducecognitiveloadallowingthe

studenttofocusonessentialinformation(Reeves,1999;Sweller,Ayres&Kalyuga,2011),but

shouldalsousedidacticrelationshipsortoolstostimulatethestudenttowardgreatercognitive

complexity(Jenson,2015).

SocialCognitivismSocialcognitivesoftwareemphasisestheinfluenceofthelearningcommunity(Wenger,

1990)asasupportforthe“psychologicalmechanismsoftheselfsystem”thatleadto

measurableoutputs(Bandura,2001).Thisimpliesthatthesoftwareshouldenablethe

developmentofself-efficacy,exploredbyZimmerman(2002),andsomewaytomodelexamples

ofstudentbehaviour,exploredbyDewey(1938).Dependingonthesubjectandskilllevelofthe

learners,differentkindsofsupportswillbeneededfordifferentstagesofthelearningprocess

(Knowles,1986;Piaget,1964).

HumanismTheindividualratherthantheinformationtakesprecedenceinthehumanistlearning

environment(Montessori,2004).Humanisttechnologydoesnotdefineoutcomes,butan

experienceorencounterwithinformationthatstudentscanthendistilintooutcomesdefinedby

theirneedsandstrengthsaslearners(Gardner,1983),orpersonalorsocialinterests(Freire,

2010).ThefacilitatorshouldconsiderMaslow’s(1943)HierarchyofNeedsinestablishing

physicalcomfortforinteraction,safetyandsecurityonandoffline,asenseofbelongingand

community,andwaystoshowcaseaccomplishmentsinpursuitofaself-actualizinglearning

experience.

Self-DirectedSelf-directedlearningdependsontheindividualuserratherthantheenvironmenttodrive

thelearningprocess.Technologyshouldbeflexibleenoughtosupportthecognitive,

motivational,andbehaviouralneedsofdiverseindividualsintheirprocessofdevelopingself-

mastery(Zimmerman,2011).Thiscouldmeanmakingspacefordevelopingstrategies,taking

inventoryoftheirabilities,assessingtheirperformance,andreflectingonhowtoimprove.

Additionalsupportiveprocessesmaybeappliedtotechnologyenabling"self-evaluation,

organizationandtransformation,goalsettingandplanning,informationseeking,record-

keeping,self-monitoring,environmentalstructuring,rehearsingandmemorizing,seekingsocial

assistance,etc."(Zimmerman,1990,p.7).

ConstructivismKnowledge,inconstructivism,isaresultofinteraction(Piaget,1964)thatintentionally

buildsuponitselfinanindividualorsocialcontext(Dewey,1938).Itisnotafinishedproduct,

butisdependentupontheindividualforinterpretation(Kolb,1984).Forthisthetechnology

shouldenableconcreteexperiences,reflectiveobservation,abstractconceptualization,and

activeexperimentation.Reflectionisparticularlyimportanttothetransformationofthe

individual(Mezirow,1991).BothscaffoldingandZPD(zoneofproximaldevelopment)should

beprovidedbythetechnologytokeepthelearnerinastateofengagementjustbeyondwhat

theycouldreachontheirown(Vygotsky,1978).

ConnectivismSimilartoconstructivism,connectivismrecognizestherapidlyevolvingnatureofknowledge

andemphasizesthedevelopmentofaprocessthroughwhichindividualscanmanageaccessto

thatknowledge(Siemens,2004).Ratherthantransferringinformationtotheindividual,the

technologyshouldrecognizethatinformationexistsindigitalenvironmentsandenabletheuser

tocreateconnectionstotheseenvironments.Theroleofthelearneristomanagetheseexternal

knowledgeresourceseffectivelyratherthaninternalizingaknowledgebasethatwillsoonbe

outdated.

Web2.0ActivityFrameworkWithintheresearchfocusontheWeb2.0learningenvironmentortechnologyaffordances,a

thirdelementemergedasanintermediarylinkconnectingthesetwofactorsandenablingusers

todosomethingwiththeWeb2.0learningenvironment(Bower,2008;Collis&Moonen,2008;

Conole&Fill,2005;Levin&Bertram,1997).Thevalueofrecognizingtheimplicationsofthe

pedagogyortheaffordancesoftechnologyemergesinthewaythattheseareappliedineach

particularsetting(Gosper,Malfroy,&McKenzie,2013).Afterelaboratingonthefunctional

affordancesofWeb2.0technologies,Bower(2008)proposedamulti-stepprocessbywhich

educatorscouldbuildabridgebetweenthetechnologiesandtheireducationalgoalsby

identifyingaffordancesavailablefromtechnologyandaffordancesrequiredbyselected

educationaltasks.ThistaskframeworkwaspreviouslyemployedbyConoleandFill(2005)who

usedlearningactivitiesasthelinkbetweentheeducationalcontextandpotentialICTtools.

Theirapproachinvolvedassessingthecontext,choosingapedagogicalmodel,andthenusinga

rangeoftasks(enabledbytechnology)fromwhichtodesignaneffectivelearningexperience.

