Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/231011361_4a4a257a60.jpg
Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds
Dublin Institute of Technology, 13 February 2018
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1029678
Dr Chrissi Nerantzi FSEDA, PFHEA, CMALT, NTF @chrissinerantzi

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6110033,-
8.8601238,3416532m/data=!3m1!1e3
My journeys so far

• Explore the use of pedagogical frameworks and their role in designing for
learning
• Present the cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
• Discuss frameworks/models in the context of colleagues’ own practice
http://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/wooden-tile/images/plan.jpg

• Scaffolding of learning (Wood, Bruner & Ross,
1976).
• Value of frameworks for designing-in interaction
and collaboration when using technology in the
learning and teaching process (Reeves & Reeves,
1997)
• Value of frameworks and models when researching
learning and teaching supported by technology
(Mayes & de Freitas, 2013; Conole, Galley & Culver,
2011)
About scaffolds/frameworks…

Year first appeared Framework Type of framework Formal/
informal
Designed for mode of
application
Adaptations Education sector Open education
1971 OU SOL (Supported Open Learning) model
(Swan, 2004; McAndrew & Weller, 2005;
Jones et al., 2009; also mentioned in
Weller, 2014; Jones, 2015)
Conceptual Formal Distance learning Blended learning,
online learning
HE
1985 Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) (Stahl et al., 2006)
Conceptual Formal,
informal
Learning supported by
technology
Schools, HE
1991 Community of Practice (Lave and Wenger,
1991)
Evidence-based Informal Learning Online learning,
Blended learning
2000 Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison
et al., 2000; 2010)
Conceptual Formal Blended learning Online learning HE
2002 5-stage model
(Salmon, 2002; Salmon, 2013)
Evidence-based Formal Online learning Blended learning HE MOOCs
2002 Conversational Framework (Laurillard,
2002)
Conceptual Formal Learning supported by
technology
HE
2009 3E Framework (Smyth, 2009) Evidence-based Formal Blended learning Online learning FE, HE
2012 Online Collaborative Learning Theory
(Harasim, 2012)
Evidence-based Formal Online learning HE
2013 7Cs of the Learning Design Framework
(Conole, 2013b)
Conceptual Formal Blended learning,
Online learning
HE MOOCs
2014 5C Framework (Nerantzi & Beckingham,
2015b)
Conceptual Formal,
informal
Online learning Learning
supported by
technology
HE Open
courses
Reviewed frameworks

Community
ChoiceActivities
Facilitator
support
Collaboration
fostered
Key features of reviewed frameworks

https://answergarden.ch/640368
Collaborative learning. What is it?

“a situation in
which two or
more people
learn or
attempt to
learn
something
together”
(Dillenbourg,
1999, 1)
Collaborative learning…
“collaboration as learning”
(Nerantzi & Gossman, 2015)
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8815/28325811975_2b822958e2_b.jpg

Open and social timeline (Nerantzi, 2017b)

The PBL model FISh
(Nerantzi & Uhlin, 2012; Nerantzi, 2014)
To provide a simple model for online PBL for individual and collective inquiry.
Step 1: Focus
What do I/we see?
How do I/we understand what we see?
What do I/we need to find out more about?
Specify learning issues/intended learning outcomes!
Step 2: Investigate
How and where am I/are we going to find answers?
What will I do/Who will do what and by when?
What main findings and solutions do I/we propose?
Step 3: Share
How am I/are we going to present my/our findings?
What do I/we want to share with the community?
How can I/we provide feedback to others?
What reflections do I have about my learning (and
working with others)?

“I love the COOL FISh illustration, I think
that's great. I like visual metaphor. So I
really buy into that. You don't need to be
persuaded to buy into that, you know. But
it did get me thinking about things in a
slightly different way. And it's something
that I tried as well, you know, using the
visual metaphor idea that you were using.”
Participant F5

Connected Curriculum Framework (Fung, 2017, 5)

4Ps… of creative learning (Resnick, 2017, 16-17)
4Ps
Projects
Passion
Peers
Play
Anything missing?

