This paper is written as a reflection on my own context through the learning supported by, and personal experience of participating in the CCK08 Course.

Emergent issues include:

·         A clear definition of my own facilitation context

·         The creation a definition of connectivism that is able to be grounded in practice within which the roles and transactions in my own context can be situated and understood

·         The development of a grounded understanding of the nature of groups and networks in an online environment

·         Refining an understanding of the role of facilitator in maintaining a connected learning environment,

·         The role of emotions as a predisposition to networked learning.

The context for this paper is the Alpha Community[1] – a group of individuals seeking accreditation through professional learning, and the compilation of an ePortfolio written to a set of indicators.

The focus of the community was planned to be Connectivist – identifying individuals as having their own learning networks, linking new learning to existing sources, connecting individuals networks to other group members.  The theory of Connectivism is purposefully examined in the community through the writings and publications of George Siemens and Stephen Downes alongside a range of other learning theories.  A second focus of the community is to develop an understanding by participants of both the capacity of ICT to enable the transformation of learning in school students, but also ICT as transformative of our perceptions about adult learning and professional development of colleagues. Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory of Learning is studied through the perspectives of Jack Mezirow , John Dirkx and Judith Cranton (Mezirow, 2000; Cranton et al, 2008; Dirkz et al, 2006; ). 

The Alpha Community has had two iterations and is running into the third in early 2009.

Siemens (2008a) compares Connectivism to other learning theories within Mergel’s comparative framework (Mergel, 1998).  Connectivism may be summarised as enabling learning through a distributive, social network which is enhanced by technology.  Individuals learn by recognizing and interpreting patterns.  Learning is influenced by the diversity of network and the strength of ties within the network.  Learners adapt new learning to their current state, connecting to new nodes of information.  In this way, diverse knowledge sources are used to generate complex and changing learning.  The role of network in supporting learning is a core element of connectivism (Siemens, 2005), consisting of nodes of static, dynamic and/or self-updating information between which connections are made through interaction. 

This description rings a bell for Queensland P-12 teachers, particularly in light of current Queensland syllabus initiatives, namely The Essential Learnings (QSA, 2007) which certainly value core learning, but beyond that value the capacity of learners to connect to a range of information sources, both electronic and human through the use of ICT.  The focus is no longer about knowledge ‘possession’ but about the ways in which knowledge is accessed and transformed within an existing framework.  The Essential Learnings in highlighting “Ways of Working” for each Key Learning Area acknowledges that it is the interaction, updating and dynamic nature of knowledge that is important for future learning success.

Beyond this, because the syllabus is the document within which teachers operate, the concept of connectivism and networked learning has become of primary importance for teachers in Queensland. 

The principles of Connectivism (Siemens, 2005) consist of 8 attributes:

Principle 1: Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

Principle 2: Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

Principle 3: Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

Principle 4: Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known

Principle 5: Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

Principle 6: Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

Principle 7: Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

Principle 8: Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

The overarching characteristics of Connectivism highlight the role of ICT not only for classroom learning, but also for professional learning.  Whilst learning networks exist successfully in a face to face environment, it is my belief that online learning communities support networked learning (a subset of Connectivism) ,( Siemens 2005) far more successfully because of the transparent nature of the network, its nodes as electronic and human, and the way individual link between sources of information and make sense of them.

Recognizable in the Alpha Community are conceptual networks through concept mapping of relational information about teaching and learning.  Some concerns about social dynamics have been raised, and this creates a focus that is increasingly important – questioning how the community operates and the value of social networking to the success of learning networks.  The community is intended to share perspectives on leadership with ICT in by making explicit the conceptual and social networks underpinning the operation of each individual in this area.

Although planned around timelines to ensure synchronization of all participants’ activity, the community nonetheless allows free access to non-ordered content, opportunity for participant-generated interactions, and a space design that supports co-ownership of the learning content, context and direction – supporting the concept of a learning network (Siemens, 2008). 

Dron and Anderson (2007) label a community as a “team”, distinguishable from a network which is “a more fluid form of social entity in which members join, create and remove themselves through informal and semi-formal connections”.  Downes (2006) expands these features to include concepts of diversity, autonomous openness of contribution, connected through distributed power and democracy with information flow through conversation between members.

 

As the most granular in its focus, Dron and Anderson (2007) identify a Collective as being most granular in its focus on individual benefit, but discuss the importance of harvesting their activities to “generate the ‘wisdom of crowds’.”