Therelevanceofthistask-basedapproachwasrecentlyreinforcedbyadescriptionofthe

teacher’sroleasprovidingstudentswiththe“resources”and“activities”thatempowerthemto

usetheinternetforlearning(Harasim,2012).Makingthisconnectionbetweentechnologyand

activitiessimpler,HewandCheung(2013)presentedaclassificationoftechnologyonthebasis

ofitsprimaryuseorfunctionality.Asimilarclassificationoftechnologybyfourfactorsofuse

hadpreviouslybeenpublishedin1997(Levin,2014).Theactivitybasedframeworkprovidesan

effectivelinkbetweenpedagogyandtechnologythatclarifieswhatuserscandotolearnina

digitalenvironment.

SevenElementsBuildingontheactivity-basedlinkbetweenpedagogyandtechnology,thisarticleupdates

thetaskframeworktomatchtheaffordancesofWeb2.0technologies.Fromthevarioussources

analysed,sevencategoriesoftasksemergedthatarehereafterreferredtoastheelementsof

learningactivities.Theseelementsarenotexhaustiveorexclusivebutwerecommonlyusedby

researchersasameansofdesigningeffectiveWeb2.0learningexperiences.Partiallyderived

fromtypologiesandframeworkspublishedbyBarnes

andTynan(2007),CollisandMoonen(2008),Conole

(2010),Diaz(2010),Oxnevad(2013),andBower

(2015)thesesevenelementsaresummarizedbythe

ResponsiveOpenLearningEnvironmentProjectby

16researchgroupsfromtheEUandChina(ROLE,

n.d.).

Althoughthetermsandgroupingsvary

dependingonthesource,thesevenelements

commonlyusedtodesignlearningactivitiesinclude:

plan(planandexplore),find(searchandget

recommendation),curate(organizeandevaluate),interact(view,train,manipulate,

communicate),create(create),publish(collaborateandcommunicate),andassess(reflect,test,

evaluate).Thecloserelationshipbetweenassessmentanditspotentialimpactuponthe

planningprocessprovidedtherationalebehindconsideringtheseelementsasacycle[Figure1].

Thoughtheymaynotalwaysappearinorderorrequirealltheotherstoexistinaparticular

learningactivity,theelementsoftenappearsubsequenttooneanother(create-publish,find-

curate,assess-plan).

Eachoftheelementsisdescribedinfurtherdetailbelowwithsuggestionson

implementation,bestpractices,importantconsiderations,andrelevanttechnologies.The

Figure1

Plan

Find

Curate

Interact

Create

Publish

Assess

attempthereisnottoprovideaconcretedefinitionforeachelement,buttoprovideastarting

pointforfurtherresearchoneachoneasameansofdesigninglearningactivitiesfortheWeb

2.0environment.

PlanWithoutthetask,thetechnology,theteacher,orsomeinternalschematoguidetheir

approachtotechnologyuse,studentswillbeoverwhelmedwiththecomplexityofthe

environmentandrespondwithshallowlearningorpoorperformance(Woo&Reeves,2007).

Forthisreason,planningisoftenaroleassignedtoteacherswhowritesyllabi,make

announcementsontheLMS,orsomehowdirectstudentuseofthetechnologyforlearning.In

theWeb2.0environment,however,researchhasfoundthatstudentsarebecomingincreasingly

responsibleforthedesignoftheirlearningexperience(Collis&Moonen,2008).Atthesame

time,learninganalyticshavedevelopedtothepointwhereassessmentofstudentperformance

canassistinthedesignofcustomizedlearningpathways(Buckingham-Shum,2014).

Oneofthemostsuccessfulplansfortheuseoftechnologyisdesignedbytheproducersof

thehitgameCandyCrush.Usingtasksandtechnologytoaddicttheusertoovercomingaseries

ofmentalchallenges,theplanisdesignedwithconsiderationofanthedigitalenvironment,

emotion,behaviouralfeedback,rewards,scaffoldedchallenges,encouragement,social

comparison,andmanyotherfactorsthatseemtocomestraightfromeducationaltheory

(Varonis&Varonis,2015).Thesameprocessisusedbymanygamestoinspireuserstodirect

theirobjectivesandefforttowardanimprovementofabilities-importanttothedevelopmentof

socialandmentalprocesses(Amory,Naicker,Vincent,&Adams,1999).Borrowingfromgame

designerstocreateaneffectivemapforeducationalchallengeshasledtoimpressivereportson

studentengagement(Yeh,2013).Howeverthestandardsfordesigningthistypeofcontentare

difficulttoachieve(Bull,etal.,2010),andteachersmaywishtofocustheireffortsonhelping

studentsapplytheirpre-existingmodelsoftechnologyuseinanacademiccontext(Sternberg,

2012)ratherthancreatingcontent.

FindThechallengeofsearchintheWeb2.0environmentisnotaboutfindingtherightanswer-a

simplequeryonGooglewillreturnabout1millionofthem.Thechallengeisaskingtheright

question.Inordertolearn,studentsneedtofindinformation,resources,people,experiences,

andlearningopportunities.Inaformalacademicsettingresourcesforlearningarescreened

andprovidedbyaninstitution,butthissafetynetdisappearsonline.Searchengineshavemade

searchingmucheasierbyeliminatingthe“gruntwork”ofwalkingthroughstacksofbooks,

thumbingthroughfiles,orinterviewingexperts(Hew&Cheung,2013).However,Pariser(2011)

warnedthatleavingtheprocessoffindinguptothesearchengineshasreducedourexposureto

informationasalgorithmshaveadifficulttimekeepingfromsimplyperpetuatingpopularlinks.

