Laurent Antonczak, Marion Neukam, Sophie Bollinger
{"title":"当工业界与学术界相遇","authors":"Laurent Antonczak, Marion Neukam, Sophie Bollinger","doi":"10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment. \nMore precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics. \nNext, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections. \nThen it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies. \nThe presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business. \n \nBibliography \nAnders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261. \nAnaniadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. \nAntonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice. \nAskay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10. \nCairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14. \nCheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504. \nCochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore. \nDanvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57. \nDewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938] \nDziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16. \nFruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430. \nGlazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58. \nHase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119. \nLave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \nLevallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21. \nLewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211. \nMcKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100. \nMakri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288. \nMascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326. \nMerriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. \nPont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020). \nPresicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704. \nReeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52. \nSoutherton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612","PeriodicalId":384031,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When industry meets academia\",\"authors\":\"Laurent Antonczak, Marion Neukam, Sophie Bollinger\",\"doi\":\"10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment. \\nMore precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics. \\nNext, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections. \\nThen it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies. \\nThe presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business. \\n \\nBibliography \\nAnders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261. \\nAnaniadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. \\nAntonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice. \\nAskay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10. \\nCairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14. \\nCheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504. \\nCochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore. \\nDanvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57. \\nDewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938] \\nDziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16. \\nFruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430. \\nGlazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58. \\nHase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119. \\nLave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \\nLevallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21. \\nLewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211. \\nMcKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100. \\nMakri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288. \\nMascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326. \\nMerriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. \\nPont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020). \\nPresicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704. \\nReeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52. \\nSoutherton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612\",\"PeriodicalId\":384031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v4i1.134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本次演讲的重点是在技术驱动下的创新和协作学习实践的跨学科方法。