 

A community of practice, introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) is a social process where people participate in solving a community problem or with the purpose of achieving a communal goal. Over the past decade, much research has been conducted into the facilitation and maintenance of communities of practice (Sorensen et al, 2004; Webb et al, 2004), although empirically based literature related to the online version of the community of practice and to those with a highly geographically distributed membership specifically, is sparse and largely untested (Stuckey, 2004) .  Ryberg and Larsen argue that most if not all online CoP are closer to a network than a community, a position supported by authors such as  Stuckey (2004) and Jones and Esnault (2004) who regard the network metaphor as better suited to understand organizational social practice and therefore learning.  “Networked learning is concerned with establishing connections and relationships whereas a learning environment based on Communities of Practice is concerned with the establishment of a shared practice” (Jones et al 2006).

 

Networking theory has potential impacts on the ways in which understanding can be enhanced about the operation of the Alpha Community. 

 

In the first iteration, a group of highly connected individuals, a strongly networked clique (reference from J Evaluation research) emerged who were excited to be online together in a community.    It was exciting as facilitator to see the threads and connections emerge, the readings and sources of information raised for the collective.  But within five days, the emails and phone calls started from others who felt instantly isolated and alienated, because they were geographically, intellectually, contextually different, and/or were new practitioners who were not strongly networked with others statewide.  And we then experienced a small number of dropouts, people who were fearful of their capacity to contribute and their capacity to belong. 

 

Although smaller collections of individual participants did form productive groups, in which social, cognitive, peer teaching and learning presence was extraordinary (Garrison and Anderson, 2003), many individuals remained unconnected to the activity of the whole group (Downes, 2006).

 

We addressed this in the second round of the Alpha Community, trying to create a partnership of participants so that at least one other person in the course had been a significant contact before the actual work began.   This worked well, with the exception of three pairings.  One pair had an online conflict in public blogs because they could not see each other’s perspective.  The others had difficulties because one of each of the pairs showed no interest in the other. 

Overall, however, this approach did not lead significantly to wider networking within and beyond the group.  So there was still no solution to the communication gaps in Alpha Community.  Nonetheless, course evaluation data suggested that the feature participants valued most in the community was the networking both within and beyond the community itself.

A further issue facilitators found of concern, supported by survey data from participants, was the ongoing issue constant concern about non-participants (elsewhere known as lurkers), people we heard nothing from apart from an odd “I’m here” when emailed or phoned.  What were they doing? What could we do to get them involved?   In particular, it will be useful to consider social network analysis (Rafaeli et al, 2004) to ascertain the networking activities and capacity of these participants.  The survey data and Blackboard statistics from the first two iterations of the Alpha Community indicate that many of these “silent” members were in fact networking in other ways that were not transparent due to the tools used beyond the tools provided by the Blackboard community. 

When considering the existence of a network rather than a CoP, our efforts through research and the literature to create a functional and vibrant community may have been slightly off-target.  Our misconception was that people who registered in the group in order to compile an individual portfolio for accreditation were interested in ongoing community involvement.  Rather, their purpose is intensely personal and individual. 

This leads to the question, was there any success in community building? 

 

The exception to the concerns we had with the Alpha Community was the substantive conversation about the indicators for the portfolio.   Participants were grouped (with some superficial consideration of a broad range of perspectives) on the deconstruction of allocated portfolio indicators, and the creation of an elaboration for that indicator.  The success of the experience was motivational, with close to 100% participation.  Groups were given an open brief to select the communication tool and method of choice within which to work, and the formation of small networks was clearly evidenced in the creation of a resource that had “greater value than individual or group contribution and perspective” (Zarb, 2006).  In addition, when the groups presented back to the whole group and tabled their findings for discussion, the inter-group network connections grew between the clusters.  Tools used included emails, Skype, online synchronous chats, discussion forums, Wikis and occasionally Blogs.  Of all, the Wiki proved to be the most useful in supporting collective harvesting of information generated.

 

So our Community really, could have been considered to be a network, with intense but short episodes of focused community activity which resulted in the generation of collective wisdom.  Dron and Anderson (2006) provide examples of the use of social software for learning in a formal environment (Appendix 1, Table 1), many of which are apparent in the Alpha Community as the focus ebbs and flows from individual to collaborative work. 

This summary is used to create an overview of e-learning shown in Appendix 2, Figure 1.