SpecializedsearchengineslikeWolframAlpha,SearchVisualizer,orBingAcademicoffera

greaterlevelofcontrolandcomplexitytotheirusers,buteventhisisnotusefulwithoutsome

senseofhowtoapproachthesearchingprocesseffectively(White,2008).A2008studyof

academicsearchenginesshowedthateachonecamewithitsownuniquesetofstrengthsand

weaknessesindicatingthatthisisonelearningelementthatmaywarrantfurtherconsideration

(Falagas,Pitsouni,Malietzis,&Pappas).

CurateCurationsoftwaremaybethetransformingfeatureofeducationexclaimedGood(2012).

Whilesuchastatementmaybeoverlyzealous,curationtoolsholdmanyexcitingpossibilities

forlearningastheyseemdesignedtomeettheconnectivistdemandforcreatingmeansof

managingandaccessinginformationratherthansimplyrememberingit(Siemens,2004).The

elementofcurationdetermineswhatwillbestoredwhereandinwhatcontextorformat.

Dropbox,Evernote,citationsoftware,andcloudstorageallowforthecollectionand

organizationandevaluationofinformationacrossmultipleplatforms.Addressbooksandsocial

networkscurategroupsofpeople.Somecurationprocessesarecrowdsourced(Wikipedia),

someareproducedbyalgorithms(Pandora)andothersbypersonaleffort(Spotify).

Bookmarkingservices(Pocket),taggingservices(folksonomies–White,2008),andeven

sharingservices(Hootsuite)allowforthecollectionandsortingofinformation,people,and

activities.Pinterest’sblendofsocialandcurationtechnologiesaroundimagesthatmayleadto

thedevelopmentofasocialsearchprocess(DeAmicis,2014),butReddit‘sfeaturesfor

organizingandrankinginformationprobablymakeitthemostfamouswebcurationservice.

InteractBeforetheread/writeweb,internetpublishersdiscoveredthattheycouldincreasethe

amountofinteractionwiththeircontentbycreatingamoreengaginguserexperience.Users

didn’tjustwanttoobservecontent,theywantedtoread,click,annotate,manipulate,andmove

thingsaroundintheirenvironmentengagingtheirsocial,cognitive,andemotionalfaculties(Lu

&卢洁,2012).Multipleauthorshavestudiedthepotentialforwebtechnologiestoprovidemore

engagingandflexiblekindsofinteractionsthatleadtoimprovedstudentperformance(Hill,

2014;Shahsavar,Hoon,Thai,&Samah,2013).Examplesofcomplexinteractionswithpeople,

information,oractivitiesmaylooklikeproceedingthroughthechallengesofferedbyalanguage

learningprogramlikeDuolingo,orchattingviaSkypewithaforeignlanguageinstructor.It

couldbeinvestingtimeinchoppingblocksandrunningaroundtheMinecraftinterface

collectingitemsrequiredforbuildingthingsorwatchingvideosofotherplayersdoingthesame

thingonVimeo.Itmayinvolvetestingcodeinprogrammingsandboxesorproceedingthrough

theactivitiesinazyBook.

CreateCreationisawell-knownaspectofBloom’sTaxonomyandisacentralelementinthiscycle

becauseitmarksashiftfromthestudent’sfunctionasaconsumerofinformationand

experiencestobecomingaco-creatorofthelearningconversation.Fowley(2011)exploredthis

collaborativeprocessindepthwithherdissertationstudyofbloggersanddeterminedthat

blogsareanexampleofanartefact“definedbythepresenceofaliteraryspace,asocialspace,

andatechnologicalspace.”Web2.0technologieshaveenabledanewtypeofknowledge

creationinwhichtheinformationisnottransferred,butsharedanddevelopedina“trialogue”

betweentheindividual,nature,andthecommunity(Ibid).Thisisnotuniquethecreationstage

aspublishingserviceslikeAcademia.eduallowuserstoselectwhetherornottoparticipatein

collaborativelyassessingorrefiningthissharedartefact.Someauthorsrecommendasocially

translucentcreativeprocess(Erickson&Kellogg,2000)thatenablesotherstoobservethe

developmentoftheartefactandlearnthroughthispassiveformofinteraction(Demski,2013).

PublishInWeb2.0studentscan‘allparticipateaspublishers’(Brown,2010).Publicationisthe

meansbywhichthecreatedartefactofanindividualorcommunityismadeavailabletothe

broadercommunityinanexchangethatmaintainstheflowoflearning(Demski,2013).Within

thiscyclethelearnerhasthedualroleof“areceiverandacreatorofcontent”(Brown,Dehoney,

&Millichap,2015).Thistransmissionofinformation,identifiedbyFowley(2011)asaprimary

functionoftheclassroomenjoysagreaterrangeofaffordancesthroughtheinternet.Social

mediaplatformslikeFacebookandTwitterthriveonthepublicationandrepublicationof

contentbyindividualandcorporateusersthatcreatesakindofongoingsocialconversation.In

thisWeb2.0setting,sharingorpublicationis“non-traditional,”“informal,”and“muchshorter”

(Brown,2008ascitedinWhite,2008).Muchofweb2.0publicationhappensasynchronously,

butchatapplicationsthroughmobileanddesktopdevices(Skype,AdobeConnect,WeChat)

enableinstantaneouscyclesofpublicationandengagementthroughsynchronousconversation

orcollaborationthatarereminiscentoftheclassroommodel.