它强调了与学习和教育背景相关的行业实践和流程的两个突出要素:通过技术赋予个人和实践社区权力,以及在数字环境中更广泛地考虑工业方法对学习和教学概念的增强。更准确地说,本演讲将介绍法国三种不同的学习和教学环境中使用的一些关键理论框架,这些框架与终身学习方法有关,这要归功于社会和情感学习(SEL) (WEF, 2016)。它还将讨论互联网及其启示(southerton&taylor, 2020)对通过以专业为中心的社区减少理论知识和应用知识之间的差异的积极影响(Danvers, 2003)。因此,它将简要地解释空间和认知学习邻近性(Lave & Wenger 1991;Fruchter, 2001)可以通过技术来减少(Anders, 2016;Antonczak, 2019;Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019),“计算机支持的协作学习”方法可以促进社会和共享问题解决(Sawyer, 2005;Levallet & Chan, 2018;Presicce et al., 2020)没有“时间和地点的限制”(Cheng et al., 2019, 489)。此外,它将指出通过“解放式学习和社会行动”(Merriam, 2001,9)通过使用“实际”内容和“可操作的反馈”(Woods & Hennessy, 2019)通过数字工具和策略增强解决问题的一些方面。接下来,它将专注于三个案例研究,通过简洁地呈现每个课程的关键细节,包括使用的各种数字工具,然后是一些快速的临时反思。然后,它将总结在不同的实践中遇到的挑战和障碍,如虚拟交付,学生群体的规模和一些连接方面的考虑。紧随其后的是主要的优势和机会,比如通过互动和真实学习增强的专业化维度。最后,通过数字技术支持的基于行业的教学,提出一些管理建议,作为经验和实践方法(知识编纂)。演讲将以与数字技术和一些21世纪关键职业技能相关的总体结论结束。总的来说,研究结果将引起学者、从业人员和政策制定者的兴趣。这项跨学科研究的附加价值在于,它通过在教育和商业领域之间架起一座桥梁,改善了对协作创新和集体知识的研究。安德斯,A.(2016)。团队沟通平台和新兴的社会协作实践。国际商务沟通杂志,53(2),pp. 224-261。Ananiadou, K. & M. Claro(2009)。经合组织国家新千年学习者的21世纪技能和能力,经合组织教育工作文件,第41期,经合组织出版社。Antonczak, L.(2019)。通过移动技术扩大协作实践。第25届国际工程/国际技术管理会议(ICE/ITMC), 6月17-19日,尼斯。Askay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J.(2010)。在虚拟实践社区中,信任在促进创造力方面的多维作用:一个整合快速、基于知识、基于制度和组织信任的理论模型。第43届夏威夷国际系统科学会议,第1-10页。凯恩斯,L.(2000)。成为一个有能力的组织的过程/结果方法。澳大利亚能力网络会议,悉尼,1-14。程东伟,朱世坤,马春生(2019)。学生使用PBWorks的意向:基于因子的PLS-SEM方法。情报与学习科学,120(7/8),489-504。Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A.(2017)。设计变革性移动学习的框架。亚太地区高等教育中的移动学习(25-43)。施普林格、新加坡。丹弗斯,J.(2003)。走向激进的教育学:关于艺术与设计的学习与教学的临时笔记。美术与设计教育,22(1),47-57。杜威,J.(1991)。逻辑学:探究理论。在J. A.博伊德斯顿(编),约翰·杜威:后期作品,1925-1953,卷12(1-5)。伊利诺伊州卡本代尔:SIU出版社。[最初发表于1938年]Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N.(2018)。混合式学习:新常态和新兴技术。高等教育教育技术学报,2015(1),1-16。弗鲁彻特,R.(2001)。团队合作教育的维度。国际工程教育学报,17(4/5),426-430。 Glazewski, k.d., & Hmelo-Silver, c.e.(2019)。为雄心勃勃的学习实践搭建和支持信息的使用。信息科学与学习,20(1/2),39-58。Hase, S. & Kenyon, C.(2007)。和合论:复杂性理论的产物。国际复杂性与教育杂志,4(1),111-119。Lave, J.和Wenger, E.(1991)。情境学习:合理的外围参与。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社。Levallet, N.和Chan, Y. E.(2018)。数字能力在释放即兴管理力量中的作用。管理信息系统季刊,17(1),1-21。Lewin, K.(1947)。群体决策与社会变革。社会心理学读物,3(1),197-211。麦肯尼,S.和里夫斯,T. C.(2013)。基于设计的研究进展的系统回顾:一点点知识是危险的吗?教育研究,42(2),97-100。Makri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D.(2017)。机缘巧合之后:从遇到的信息中创造价值。信息科学与技术学报,54(1),279-288。Mascheroni, G.,和Vincent, J.(2016)。作为一种交流媒介的永久接触:机会、约束和情感。移动媒体与传播,4(3),310-326。梅里亚姆,s.b.(2001)。性学与自主学习:成人学习理论的支柱。成人与继续教育新方向,89,3-13。Pont, B.(2013)。学习标准、教学标准与校长标准之比较研究。融洽的关系。EDU/WKP(2013) 14。教育政策和实践研究中心。检索自:http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En(访问于2020年12月31日)。Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, l.e., & Rusk, N.(2020)。wesscratch:一个包容、有趣和协作的在线创造性学习方法。情报与学习科学,121(7/8),695-704。里夫斯,t.c.(2005)。基于设计的教育技术研究:取得了进步,挑战依然存在。教育技术,45(1),48-52。瑟顿,C,和泰勒,e(2020)。习惯性披露:年轻人社交媒体数据监控的常规、可提供性和伦理。社会媒体+社会,6(2),https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612
This presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment.
More precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics.
Next, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections.
Then it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies.
The presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business.
Bibliography
Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261.
Ananiadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing.
Antonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice.
Askay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10.
Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14.
Cheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504.
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore.
Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57.
Dewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938]
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.
Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430.
Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100.
Makri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288.
Mascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.
Pont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020).
Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704.
Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52.
Southerton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612