 

However, one of the remaining difficulties that we need to address is the failure to support dynamic networking beyond the first activity.  Transparency disappeared, networks were operational but not within the course shell and therefore group and collective learning opportunities were lost. 

Part of my explanation for this phenomenon, which has been demonstrated during the functional (Assessment/portfolio construction) end of any course is the individual focus and personal decision that consolidation of learning was the primary focus and that new learning was put “on hold”.  However, there is a need to continue the learning-reflection cycle in providing feedback to colleagues, and in so-doing, enhancing understanding through renewed networking and group activity.  Feedback cycles we did experience remained within a small network, often those we established initially. Dron and Anderson (2007) recognise this in their review by identifying the benefit of “parcellation” to enable tightly knit clusters to form, but the risk of the collapse of the network into these groups thus “losing their adaptability and capacity to absorb new ideas and new members”.

A second problem we have not yet resolved is the “arranged” participation of many in the first collaborative activity, and their immediate disappearance from the community once it was over.  Many of these individuals did not identify with the group members, did what they “had to do” and then retreated.  

Knowing this now is important for the design of the next iteration next year.  Since we are considering ways in which networks (both social and learning) can be enhanced, research into methodology of Social Network Analysis as an evaluative tool is underway.

 

Siemens (2005) identifies, amongst other factors, the importance of motivation and emotions in forming connections in networked learning.   If the biological definition of an ecosystem is modified to suit the learning context, it could be characterized as the complex set of relationships among the resources, actors, and context functioning as a unit through links and flows that interact with each other.  Undoubtedly then, any factor that affects the functioning of any of the components of the system is by inference a part of that system.

Thus, I find it difficult to separate social networks from learning networks – it is the interaction of both that support learning.

If we are responding to the call for emotions to be considered when learning in a connectivist way, perhaps the best place to start is Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970; Maslow, 1971). Apart from physiological need, which overrides all other considerations, Maslow identifies a hierarchy that is deficit-based.  When survival is threatened, we regress to a lower level, preventing progression further along the continuum.

Consider safety and security, the second level need.  This is the need for security, stability and protection, structure, some order and some limits.  Without fulfillment of this need, engagement in a learning network is unlikely to occur, particularly if the network itself is the source of insecurity. 

The third hierarchical need is love and belonging.  When considering engagement online, loneliness and social anxiety as a result of the non-fulfillment of this need in an online environment can become, in my opinion the biggest two obstacles for many people to online learning. 

Consider the third hierarchical need, the need for self-esteem – we want to feel confidence, competence, achievement, mastery, independence and freedom.  How easy is it to experience an elevated sense of confidence and competence in an environment that is non-supportive or not acknowledging of this need? 

Individuals who do not experience these deficit needs fail to recognize their existence. If they are not satisfied however, they become the motivating force in the actions of an individual.  There is an implication for facilitators that cannot be underestimated in never failing to recognize these needs – often easy to overlook from a personal position where these needs are no longer salient.

The final hierarchy is growth.  It is a motivation rather than a need –described by Maslow as self actualization.  To be self-actualizing, you need your lower needs taken care of.  Aha moment, the role of the facilitator and the participants in an online group (or any group).

The links between self-actualization as reality centered, problem-centered, with different perceptions of the means and the ends, the valuing the importance of the journey creates an autonomous individual (Boeree, 2006).  When the factors important to networked learning are identified (Siemens, 2005) it becomes apparent that without a learning ecology that supports the fulfillment of lower-level needs, movement towards self-actualizing learning is unable to occur. 

Other contributing factors to the social ecology of an online learning environment are individual personality type and temperament. 

Consider the differences of SJ’s, (Keirsey, 1998)   who want a mapped chart with which to navigate learning, but need reinforcement, time and support from colleagues.  They need constant input from the community members:  “that is good”, “that is great”, “consider this to continue …”

Then, consider the NTs – a course such as the CCK08 is ideal for them, they are independent enough and strong-willed and seek knowledge in a self-contained way.  They want their opinions heard.  Need to be slowed down by facilitator, need extra reading, more challenge immediately. They will lead a discussion and be a central figure in any network if engaged in the community.

But the NFs (of which I am one) yearn for meaningful relationships through which to attain wisdom, who are loving, trusting, spiritual, need intense relationships.   CCK08 could have worked for me, but only with some facilitation, some partnering, some nurturing.  Although not necessary all the time, it is certainly a necessity as a kickstart.  The introductions forum was too large, my introduction too insignificant to generate sufficient for a feeling of identity within the group.