Assess“Theassessmenthasbecomealearningopportunity,”saidEricMazur,aprofessorat

HarvardUniversity(Demski,2013).The‘coursemodel’ofpedagogywillbereplacedbyafully

developedsystemofanalyticsthatresponsivelycustomizethelearningplandescribedasthe

firstelementinthiscycle(Siemens,2010/2013).Informationandcommunicationtechnologies

ineducationalplatformsenablepreciseandpersonalizedmeasurementsoftheindividual

learner(Suthers,2012).Thisdatahasthepotentialtoinformmultiplestagesofthelearning

processinthecontextofMOOCsorformalLMSsystemslikeMoodleorBlackboard(Wilson&

Mai,2014).However,Grayetal(2012)describedthechallengethatacademicsfaceinassessing

Web2.0learningatadeeperlevelthanclicks,views,andposts.Essayanalyticsmoveonestep

beyondthiswithautomaticsummariesandassessmentoffreestylewriting(VanLabeke,

Whitelock,Field,Pulman,&Richardson,2013),butthereisstillroomfordevelopmentofmore

effectivetoolsofassessment.ForexampleStanfordisresearchingthepotentialforartificial

intelligencetoassessandmeasureavarietyofinputsfromstudentsto“characterizetheir

learningoverextendedperiodsoftime”(Bumbacher,Schneider,Worsley,&Blikstein,2013).

IntersectionofActivity(What)andPedagogy(How)Thestruggletoimprovestudentperformancethroughtheuseoftechnologyisnotanissue

oftechnology,orevenofpedagogy,butofthedifficultyinbridgingthegapbetweenwhat

studentsneed(pedagogy)andwhatthetechnologycando(affordance).Researchhassuggested

theuseofanactivityframeworkwithsevencommonelementswithwhichuserscanidentify

whattodowithWeb2.0technologiesforlearning.Carryingthisresearchonestepfurther,the

variouselementsofactivitydesigncanbeviewedinlightofthepedagogicalframeworksthat

influencehowtechnologiesareused.Theframeworkof

sevenactivityelementsinconjunctionwiththe

influenceofthepedagogicalparadigmsenables

educatorstoidentifywhattodowithtechnologyand

howthisshouldbedone[Figure2].Forexample,within

theelementofpublishing,thehumanistmodelwillbe

concernedwiththeimpactoftheprocessontheidentity

oftheindividual(e.g.academia.edu),wherethe

behaviouristmodelwillattempttocreateastimulusto

whichpublicationisthemeasurableresponse

(turnitin.com).Thewikiisatechnologythatblends

multiplemodelstogetherinasingleplatform.Whatthestudentpostsislikelyaresponseto

somepromptbytheprofessor(behaviourism)thatcreatesaconnectionwithotherresources

(connectivism),tocrowdsourceaknowledgebase(constructivism)thathasanimpactonthe

learningcommunity(socialcognitivism).

Whenthesevenelementsofthelearningcycleaboveintersectwiththesevenpedagogical

frameworksdescribedinthefirstsection,49uniquetechnologicalenvironmentsemerge.

Descriptionsorexamplesoftechnologyforeachintersectionofactivityandpedagogycanbe

foundintheappendixorafullyinteractiveversiononline.Therequirementstosupportthese

Ac4vity(What)

Technology(Affordance)

Pedagogy(How)

Figure2

combinationofwhatandhowwilldeterminewhichtechnologieshavetherightaffordancesto

beadoptedintoaparticularlearningcontext(Hew&Cheung,2013).Inresponsetothechaotic

useofconstructivisminclassrooms,Dewey(1938)observedthatexperiencewithouta

roadmapisnothelpfultostudentlearning.Likewise,technologyusersneedaroadmapwith

whichtodesignaneffectivelearningexperience.Withoutsuchaselectionprocess,usersriska

mismatchbetweenthemediumofthetechnologyandtheintentionsoftheeducationalprogram

(White,2008).