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/20/14/51/playground-2661987_960_720.jpg
The Playground model (Nerantzi, 2015)
Close your eyes: baby/toddler, school age child, teenager

Three main theories of
teaching (Ramsden, 2008)
Creativity and Learning
Ecologies (Jackson, 2015)
Playground model
(Nerantzi, 2015)
Theory 1: Teaching as
telling, transmission or
delivery - passive
Education 1.0/Creativity
1.0/Learning Ecology 1.0 –
instructivist
Playground 1.0 supervised >
feeling safe, developing
trust
organising or facilitating
student activity - active
2.0/Learning Ecology 2.0 –
constructivist
Playground 2.0
participatory > gaining
playful confidence through
guided playful learning
making learning possible –
self-directed
3.0/Learning Ecology 3.0 -
connectivist
Playground 3.0 self-
determined > autonomy,
developing and sustaining
play-active practice

Playground model
(Nerantzi, 2015; Nerantzi, accepted)
To foster playfulness and develop creative learning capacity and capabilities
VisualisationbyLizWalshaw

Support framework for opening up HE
(Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016, p.26)
“Collaboration in open
education is about
connecting individuals
and institutions by
facilitating the exchange
of practices and
resources with a view to
improving education. By
collaborating around and
through open
educational practices,
universities can move
beyond the typical
institutional collaboration
patterns and engage
individuals and
communities to build a
bridge between informal,
nonformal and formal
learning.”
“Opening up
pedagogical
practices is about
developing the
design for learning
so that it widens
participation and
collaboration
between all
involved.”

Competition and financial incentives for HEIs
in the UK as a driver to achieve teaching
excellence (TEF, 2016a; 2016b)
CPD within institutions, often perceived as
top-down approach (Crawford, 2009)
Academics want freedom: to pursue their
own interests in L&T, part of networks and
communities, often external/disciplinary ones
(Crawford, 2009)
Open cross-institutional collaborations
increase engagement in CPD and drive
innovation in teaching (Pawlyshyn, Braddlee,
Casper & Miller, 2013)
UK and wider context, challenges and opportunities

Competition
Collaboration & Openness
A proposition: An alternative for engaging academics in CPD, raise the quality
of teaching & innovate (Nerantzi, 2017a)

The study
Phenomenographic study (Marton, 1981): collaborative open learning experience in
academic development
Collective case study (Stake, 1995) approach for data collection: FDOL132 & #creativeHE
22 individual semi-structured interviews
2 surveys for background information and demographics to construct the case
Research questions
• RQ1: How are open cross-institutional academic development courses that have been designed to
provide opportunities for collaborative learning experienced by learners?
• RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic development courses most strongly
influence learners' experience and how?
• RQ3: Drawing upon research findings from RQ1 and RQ2, what could be the key features of a
proposed collaborative open learning framework for open cross-institutional academic
development courses?
https://media.defense.gov/2007/Nov/06/2000433136/888/591/0/071030-F-2992S-003.JPG

Motivations:
• Be learners and experience learning in the open
• To enhance practice
• Learn with others
studies
work
location
age
work place
formal/informal study
Constructing the collective case study, initial survey responses (n=25)

Individual phenomenographic interviews (n=22)
(main data collection method)
Pool 1
Course
4 categories of
description
Initial
survey, 19
Qs (n=25)
Final
survey,
3 Qs (n=22)
Pool 3
Collaboration
3 categories of
description
Pool 2
Boundary
crossing
4 categories of
description
Outcome space and addressing of RQ1 and RQ2
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
for cross-institutional academic development (Discussion of RQ3)
Phenomenography(Marton,1981)
Case study 1
FDOL132 (2013) (n=19)
Case study 2
#creativeHE (2015) (n=14)
+
Collective case study (Stake, 1995)
Surveys
findings
Two surveys,
(demographics and
background
information)
RQ1
and
RQ2
Disc.
Open
-ness
in HE
Digital
tech
and
frame-
works
Learni
ng
with
others
in
groups
Academic
development
Literature
Researcher’s positioning
Aphenomenographicstudy(Nerantzi,2017)

Case study 2
https://courses.p2pu.org/en/cou
rses/2615/creativity-for-learning-
in-higher-education/
Creativity for Learning
in HE by Chrissi
Nerantzi for CELT,
MMU is licensed under
a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike
4.0 International
License.
Case study
1
https://fdol.wordpress.com/fdol132/
Collective case study approach to collect data
PBL Negotiated
Learning in groups
was a choice!
Groups supported
by facilitators from
collab institutions