Then the SPs – they are in it for the fun, they are spontaneous – the humorists, the people who insert such difference into a course that they are massively important.  Connectivism – “Woohoo here goes!” but the danger is that they are impulsive, seek ongoing stimulation, and need careful facilitation to create a balance by underpinning their ideas with substance.  They can set a network on fire!  But they may become easily bored with bogged down discussions, and seek conversation elsewhere – by nature they are massively networked, but with shallow links predominating.

Finally, to complicate the social ecology, one must consider the interaction between Temperament type and each individual hierarchy of needs.  

 After several years of involvement in online communities, as post graduate student and then facilitator, this is the first time in my life I have become a lurker. 

It is valuable to translate my own experience, which has been truly transformative into practice.  Consider the critical incident, the reflection, the withdrawal and psychological battle (Mezirow, 2000) with myself as I considered giving this course up as an activity with which I was uncomfortable, and unable to identify. 

My own transformative journey through the CCK08 course can be considered within a framework of Critical Incidents (Mezirow, 2000).

My introduction passed unnoticed apart from the people I work with.  The responses were brief – noticing I was there.  Involvement in other forums became lost as I failed to engage in substantive networking and conversation.  Disillusioned, I turned my attention to the Second Life cohort.  I created the foundation of a Second Life Build about Connectivism which I photographed and blogged (see Appendix 3), which was never acknowledged by any of the cohort – this left me feeling alienated and more than a little alone and sad. 

 

My Blog, whose address I noted in a number of forums was not accessed, read, commented on by anybody else.  Again, isolation, sadness, and a confusion of ideas I was unable to bounce around with anybody else.  This was exacerbated because my workplace colleagues do not share my interests in ICT and learning.

On Monday morning, 5am October 26^th, 2008, I awoke to find The Daily in my inbox, and as has become habitual, browsed through the ideas.  Only to find Stephen’s copy from Sia’s Blog (Appendix 4).

After reading Sia’s contribution, I, as did many like-minded participants felt the first link of a connection to the course through another participant.  And then a hammer dropped as I realized for the first time the discomfort, alienation and sadness of participants in the first iteration of the Alpha Community.  My response was like a floodgate (late to work that day!) as I blogged my thoughts, reaction and feelings (Appendix 5).

I had been thinking, reflecting, reading, pondering for weeks without finding an anchor with which I could connect to CCK08 – I have finally found one, hence this reflective paper.  The implications for my future as an online facilitator of learning are immense.r

It is an opportunity now to consider all of the preceding thoughts and lead to an attempt at a first synthesis that will become an action plan as an online facilitator of learning.

Connectivism whether concept or theory, is a valuable approach to learning in a highly connected, global age.  The internet and its potential to flatten the world, a “leveller” (Friedman, 2005) extends to every individual in just about every home.  And it extends into every school and organisation.  The capacity of connected learning to enrich both K-12 learning and professional learning is emerging far too slowly, leaving gaps in the contemporary understanding of learning in many educators.  In seeking to facilitate connected learning in online staff development “courses” (for want of a better word, I have become unsure about the use of the word!!) there are a range of considerations for facilitation and course design. 

There are two considerations however, in any online learning course.  The first is the learning, the second is the predisposition of the participants to learning. The responsibility for these considerations lies both in course design and course facilitation.  Underpinning the design are two factors that cannot be underestimated, the first is each individual’s personal and professional location on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and the second is the temperament type of each individual.  These two factors interact to produce the contextual characteristics of each participant – a one-size-fits-all approach cannot succeed. 

And here is the first connection, because connectivism is about a multiple size approach to learning with physical and personal resources and networking – therefore the connectivist approach promises great potential to support good course design and facilitation.

In addition, the purpose of the course for participants needs to be better understood.  If the purpose is individual learning, it is unreasonable to expect the building of a community.  However, if there is group understanding of key components of the personal task as a co-constructed perspective, then the potential for community is enhanced.

To add to this, purposeful identification of where community contribution is important and valued, where explicit networking is required to be transparent, and where informal networking beyond the bounds of the course is appropriate for is important for the benefit of whole-group learning.  If participants understand more fully the purpose behind the course design, their involvement could be enhanced as co-ownership of the course design. 