Justaslearningdesignmaybeinformedbythetechnology,sotechnologydesignmight

benefitfromthepedagogyappliedtoitsuse.SuccessfulWeb2.0applicationslikeFacebookand

CandyCrushincludeallofthesevenelementsinsomeform.Inorderforsoftwareto

differentiateitselffromcurrentofferings,itmaybehelpfultokeepinmindthatsomeofthe49

intersectionsoftheelementsandpedagogicalparadigmsprovideablueoceanofopportunities

fordevelopment.Forexample,manyeducationtechnologiesoverlooktheplanandfindstage

becauseofabehaviouralcontextofpedagogyinwhichthesefunctionsareperformedbythe

teacher.However,intheWeb2.0context,afeaturethatenablesindividualsandgroupsto

developtheirownschemafortheuseofinformation,activities,andhumanresourcesinan

onlineenvironmentshouldbewell-received.Similarly,veryfewtechnologiesexistthatoffer

usersaccesstoallsevenelementswithinasinglepedagogicalframework(e.g.Twitterlimitsits

functionalitytoaconnectivistframework)ortomultiplepedagogicalframeworksforasingle

element(e.g.sharingwidgetscoulddifferentiatethemselvesbymorethanthecolourrangeof

theirbuttonsiftheyrecognizedthatpublishinghasdifferentdemandsdependingonthe

pedagogicalapproachinwhichitisapplied).

LimitationsandRecommendationsWhilesupportedbyawiderangeofexistingresearch,theelementssuggestedinthisstudy

maybemoredifficulttouseinpracticethantheyweretodevelopintheory.Additionally,the

relationshipoftheseactivityelementstothevariouspedagogicalparadigmsissomewhat

unusual,thoughverynecessarytotheselectionofwhichtechnologyaffordanceswillbeuseful.

Furthermore,theambiguousnatureanddiverserangeofbothelementsandpedagogicalmodels

maylimittheabilityofpractitionerstoapplytheseconcepts.Theexamplesof49intersections

oftheelementsandpedagogiesarejustastartingpointfromwhichtostretchthelimitationsof

currentthinkingonthewayinwhichtechnologyisdesignedandusedineducation.Timeand

spacelimitedtheirfulldevelopmentandexplorationinthisstudy,buttheseandother

intersectionswouldbeprofitabletopursuefurtherinthefuture.

Anadditionalhurdletothevalueofthisproposalisthelackofanycomprehensiveresource

fordeterminingwhichtechnologiesbestsupportcertainactivitiesandpedagogicalframeworks.

Eveninthisstudy,thetechnologiesexaminedwerenotparticularlydesignedforeducation(e.g.

Google,Skype,andTwitter)andmaybemorechallengingtoappropriateforeducationthan

bespokeapplications.Variousreviewsoftwareexists,butnonethatenablescrowdsourcingof

informationaboutwhatelements,pedagogicalapproaches,agegroups,class-sizes,etc.

influencedtheselectionanduseofacertaintechnology.Thisresourcewouldbeavaluable

sourceofideasforhowtousetechnology,andwhichtechnologytouse.

ConclusionBecauseusersdon’tknowwhattodowithWeb2.0technologies,theyhavebeenappliedin

highereducationwithdisputablesuccess.Researchindicatesthatsuccessfulengagementwith

learningintheWeb2.0environmentrequiresanactivityframeworktocreateabridgebetween

learningenvironmentsandtechnologyaffordances.Analysisoftheresearchhasidentified

severalelementsoflearningactivitiesthateducatorscanuseforlearningdesignwithWeb2.0

technologies.ThesesevenelementsidentifywhattodowithWeb2.0technologieswhilethe

sevenpedagogicalparadigmsinformhowtheseactivitiesshouldtakeplace.Considered

together,thesesuggest49uniquepedagogy/activityintersectionsthatcouldinformthe

selectionandintegrationoftechnologyorthedevelopmentoffuturetechnologyaffordances

andpedagogicalpractices.Futureresearchontheseelementsshouldstudytheirimpactand

identifybestpracticesfortheirapplicationinmultiplepedagogicalcontextsofteachingand

learningintheWeb2.0environment.

ReferencesAmory,A.,Naicker,K.,Vincent,J.,&Adams,C.(1999).Theuseofcomputergamesasan

educationaltool:Identificationofappropriategametypesandgameelements.British

JournalofEducationalTechnology,30(4),311-321.doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00121

Bandura,A.(2001).Socialcognitivetheory:Anagenticperspective.AnnualReviewofPsychology,

52,1-26.

Barnes,C.&Tynan,B.(2007).TheadventuresofMirandainthebravenewworld:Learningina

Web2.0millennium.ResearchinLearningTechnology,15(3),189-200.

Bates,A.T.(2005).Technology,e-learninganddistanceeducation.London:Routledge.

Bennett,S.,Bishop,A.,Dalgarno,B.,Waycott,J.,&Kennedy,G.(2012).ImplementingWeb2.0

technologiesinhighereducation:Acollectivecasestudy.Computers&Education,59(2),

524-534.

Bloom,B.(1956).Taxonomyofeducationalobjectives;theclassificationofeducationalgoals.New

York,NY:Longmans,Green.

Bergmann,J.(2014).Flipped-learningtoolkit:Let’stalktech[Blogpost].Retrievedfrom

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/flipped-learning-lets-talk-tech-jon-bergmann

Bower,M.(2008).Affordanceanalysis–matchinglearningtaskswithlearningtechnologies.

EducationalMediaInternational,45(1),3-15.

Bower,M.(2015).DerivingatypologyofWeb2.0learningtechnologies.BritishJournalof

EducationalTechnology.doi:10.1111/bjet.12344

Bower,M.,Hedberg,J.G.,&Kuswara,A.(2010).AframeworkforWeb2.0learningdesign.