Pool of Meanings Categories of description Variations Codes used
in the
outcome
space
5.2 Pool 1 (Course) Open learning as course organisation Causing initial disorientation
Aiding participation C1.1
Open learning as an activity-based experience Limiting engagement
Fostering engagement C1.2
Open learning as a facilitated experience Lacking direction and instruction
Directive and controlling
Facilitative and supportive
C1.3
Open learning as designed for collaboration Constraining
Enabling
Empowering
C1.4
5.3 Pool 2
(Boundary crossing)
Cross-boundary learning through modes of participation As a valued informal learning experience
As a valued mixed mode learning experience
As a valued opportunity for recognition
C2.1
Cross-boundary learning through time, places and space As a disconnected experience
As a continuum C2.2
Cross-boundary learning through culture and language As a barrier
As an enrichment C2.3
Cross-boundary learning through diverse professional
contexts
As initial discomfort
As a catalyst C2.4
5.4 Pool 3
(Collaboration)
Collaboration as engagement in learning Selective
Immersive C3.1
Collaboration as a means to shared product creation Product-process tension
Fulfilling C3.2
Collaboration as relationship building Questioning the behaviour of others
Valuing the presence of others C3.3
Nerantzi (2017b, 162)

Open learning as course organisation (C1.1)
Open learning
as a
facilitated ex.
(C1.2)
Open learning
as an activity-
based ex.
(C1.3)
Open learning as
designed for
collaboration
(C1.4)
Cross-
boun-
dary
learning
through
modes of
partici-
pation
(C2.1)
Cross-
boun-
dary
learning
through
time,
places
and
space
(C2.2)
Cross-
boun-
dary
learning
through
diverse
pro-
fessional
contexts
(C2.4)
Cross-
boun-
dary
learning
through
culture
and
language
(C2.3)
Structuralfactors(AreaA)Livedexperience(AreaB)
Collaboration as engagement in
learning (C3.1)
Selective
Immersive
Collaboration as
relationship building
(C3.3)
Group focus
Collaboration as
shared product
creation (C3.2)
Process-focus
High product
expectations
Individual focus Process-focus
Low product
expectations
Outcomespace(Nerantzi,2017)

“I'm wanting to do a teaching qualification next year through my university
because they'll pay for I think if I had the opportunity to do things like this
[an open cross-institutional course] rather than the sit down you know chalk
and talk lectures, then that would be a lot better for me in the long run and I
think that I would get a lot more out of that because that's how I like to
work, set my own pace and do more creative teaching and also learn from
different sources rather than just one tutor. That was another thing that I
really liked about the course, is that there was a range of voices being
expressed and it didn't feel like it was just one person, it felt like it was very
collaborative, but I think if it was, if different universities could contribute
different modules and it would end up in one teaching qualification that
would be brilliant, that would really be good because you'd get that range of
voices and that range of kind of ideas coming from different places. I would
be very interested in something like that personally.” C7

“The course has been a crucial eye-opener for me, in relation to my experience with
FDOL, and it relates to the way in which, it's being run across multiple institutions.
Because, for me, there's a big risk with open learning, that if it comes badged by a
single institution, that educational developers, academic developers are
automatically inclined to be resistant to advocating that for colleagues in their own
institution. For fear of it actually, either undermining or, worse still making them
redundant. And that's not to say that those courses wouldn't be excellent for those
colleagues in that institution.
So, the differences with this course is that there's been an attempt to diffuse that
problem, by having it facilitated by colleagues in more than one institution, and then
when you look at the PBL facilitators furthermore, even more institutions again, so
leaving it open for the instruction of the course, the delivery of it to be facilitated by
multiple institutions effectively. And I think that erodes that problem of feeling as
though it belongs to another competitor. And that we would be offering it. So
there's something really nice about that. But it's more than open learning, it's about
open practice as well. It's about making sure that the model of the course can
accommodate, and invites facilitation from others in other institutions.” Participant
F5

Quotes linked to cross-boundaries
“We were from two different countries in my
group. And that was, I think that was more
attractive for me rather than different
institutions. I mean if everybody was from UK,
maybe because I think, or I feel that I know the
UK system and how it works, maybe it wouldn't
have made any difference.
I see how things are working in different
countries, because maybe we are taking things
for granted. Maybe I think that everybody's doing
e-learning in a certain way, for example. And
then I realise that they are doing it differently or
they're not doing it or, you know? So from that
point of view it was good. […] I think that I felt
good of contributing with my experience to what
they're doing. So when, they ask something, and
I saw that it can work in a certain way because
we have done it here in UK I could tell them what
we have done and then they can experiment. So
from that point of view it felt good, of sharing
information.” F7
“I felt a little bit anxiety, because I have 1 year, 2
years my English I can understand very well but I
don’t use it. I had a long time to use my English.
So the language it was problem for me. But I
find it a challenge to make it better. […]I didn't
feel the confidence about my writing skills. So I
read it [the information] and I read it again. I
couldn’t manage the time. I couldn’t realise how
many hours I could use for a specific section
because, I was trying to read and read again my
texts. And I lost, I was losing a lot of time during
this process. […] I didn’t participate in a group,
because I didn’t feel confident about the
language and I felt a little bit, I felt the pressure I
didn’t-, I wanted to have a little time to adjust in
the community and it was in the last week I feel
more confident to communicate, to react with
others. But it was the last week.” C10