A further dimension is a shared understanding of the existing social and professional networks within the course.  The need for SNA across a range of dimensions and the publication of this for all participants promises to allow greater personal and social networking before the learning journey commences.  Isolated individuals should be able to realise that their isolation is not unusual, others feel the same, an instant connection.  A network matrix and graph will indicate to the “clique” where new networks exist to enhance their interaction (danger of circulating current beliefs without challenge) with others and can indicate connections with previously unknown individuals that can enhance learning and interaction.  Certainly from the perspective of a facilitator, understanding the network myself will enhance my understanding of the way individuals contribute and function.

Next, from the whole group and the facilitator’s perspective, understanding the shifting of networks, including nodes beyond the bounds of the course is important – who are participants talking to, what are they reading, what resources are they using?

All of these considerations have promise (as a starting point) to enhance the potential of the Alpha Community in extending the capacity of the teaching workforce in Queensland through better design and facilitation.

 

 

 

 

My Second Life Build – a Metaphor

Every prim is limited both in shape and size.  To create a structure that exceeds the capacity of each prim requires connecting, shaping and directing.  In this way though, the dimensions and shape of your strucutre are limited only by your imagination.  This for me is a metaphor for connected knowledge.

The choice of play structure is to symbolise lived knowledge with nodes and choices.  Whether living is vicarious (as a mother watches her toddler take risks and breathes deeply imagining the fall but celebrating his success) or experienced is inconsequential.  The father will live the experience as deeply in his own way when toddler and mother relate the day to him. 

The structure is messy, it is chaotic on first impression.  But explore deeply enough and a variety of routes to the top become obvious.  In addition, there are plentiful opportunities to descend again, both at risk and safely to commence the knowledge construction process from a different perspective. 

The platforms represent junctures at which the individual is in a state of knowing, and takes time to reflect, consolidate and operationalise thinking.  Some platforms are not yet fully supported – the construction of support is necessary for it to be secure.  The ladder rungs and knots on the ropes are nodes of information (physical, abstract or human) that scaffold and support the learning journey.  As stated previously, every journey to each platform is experientially different; therefore the knowing on each platform can be different.  Of course, they are large enough to accommodate a number of players, each with their own story to tell. 

Inserted here and there are ropes and barriers to prevent the learner from falling, at other places, the danger is real.  I wanted to step into the territory of facilitating learning and ways in which teachers can structure and scaffold a connected experience whilst still supporting individually connected pathways. 

The original of this playground is constructed on my land – I have lifted it and reconstructed it here.  It will not be the same learning journey despite the identical structure, because the ecology, the space, the purpose will be different.

You may note that the structure is incomplete. Yes!  Where will it finish? The stretch into the unknown (the top platform) is unsupported – the first people to venture in that direction  will have to construct the support themselves, when that is done, their knowledge will support the learning of the next generation of thinkers.  But stop! That may not be the place to go or the way to get there.  Maybe the platform could be elsewhere, higher, lower, maybe a ladder is not appropriate for this climb?

You may notice that the build is imperfect, the prims not aligned, the bolts not altogether tight.  Yes!  The builder is relying on the strengths of others and their input to refine and tidy up his/her ideas.  Isn’t that part of the underlying story?

 

 

 

————————————————————————————————————————-

Lonesome in a Virtual World

I can’t help but think that connectivism without the initial establishment a personal network of some sort, albeit a simple relationship between two participants is intensely lonely for some people.

As I read the forums, I recognise a wonderful level of intellectual connecting and sharing, but often little personal support.  Certainly, where the personal support has been offered particularly in the introductions forum, it is easy to see how readily participants become involved – they seek out the names of those they recognise as their first step in becoming more widely connected. But where this personal support is not offered, I wonder if participants end up feeling isolated, not because they have nothing of interest to contribute, but because they have nobody to contribute to.

I read with interest the Daily news today, to find the following:

Surprising, because this is one of the first contributions with the potential to engage me in the conversations – it is easy to be so involved in the intellectual aspects of a conversation without considering the emotional.  This for me identifies a clear role for a facilitator, and a clear role for a structure within a course/community/group that supports the initial emotional as well as intellectual “buy-in”.

My reading has led me to a focus on the inter-woven group-community-network-group nature of an online “group” – and I believe it is in the initial stages that facilitated networking may actually lead to that ephemeral notion of community.  Possibly this facilitated networking may act to engage “lurkers” (if indeed they are peripheral, not just people with their own networking agendas).