EducationalMediaInternational,47(3),177-198.

Brown,S.(2010).FromVLEstolearningwebs:theimplicationsofWeb2.0forlearningand

teaching.InteractiveLearningEnvironments,18(1),1-10.

Brown,M.,Dehoney,J.,&Millichap,N.(2015).What'sNextforLMS?EDUCAUSEReview50(4)

Retrievedfromhttp://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/whats-next-for-the-lms

Bruner,J.(1960)Theprocessofeducation.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Bryson,J.M.(1995).Strategicplanningforpublicandnonprofitorganizations:aguideto

strengtheningandsustainingorganizationalachievement(Rev.ed.).SanFrancisco,CA:

Jossey-Bass

Buckingham-Shum,S.(2014).Howdolearninganalytics“act”ineducation?[Slideshow].

Retrievedfromhttp://simon.buckinghamshum.net/2014/05/how-do-learning-

analytics-act-in-education/

Bull,G.,Thompson,A.,Searson,M.,Garofalo,J.,Park,J.,Young,C.,&Lee,J.(2008).Connecting

informalandformallearningexperiencesintheageofparticipatorymedia.

ContemporaryIssuesinTechnologyandTeacherEducation,8(2),100-107.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.citejournal.org/vol8/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm

Bumbacher,E.,Schneider,B.,Worsley,M.,&Blikstein,P.(2013).Multimodallearninganalytics

[Webpage].Retrievedfromhttps://tltl.stanford.edu/project/multimodal-learning-

analytics

Collis,B.,&Moonen,J.(2008).Web2.0toolsandprocessesinhighereducation:Quality

perspectives.EducationalMediaInternational,45(2),93-106.

Conole,G.(2010).Facilitatingnewformsofdiscourseforlearningandteaching:Harnessingthe

powerofWeb2.0practices.OpenLearning,25(2),141-151.

Conole,G.&Fill,K.(2005).Alearningdesigntoolkittocreatepedagogicallyeffectivelearning

activities.JournalofInteractiveMediainEducation,2005(08).

DeAmicis,C.(2014).Ifgooglesearchisforinformation,Pinterestwantstobesearchfor

inspiration[Blogpost].PandaMedia.Retrieved

fromhttps://pando.com/2014/04/25/if-google-search-is-for-information-pinterest-

wants-to-be-search-for-inspiration/

Demski,J.(2013).6ExpertTipsforFlippingtheClassroom.Retrievedfromhttp://www.cetla.howard.edu/teaching_strategies/docs/expertFlipping.pdf

Dewey,J.(1938).Experienceandeducation.NewYork,NY:Macmillan.Diaz,V.(2010).Web2.0andemergingtechnologiesinonlinelearning.NewDirectionsfor

CommunityColleges,2010(150),57-66.

Drexler,W.,Baralt,A.,&Dawson,K.(2008).TheTeachWeb2.0Consortium:Atooltopromote

educationalsocialnetworkingandWeb2.0useamongeducators.EducationalMedia

International,45(4),271-283.

Erickson,T.,&Kellogg,W.A.(2000).Socialtranslucence:Anapproachtodesigningsystemsthat

supportsocialprocesses.ACMtransactionsoncomputer-humaninteraction(TOCHI),

7(1),59-83.

Falagas,M.E.,Pitsouni,E.I.,Malietzis,G.A.,&Pappas,G.(2008).ComparisonofPubMed,Scopus,

webofscience,andGooglescholar:strengthsandweaknesses.TheFASEBjournal,22(2),

338-342.

Fareed,W.(2010).Affordancesanalysisofanaudioblogandsuggestionsforitsrecruitmentand

useinorallessons.InternationalJournalofInstructionalTechnologyandDistance

Learning,7,55-65.Retrievedfromhttp://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_10/article04.htm

Fowley,C.(2011).PublishingtheConfidential(Doctoraldissertation,DublinCityUniversity).

http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11310467.pdf

Freire,P.(2010).Pedagogyoftheoppressed(30thanniversaryed.).NewYork,NY:Continuum.

Gardner,H.(1983).Framesofmind:Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences.NewYork,NY:Basic

Books.

Good,R.(2012).Whycurationwilltransformeducationandlearning:10keyreasons[Blog

post].Retreivedfromhttp://www.masternewmedia.org/curation-for-education-and-

learning/

Gray,K.,Waycott,J.,Clerehan,R.,Hamilton,M.,Richardson,J.,Sheard,J.,&Thompson,C.(2012).

Worthit?Findingsfromastudyofhowacademicsassessstudents’Web2.0activities.

ResearchinLearningTechnology,20.Retrievedfrom

http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/16153

Harasim,L.(2012).Learningtheoryandonlinetechnology.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Herrington,J.,&Kervin,L.(2007).Authenticlearningsupportedbytechnology:Tensuggestions

andcasesofintegrationinclassrooms.EducationalMediaInternational,44(3),219-236.

Hew,K.F.,&Cheung,W.S.(2013).UseofWeb2.0technologiesinK-12andhighereducation:

Thesearchforevidence-basedpractice.EducationalResearchReview,9,47-64.

Hill,P.(2014).WhiteHousereportonbigdatawillimpactedtech[Blogpost].

http://mfeldstein.com/white-house-report-big-data-will-impact-ed-tech/

Jenson,K.(2015).Behindthescreens:Developingadigitallearningliteracy.Retrievedfrom

https://www.academia.edu/12279274/Behind_the_Screens_Developing_a_Digital_Lear

ning_Literacy

Johnson,L.,AdamsBecker,S.,Cummins,M.,Freeman,A.,Ifenthaler,D.,&Vardaxis,N.(2013).

TechnologyoutlookforAustraliantertiaryeducation2013-2018:AnNMCHorizon

Projectregionalanalysis.Austin,Texas:TheNewMediaConsortium.

Kirkwood,A.,&Price,L.(2013).Missing:Evidenceofascholarlyapproachtoteachingand

learningwithtechnologyinhighereducation.TeachinginHigherEducation,18(3),327-

337.

Kolb,D.(1984).Experientiallearning:Experienceasthesourceoflearninganddevelopment.

EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Kuswara,A.U.,&Richards,D.(2011).RealisingthepotentialofWeb2.0forcollaborative

learningusingaffordances.JournalofUniversalComputerScience,17(2),311-331.

Retrievedfrom

http://jucs.org/jucs_17_2/realising_the_potential_of/jucs_17_02_0311_0331_kuswara.p

df

Lei,J.(2010).Quantityversusquality:Anewapproachtoexaminetherelationshipbetween

technologyuseandstudentoutcomes.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,41(3),

455-472.

Levin,J.A.(2014).Taxonomiesofeducationaltechnologyuses:Dewey,Chipandme.E-Learning

andDigitalMedia11(5).Retrievedfrom

http://ldm.sagepub.com/content/11/5/439.full.pdf+html

Looi,C.K.,Wong,L.H.,So,H.J.,Seow,P.,Toh,Y.,Chen,W.,...&Soloway,E.(2009).Anatomyofa

mobilizedlesson:Learningmyway.Computers&Education,53(4),1120-1132.

Retrievedfrom

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013150900133X

Lu,J.,&卢洁.(2012).Usingsocialnetworkingenvironmentstosupportlearningengagement

inhighereducation(Doctoraldissertation,TheUniversityofHongKong(Pokfulam,Hong

Kong)).Retrievedfromhttp://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/188742

Marchionini,G.(2006).Towardhuman-computerinformationretrieval[Lecture].The

InformationAssociationfortheInformationAge.Retrievedfrom

http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-06/marchionini.html

Maslow,A.H.(1943).Atheoryofhumanmotivation.PsychologicalReview,50(4),370.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.researchhistory.org/2012/06/16/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/

McLeod,S.A.(2008).“Bruner”.Retrievedfromhttp://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.

McLeod,S.A.(2013).BehaviouristApproach.Retrievedfromwww.simplypsychology.org/behaviorism.html

Merriam,S.B.,Caffarella,R.S.,&Baumgarther,L.M.(2007).Learninginadulthood.San

Francisco:Jossey-Bass.11(4),275-281

Mezirow,J.(1991).TransformativeDimensionsofAdultLearning.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Mishra,P.,&Koehler,M.(2006).Technologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge:Aframeworkforteacherknowledge.TheTeachersCollegeRecord,108(6),1017-1054.

Montessori,M.(2004).TheMontessorimethod:Theoriginsofaneducationalinnovation:IncludinganabridgedandannotatededitionofMariaMontessori'sTheMontessorimethod(G.Gutek,Ed.).Lanham,MD.:Rowman&Littlefield.

Norman,D.A.(1999).Affordance,conventions,anddesign.Interactions,6(3),38–43.

O’Reilly,T.(2007).Whatisweb2.0:Designpatternsandbusinessmodelsforthenext

generationofsoftware.Communications&Strategies65,17-37.Retrievedfrom

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4578/1/MPRA_paper_4578.pdf

Oliver,M.(2005).Theproblemwithaffordance.E-LearningandDigitalMedia,2(4),402-413.

Oxnevad,S.(2013).Digitaldifferentiation[Blogpost].CoolToolsfor21stCenturyLearners.

Retrievedfromhttp://d97cooltools.blogspot.com.au/p/digital-

differentiation.html#.Vin6tdIrKUk

Pariser,E.(2011).Bewareonlinefilterbubbles[Videofile].TEDConferencePresentation.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Pavlov,I.(1960).Conditionedreflexes:Aninvestigationofthephysiologicalactivityofthecerebral

cortex.NewYork,NY:DoverPublications.

Piaget,J.(1964).Developmentandlearning.inR.E.Ripple&V.N.Rockcastle(eds.),Piaget

Rediscovered(pp.7-20).Retrievedfrom

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/35piaget64.pdf

Puentedura,R.(n.d.).SAMRModel[Webpage].Retrievedfrom

https://sites.google.com/a/msad60.org/technology-is-learning/samr-model

Reeves,W.(1999).Learner-centreddesign:Acognitiveviewofmanagingcomplexityinproduct,

information,andenvironmentaldesign.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Richardson,W.(2010).Blogs,wikis,podcasts,andotherpowerfulwebtoolsforclassrooms.

ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Rogers,C.(1951).Client-centeredtherapy:Itscurrentpractice,implications,andtheory.Boston,

MA:HoughtonMifflin.

ROLE.(n.d.).About[Webpage].Retrievedfromhttp://role-widgetstore.eu/about

Shahsavar,Z.(2013).PracticingSocraticquestioninginablendedlearningenvironment:An

innovativestrategytopromotecriticalthinking.InternationalJournalofSocialMedia

andInteractiveLearningEnvironments,1(2),184-198.

Shahsavar,Z.,Hoon,T.B.,Thai,Y.N.,&Samah,B.A.(2013).Promotingtertiarylevelstudents’

criticalthinkingthroughtheuseofSocraticquestioningontheblog.SocialSciences&

Humanities,21,57-70.

Siemens,G.(2004).Connectivism:Alearningtheoryforthedigitalage.InternationalJournalof

InstructionalTechnologyandDistanceLearning,2(1).Retrievedfrom:

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Siemens,G.(2010).Whatarelearninganalytics?[Blogpost].Retrievedfrom

http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/08/25/what-are-learning-analytics/

Siemens,G.(2013).Introtolearninganalytics[Videofile].Retrievedfrom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqETXdq68vY

Skinner,B.F.(1953).Scienceandhumanbehavior.Retrievedfrom

http://www.bfskinner.org/product/science-and-human-behavior-pdf/

Snowden,D.J.,&Boone,M.E.(2007).Aleader'sframeworkfordecisionmaking.Harvard

BusinessReview,85(11).

Sousa,D.A.(2011).Howthebrainlearns.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin

Sternberg,J.(2012).‘It'stheendoftheuniversityasweknowit(andIfeelfine)’:The

GenerationYstudentinhighereducationdiscourse.HigherEducationResearch&

Development,31(4),571-583.

Sun,H.,&Chen,L.(2014).AframeworkforanalysingthesocialaffordanceofWeb2.0tools.

InternationalJournalofSocialMediaandInteractiveLearningEnvironments,2(1),37-59.

doi:10.1504/IJSMILE.2014.059695

Suthers,D.(2012).Connectinglevelsandmethodsofanalysisinnetworkedlearning

communities[Blogpost].Retrievedfrom

http://engaged.hnlc.org/story_comments/list/17

Sweller,J.,Ayres,P.,&Kalyuga,S.(2011).Cognitiveloadtheory:Explorationinthelearning

sciences,instructionalsystemsandperformancetechnology.NewYork,NY:Springer.

Tondeur,J.,VanBraak,J.,&Valcke,M.(2007).Towardsatypologyofcomputeruseinprimary

education.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,23(3),197-206.doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2729.2006.00205.x

VanLabeke,N.,Whitelock,D.,Field,D.,Pulman,S.,&Richardson,J.T.E.(2013,April).

‘OpenEssayist:extractivesummarisationandformativeassessmentoffree-textessays’,

Proceedingsofthe1stInternationalWorkshoponDiscourse-CentricLearningAnalytics,

Leuven,Belgium,April2013.Retrievedfrom

http://oro.open.ac.uk/37548/1/LAK%20final.pdf

Varonis,E.M.,&Varonis,M.E.(2015).DeconstructingCandyCrush:Whatinstructionaldesign

canlearnfromgamedesign.TheInternationalJournalofInformationandLearning

Technology,32(3),150-164.doi:10.1108/IJILT-09-2014-0019

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978)MindinSociety.Cambridge,MA:Harvard

Watson,J.B.(1930).Behaviourism(revisededition).Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Way,J.,&Webb,C.(2007).AframeworkforanalysingICTadoptioninAustralianprimary

schools.AustralasianJournalofEducationalTechnology,23(4).

Wenger,E.(1990).Towardatheoryofculturaltransparency.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,

UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine.

White,G.(2008).ICTtrendsineducation.DigitalLearningResearch,2.

Wilson,L.,&Mai,P.(2014).LearninganalyticsandMOOCs:Apathtoimprovingeducational

qualityaccess?SocialMediaLab[Blogpost].Retrievedfrom

http://socialmedialab.ca/2014/learning-analytics-and-moocs-a-path-to-improving-

education-quality-access/

Woo,Y.,&Reeves,T.C.(2007).Meaningfulinteractioninweb-basedlearning:Asocial

constructivistinterpretation.TheInternetandHigherEducation,10(1),15-25.

Yeh,P.C.(2013).PaGamO,theworld’sfirsteverMOOC-basedmulti-studentsocialgame

platform[Videofile].Retrievedfrom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=428&v=WKAWPqRtIe0

Zimmerman,B.J.(1990).Self-regulatedlearningandacademicachievement:Anoverview.

EducationalPsychologist,25(1),3-17.

Zimmerman,B.J.(2002).Becomingaself-regulatedlearner:Anoverview.TheoryIntoPractice,

41(2),64-70.

Zimmerman,B.J.(2011).BarryZimmermandiscussesself-regulatedlearningprocesses.

ThomsonReuters.Retrievedfromhttp://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/erf/2011/

11decerf/11decerfZimm/

Appendix[Figure3]