“I remember it was really strange, actually, in many ways.
Because there was all these university lecturers, and staff, and
there’s me in a school thinking ‘am I out of my depth here?
Should I be involved in this process? And all the problems we
had as a group, of getting on to Google hangouts and people
coming on at different times, but everybody was so welcoming,
that it didn’t really matter that I was from, a school background
and everybody else was in a university setting, we all had the
same issues to face and we all were exploring the same sorts of
problems. I really enjoyed the process. I began to look forward
to our weekly meetings, and getting into what we had to be
focusing on, and doing the, the work outside, and trying to
keep up to date with everything and run a job and live a life,
and so on, and so forth.” F10
“I find the learning, the thinking of different ideas, hearing
how other people had dealt with it really useful. And 'cos we
were from such different backgrounds, that's quite useful as
well, 'cos obviously I'm a lecturer that is my primary role… […]
But there was somebody else who was more from a school
background rather than a university background, so it was
bringing together lots of different ways of thinking about
things. I did find it useful, because I think you need those, you
need to think outside, -side the box. I was talking about self-
reflection yesterday and thinking about sort of like the higher
levels of, self-reflection, it's challenging assumptions. So as a
higher education lecturer, I have certain assumptions and
sometimes you need to sort of like, step back from those and
that's where having those people from different experiences is
useful. Because you're, thinking more, you're not just using
your HE, assumptions, you're thinking "actually that might
work in my situation, I'd never thought of that." And I've had a
go at some of the things, you know that, some of the things
we talked about, some of them work - some of them don't.
Some of them you think "oh, that's not actually for me", so I
think it is useful, and I would worry, if we'd all been HE
lecturers I wonder whether it would have been the same
experience. That we wouldn't all just gone, "Oh that doesn't
work!" F2

“I never really got connected to the group, part of the
group. I think it was just always connected to
individuals and I didn't get a chance, maybe it wasn't
long enough but I didn't get a chance when I was like
talking to members and I wasn't talking to everybody,
so if I made a reply, there were very few replies that I
made that like went out to more than one person, like I
only mentioned one person in the reply and I don't
know why it didn't, it just never congealed, the group
never congealed. […] There were hangouts but I'm
really bad at hangouts. I always get the times wrong or
I'm in the wrong part of the world, so I'm always on the
other side of the planet for a lot of these things. […] I
really think that the hangouts are valuable because you
get the isolation from being online, particularly if you
are the only, seemingly only one on the whole
continent, this particular continent, which doesn't
happen very often, there is usually quite a lot people
spread across North America. I just sort of, I missed the
first couple and I just didn't do anything else about it.”
C11
“When I was entering my email, I had lots and lots of
emails, that informed me for example, a member of
the community posted this, or commented my post, or
my thought, or in my portfolio. And that was a little
bit, that caused me a little bit upset, because I felt that
I had to keep up with the rest of the activities and the
interactions, and I was saying ‘Oh, I have to get in the
community’, and sometimes I had no time, so, when I
was in the bus, or at the university I was given through
my smartphone, and if I had, for example, five minutes
free I was getting in the community and try to keep up
with the material and the thoughts that were shared
in it. But, there was an option in Google plus where I
could de-activate those notifications, but I didn’t want
to do that. I, I think that I would lose my feedback, the
flow of the information and thoughts. Something that
I didn't want to do so. […] For example, if I had seen
someone commenting on my post, and I was available
at that time, I could go to the community, comment
and I found this really interesting. It was the first
learning situation which was not in a classroom, or in a
university. I was in the bus and I was exchanging
opinions, thoughts. It was very interesting.” C1