Then my thoughts turn to Second Life.   Because my perceptions have changed over the duration of the course. I have always regarded Second Life as the solution online to individuals who feel isolated in other communication and socialisation forums.  I think, without careful facilitation, the opposite may be the case.  Through no fault of their own, the group signed up to work on CCK08 in Second Life knew each other well.  This was immediately apparent in the first synchronous meeting.  And I felt instant isolation as the conversation moved around shared experience for the first ten minutes.  By the second meeting, I was definitely a peripheral, in particular because I am a reflective learner and the pace of the chat outstripped my capacity to contribute (hmm! the dangers of synchronous communication), but also because when I contributed a couple of times, my contribution apparently went unnoticed, with no response.  I created a build (one of two apart from Fleep’s) which also went unnoticed, sitting for over a week with no comment. 

So this blog sits here unnoticed, my involvement in the Second Life cohort goes unnoticed, I am not connected, in fact quite the contrary, I am increasingly introspective and introverted. 

Don’t get me wrong, this is a marvellous thing for me, a revelation, because it has enhanced my understanding massively of how and why those few capable, competent and useful people in my groups “go missing” and withdraw, feel insecure and eventually disappear.  It certainly opens my eyes to why there was such a flurry of emails in my first community about “feeling out of place”.  The core group of participants who knew each other were keen to be involved and communicate that to all their friends, placing a personal stamp on relationships that extended into the group.  But in so doing, this was unintentionally isolating and the reason for the insecurities and lack of confidence in the other participants. 

Overall the implications (and I have not read this week’s ’stuff’) for facilitation are massive, and once I have formulated my own perspective, I  will be interested to return to the week’s transactions and see what other viewpoints can be added to my own.

(http://fass.edublogs.org/10/ )

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

Boeree, C.G. (2006) Personality Theories – Abraham Maslow.  Available at: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html 

Cranton, P and Wright, B (2008) The Transformative Educator as a Learning Companion.  Journal of Transformative Education 6(1): 33-47

Dirkz, J.M., Mezirow, J. And Cranton, P (2006) Musings and Reflections on the Meaning, Context and Process of Transformative Learning.  Journal of Transformative Education 4(2) 123-139

Downes, S.  (2006) Significant differences between networks and groups. Future of Learning in a Networked World event in Aukland, New Zealand  (Available at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4126240905912531540 )

Friedman, T. (2005) The World is Flat. A brief history of the Twenty-first Century.  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2003).  E-Learning in the 21st century.  London:  Routledge.

 

Jones, C.L., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., and Lindstrom, B. (2006) A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade.  International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1(1): 35-56

Jones, C. and Esnault, L (2004) The Metaphor of Networks in Learning:  Communities, Collaboration and Practice. Proceedings Networked Learning 2004, Lancaster University.  Available at http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium13/jones_esnault.htm  

Keirsey, D., Choiniere , R (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Prometheus Nemesis

Maslow, A. H. (1970) Motivation and Personality Ed2.  Harper and Row, New York

Maslow, A. H. (1971) The Further Reaches of Human Nature. Harper and Row, New York

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theories. Retrieved on November 12, 2006, from University of Saskatchewan, College of Education Web site: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

 

Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation Theory.  In Mezirow, J. (ed) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.  The Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education series.

Queensland Studies Authority (200) Essential Learnings.  Available at: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/assessment/3160.html

Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism – Learning as Network-Creation.  Learning Circuits.  Available at http://www.astd.org/LC/2005/1105_seimens.htm , accessed 29th October, 2008

Siemens, G. (2008a) What is Connectivism? Week 1: CCK08.  Available at http://docs.google.com/View?docid=anw8wkk6fjc_14gpbqc2dt, accessed 29^th October 2008.

Siemens, G. (2008b) Instructional Design and Connectivism. Available at http://elearnspace.org/media/InstructionalDesignConnectivism/player.html

Sorensen, E.K., Ó Murchú, D. 2004, ‘Designing Online Learning Communities of Practice‘, Journal of Educational Media, vol. 29 no. 3, pp. 189 – 20

Stuckey, B. (2004, March). Making the most of the good advice: Meta-analysis of guidelines for establishing an internet-mediated community of practice [draft]. Paper presented at the IADIS Web Based Communities Conference, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved March 9, 2005 from http://www.bronwyn.ws/publications/papers/good_advice.pdf

Webb, I., Roberston, M., & Fluck, A. (2004, November 28 – December 2). ICT professional learning: Towards communities of practice. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Beauvoir, P., Milligan, C., Johnson, M., and Sharples, P. (2000) Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1820/727

 

________________________________________________________________