“I seem to remember that at least a couple of them
were doing it for some kind of accreditation and that
seemed to motivate them. I don’t think everybody was,
but I think at least two or three of them were, had
some kind of local accreditation for the course. I did
worry that – whether they would think the rest of us
were letting them down, you know, if we weren’t, you
know, contributing quite as fully. But the fact that some
people were there for their own professional
development, or for fun, and some people were there
as part of a course, that’s absolutely fine. I think it’s
good. […]The different points of view I don’t think- the
kind of end goal necessarily affects people’s
involvement oh no, no that’s not true. It probably does,
some people are more motivated by getting the
accreditation. But it doesn’t change their participation
you know, as you go along, I think.” F8
“I wasn't looking for a qualification. I was more
interested in, well, from a personal point of view,
discovering what, how these things work and keeping
abreast of new developments. Because although I’m
retired, I think it’s important that I keep on learning, I
am a lifelong learner. So it was important from that
point of view. There was another, more practical
aspect. I felt I should know what was going on. So
there was a personal desire to learn. That sort of
professional or semi-professional. But at the same
time maybe a third one as well, in that I’ve had a lot of
experience –by the time you reach my age you’ve had
a lot of experience both professionally and personally,
and I thought maybe I could contribute and give a little
help to others.” C6
“What I enjoyed about the course the most was to be honest the stuff that I learnt and putting that into practice
and learning about new theories and new way and also the reflectiveness because I'm doing my chartership at
the moment as a chartered librarian and a big part of that is reflective writing. So that was really good because I
was reading a lot of stuff on how to be a reflective teacher and I could use that in my chartership write ups as
well, so that was really handy.” C7

• identification, gaining insight into diverse practices
• coordination, connecting diverse viewpoints
• reflection, opportunity for better understanding own and others’
perspectives and
• transformation, leading to collaboration and change in behaviour or
practices.
Boundary crossing & opportunities for learning (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011)
• may increase conflict and misinterpretations!
• identifying strategies to overcome these are important
Boundary crossing & challenges (Algers, 2016)

Learning needs
Design
considerations
Engagement
patterns
The dimensions of the cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework

VisualisationbyElizabethWalshaw
Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework (Nerantzi, 2017b)

Student digital experience tracker 2017:
the voice of 22,000 UK learners
(Newman & Beetham, 2017, 16)

6. 1
RQ 1: How are open cross-institutional academic development
courses experienced that have been designed to provide
opportunities for collaborative learning?
6.2
RQ2: Which characteristics of open cross-institutional academic
development courses influence learners’ experience and how?
6.1.1 Anyone (academic staff, students and the public)
The courses’ cross-boundary nature brought academic staff, students, public together to learn
together. Participants were formal and informal learners from different cultures. This diversity
enriched their collaborative open learning experience and made learning more interesting to them.
6.2.1 Anyhelp (facilitator and peer support)
The facilitator support was vital for collaborative open learning, to help build group relationships and
resolve technological and course issues and build peer-support capacity. The non-directive facilitator
and the facilitator as co-learner was most welcome by participants.
6.1.2 Anywhere (online, offline and mobile)
Participants engaged online and offline in collaborative open learning activities and the course. They
also used their mobile devices to connect with course activities. The offline dimension of engagement
was especially relevant for ‘selective’ collaborators and provides insights that open learning does not
exclusive happen online.
6.2.2 Anyhow (elasticity of the design)
The flexibility of the collaborative open learning design, using inquiry-based activities worked for
‘selective’ and ‘immersive’ collaborators, when this was agreed with participants and especially when
the focus of collaboration was the process.
6.1.3 Learners as community
Especially participants learning through
‘immersive ‘ collaboration were seeking to be
part of a community. They cultivated social
relationships. Synchronous social media
video technologies helped them in this
process. The cross-boundary nature of the
groups was especially attractive to
participants and generated increased interest
for each other.
6.2.3 Course as community
Participants saw the course as a community
that continued beyond the pre-defined
timeframe. The cross-institutional and cross-
boundary dimensions of the courses, that
also brought together formal and informal
learning using social media, presents a new
academic development approach that is a
continuum.
The Framework: Design considerations

BYOD4L site
Jan 18
LTHEchat site
Jan 18
Course vs community?

Towards a new model to practise
academic development… and HE?
cross-boundary community
Qualifications
(PgCert, MA)
Professional
recognition
Informal CPD
(workshops,
conferences,
webinars,
tweetchats
etc.)
scaffold provided by a cross-boundary open learning framework

Towards a cross-boundary open learning framework
(Nerantzi, working on it)
Immersive
collaboration
Autonomous
learning
Selective
collaboration

https://pixnio.com/flora-plants/fruits/cherry-fruit-pictures/basket-cherry-fruit-food-wood
What is in your basket? What are you taking away? What (else) could you try?

References
Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A. (2011) Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research. June 2011, 81 (2). pp. 132–169.
Algers, A. (2016) OEP as boundary practices – how academy and society can inform each other. ExplOER project webinar. Accessed from https://connect.sunet.se/p4gxj96aglg/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
BIS (2016a) Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility & student choice, Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BIS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-
16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy.pdf
BIS (2016b) Teaching excellence framework: Year two specification. Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BOS. Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf
Conole, G., Galley, R. & Culver, J. (2011) Frameworks for understanding the nature of interactions, networking, and community in a social networking site for academic practice. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, Special issue
connectivism: Design and delivery of social networked learning, 12 (3) 2011, pp.1-18. Accessed online from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/914/1666 on 27th November 2015.
Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing professional development in higher education: Voices from below. University of Lincoln. [EdD thesis]. Accessed from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2146/1/Crawford-Ed%28D%29Thesis-CPDinHE-FINAL%28Sept09%29.pdf
Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In: Dillenbourg, P., ed., 1999. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier. pp.1-19. Accessed online from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-
2/Dil.7.1.14.pdf on 26th June 2014.
Fung, D. (2017) A connected curriculum for higher education, London: UCL Press. Accessed from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1558776/1/A-Connected-Curriculum-for-Higher-Education.pdf
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016) Opening up Education: A support framework for higher education institutions. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27938 EN: doi: 10.2791/293408. Assessed from http://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-
scientific-and-technical-research-reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-education-institutions
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. (2009) An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38, pp.365-379. Accessed from http://njbullying.org/documents/collaborativemodelsreview.pdf
Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography – describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional science, 10 (2), pp.177-200.
Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S. (2013) Technology-enhanced learning. The role of theory. In: Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R., eds., 2013. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing for 21st century learning. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge, pp.17-30.
Nerantzi, C. (accepted) The playground model revisited, a proposition to boost creativity in academic development, in: James, A. & Nerantzi, C. (eds.) (work-in-progress) The Power of Play, Palgrave, submission deadline of book manuscript May 2018.
Nerantzi, C. (work-in-progress) Towards a cross-boundary open learning framework, to be submitted to IRRODL
Nerantzi, C. (2017b) Towards a framework for cross-boundary collaborative open learning in cross-institutional academic development, PhD thesis, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University.
Nerantzi, C. (2017a) Alternative approaches to the TEF: raising the quality of teaching through openness, collaboration and innovation, in: Compass, Greenwich: University of Greenwich
Nerantzi, C. (2014) A personal journey of discoveries through a DIY open course development for professional development of teachers in Higher Education (invited paper), Journal of Pedagogic Development, University of Bedfordshire, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 42-
58 http://www.beds.ac.uk/jpd
Nerantzi, C. & Gossman, P. (2015) Towards collaboration as learning. An evaluation of an open CPD opportunity for HE teachers, in: Research in Learning Technology Journal, 23. Accessed from
http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/26967
Newman, T. & Beetham, H. (2017) Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners, JISC, available at http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6662/1/Jiscdigitalstudenttracker2017.pdf
Pawlyshyn, N., Braddlee, G., Casper, L. & Miller, H. (2013) Adopting OER: A case study of cross-institutional collaboration and innovation, educause review, Why IT matters to HE. Updated 04/11/2013. Accessed from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2013/11/adopting-
oer-a-case-study-of-crossinstitutional-collaboration-and-innovation on 20th September 2015.
Reeves, T. & Reeves, P. (1997) Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In: Khan, B., ed., 1997. Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, pp. 59-66.
Stake, R.E. (1995) The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry. 17. Accessed from http://mascil-toolkit.ph-freiburg.de/en-preservice/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/Wood-Bruner-and-Ross.pdf

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/231011361_4a4a257a60.jpg
Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds
Dublin Institute of Technology, 13 Feb 2018

“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation… Who said this?
On the playground … thank you Kathleen, Tara, Hilda, Roisin, Julie…
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/20/14/51/playground-2661987_960_720.jpg
Part 2
Let’s meet
downstairs
#CCTDIT

Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Chrissi Nerantzi

More from Chrissi Nerantzi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds