Assembling the heterogeneous elements for (digital) learning

Month: June 2007

Possible Futures v2.0

Twice this year I’ve been asked to give a presentation at CQU’s Foundations of University Learning & Teaching, essentially an induction program for academics new to CQU. The topic of the presentation I give is “Some Possible Futures for Learning: Lessons and Enablers”.

The topic had been “futures of e-learning” but increasingly I think the “e-” is old hat and tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding about the spread of ICTs into learning. At CQU, there is very little learning and teaching that isn’t in someway enabled by ICTs. Using the “e-” is a bit like going back 50 years and calling learning “f-learning” (f = face-to-face).

Resources associated with the presentation (including slides and probably audio) can be found here.

As always, but especially in this case, external factors prevented me spending the amount of time I would have liked on the presentation. It will be okay, but there are still holes, flaws and poor structure.

However, v2.0 does include more discussion of some of the applications of these ideas at CQU over the next 6 months. This provides a more concrete example of what can be done.

If I get to do this again next year, I might start improving it enough to get to the stage that I’m happy with hit.

Thoughts on Carrick Awards Forum

This is a work in progress

A couple of weeks ago I attended the 2007 Carrick Awards Forum at RMIT on behalf of CQU. The main aims in attending, at least from my perspective, included getting a better “feel for Carrick” and forming some ideas about how CQU can be more successful in having staff receive these rewards.

In summary, the main points I took away included:

  • The vast majority of the award winners won because of their internal drive and motivation to be good teachers. Most had been doing what they were doing for years.
  • They generally had only limited assistance from the university teaching and learning support structures (much of the total support they did receive came in the form of assistance in writing the Carrick nomination).
  • A number of the presenters told stories about how they had to actively ignore, bypass or battle existing university policy, structures or technology.
  • None of the work I saw was based on any brand new insight into learning and teaching. All of it was based on well-known principles.
  • However, all those well-known principles were made truly effective through how the individual award winners adopted and adapted the principles to suit their own context and, often, their own unique personalities.

What follows are some thoughts on short and mid/long term strategies, which might be useful for CQU. Some are specific strategies for CD&DU.

First, a disclaimer, I believe this is an example of a wicked design problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973). There is no one silver bullet, or even a small number. There are no objective or definitive measures to determine if one approach is “best”, or often even better than others. Any change, no matter how small, is going to have effects. Some of these will create entirely unexpected results, either positive or negative.

Short term

Set the bar high

Where applicable (i.e. probably not early career), only staff who can demonstrate a consistent, on-going interest in good learning and teaching should be considered and generally only if there is something unique which sets them off.

The same perhaps should be applied to the CQU L&T awards. If it becomes that case that anyone can get one, it would soon tarnish the image.

Consider the impact of CQU’s context

All of the presenters I saw (maybe there were some I didn’t see that were different) at the Carrick awards forum were teaching in a context that applied at CQU in the early 90s. There was generally a single academic or a small team. These people had essentially total responsibility for a course, or small sequence of courses, for a consistent time period. They had problems to solve and the time and responsibility to solve them.

This is, in my experience over the last 5 year not the context many CQU academics find themselves in. A huge number of factors significantly restrict the innovation (and the quality) which a proportion of CQU coordinators can undertake. These factors include: ESOS requirements that all international students meet face-to-face (somewhat lifted in recent times), the majority of students being the direct responsibility of a number of other staff (the last course I taught had 250+ students, I was directly teaching 8), the need to coordinate upwards of 20 other staff, many of those staff being casual tutors paid according to traditional expectations and little or not ability to change this model, and perhaps the most important the sheer complexity of delivering these courses being extremely difficulty and making individuals and the organization significantly risk adverse in terms of changing models.

These and many other factors make it incredibly difficult for a significant proportion of CQU staff to do anything like the approaches shown at the Carrick awards forum.

There are other universities with similar contexts and issues. The apparent absence of any of their staff as Carrick award winners seems to indicate that CQU isn’t the only university having trouble dealing with these issues.

Some of the tactics which might alleviate some of these factors include

  • The existence of a process that allows the proposal, implementation and evaluation of significant innovations in large, complex courses involving the AICs.
  • Different models of ownership of courses and involvement of all teaching staff associated with courses in development, delivery and evaluation.

Examine the Bulmer Fellowship

Dr Michael Bulmer, a statistician from UQ, announced he’d received a Carrick associate fellowship to look at automated assessment of reflective journals. Essentially, approaches to allow students in large classes to maintain individual reflective journals that would enable academic staff to keep on eye on the student without the need for large amounts of manual marking. One of the solutions to this problem is the use of textual analysis software like Leximancer.

This has interesting connections with the BAM project which is slowly increasing in use at CQU (use in the 2nd half of 2007 may reach 3 or 4 courses).

Long Term

For ideas around what can be done long term I’m going to fall back onto the Trigwell model (2001) shown below.

Trigwell's Model of University Teaching

If our aim is to improve the strategies teachers’ are using and hence the quality of the learning and teaching then we have to implement strategies that encourage the improvement of the context, teachers’ thinking and their planning.

Teaching/Learning Context

There are broad range of fundamental holes, inefficiencies, problems and scope for improvement within the teaching/learning context. Some of these are long term issues specific to teaching and learning, some are more recent and have more to do with the University and its general direction.

Some initial, far from exhaustive thoughts on potential actions follow. Obviously what is on the list is limited by my current time and my current problems/issues. Will work on this list over time.

  • ITD, DTLS and the faculties need to work more collaboratively and effectively on a range of projects targeted at specific academic needs.
    e.g. making the course profile process simpler and more efficient, marking copy detection for plagiarism easier etc.
  • Change to the learning context not based in a demonstrable, direct need of academics or students need to be minimised.
    e.g. dropping both Webfuse and Blackboard and adopting Moodle could not be demonstrated as in response to a direct need for academics and staff. It would be for perceived needs of the “organisation”.

Teacher’s thinking

  • Targeted invitations to Carrick award winners to specific CoPs.
    Based on the assumption that you can only change practice by addressing the teachers conception of their identity. Bring in award winners which match the “identity” of various groups. Aim to maximise the homphily of the award winner and the CoP
  • DTLS/Faculty fellowships
    Implement short-term fellowships which bring faculty folk down to DTLS for specific (usually faculty-based) projects. The aim being to develop more connections between DTLS and the faculties.
  • What are they thinking?
    Perform research into what faculty are thinking now. What are their problems? Use this to inform changes to the teaching/learning context. Use it as a basis for longitudinal research to measure over time what is done.

Teachers’ planning

  • Reworked REACT process that encourages the use of a CoP based approach for the planning/design of a course.
    i.e. rather than have academics plan out a course by themselves, with little or no interaction with others. Modify the REACT process to act as a CoP based approach to course design. It might work something like this

    • Identify a collection of 6-12 academics from diverse disciplines and background who are developing a course for offering in a given term.
    • Combine them with selection of learning designers, various technical people (e.g. video production/streaming) and perhaps the odd invited guest
    • There would a fixed sequence of gatherings (perhaps half days) at which the CoP would share insights and plans.
      The sequence might be based around the ADDIE process or something similar.

    This, would hopefully, open up the diversity of input the teacher receives during the planning process for a course, establish connections across disciplines, and potentially provide a more cost effective approach to learning design than the traditional one (designer) on one (course) approach

Creating a podcast that students/staff can contribute to

One of the requirements in the Web 2.0 course site for Creative Futuring is to have a podcast that both students and staff can contribute to. The intent is not so much that they will create their own resources but that they will tag interesting podcast episodes that they come across on the web.

The plan is for the students to be already using so it seemed sensible to me that there should be a way to harness that existing process. A little Googling reveals this approach using Feedburner. What follows is my trial at using this approach.

Setting it up

Following the above approach this is what it takes to set the “infrastructure” up.

Identify the source

Sticking with the course site idea I’m using the mp3 files I created during the second half of 2006 when teaching the course COIS20025, Systems Development Overview. The mp3 files are part of the lecture slides page

Tag with

Using “ctrl-click” (right click on a Windows box) while hovering over a link to an MP3 file I select “Tag this Link”. This only works because I’ve got the plugin installed.

I decided to use the tag “cois20025-pod” which results in this page.

Initially I just tagged it, but obviously using an appropriate name and description would result in better information within the podcast, so I went back and edited some of that.

Burn the feed

Visit Feedburner put in the URL for the page for the cois20025-pod tag and FeedBurner auto picks up the RSS feed I want.

Get an account and enter in various additional “podcast” information, choose what traffic statistics I want.

All finished and you have a feed that can be subscribed to in iTunes or your choice of podcast software.

The feed for this experiment is

How would this work for students/staff

All of the above would not have to be done by students or staff. The configuration/setting up process above is what the support staff would do (though academic staff could do it themselves if they wished).

The requirements for staff/students would be

  • Have the plugin installed into their browser
  • Have an understanding of how to use it
  • Know what tag to use to tag resources to add to the podcast
  • Know how to subscribe to that podcast

Much of this information could be provided by the course website resources page and backed up with support in class.

During the course they would have to

  • Remember to tag what they think is relevant
  • Keep an eye on the podcast in iTunes or equivalent

CQU's first Web 2.0 course site?

Thanks to a bit of “synergy” it looks like CQU might be getting its first Web 2.0 course site. I’m currently defining a Web 2.0 course site as a recognisable course website that just happens to be implemented, to a significant extent, making use of “Web 2.0” services.

The label is a contradiction in terms. Web 2.0 is not about client/server, a single site that hosts all the material. It’s about a bunch of services being mixed together in an ad hoc way by the participants (and that’s not a definition I plan reusing too often). I’m reasonably sure that folk like Stephen Downes would have some very valid qualms about the concept.

I think there’s value in the idea as a stage in development. A small step along the road to Web 2.0 goodness that is familiar enough to academic staff to overcome the fear of all the Web 2.0 novelty. I’ve argued briefly about this before.

It fits with my attachment to Roger’s diffusion of innovation theories. A Web 2.0 course site is a method to show the Web 2.0 “stuff” in a form that is

  • compatible with existing practice;
    There is still a course site like most already have.
  • provides relative advantage;
    The web 2.0 technologies are easier to use and provide some more useful features than a traditional LMS.
  • at the cost of little complexity;
  • while be something that is observable (because a Web 2.0 course site would essentially be open)

What we’ll be doing

By July 9 the site should be up. It will be for the course EDED11448, Creative Futuring being taught by Bernie Walker-Gibbs. The work is also part of CQU Learning & Teaching grant Bernie received this year to look at this sort of stuff.

The rough initial plan is for the course site to have the following sections

  • Resources
    A list of resources the staff and students find relevant to the course and which they tag using and which will be displayed on this page. This will include a course podcast pointing to various interesting podcast episodes already out on the net – again using and at the moment this approach using Feedburner
  • Weblog and Portfolio
    Each student will maintain a journal and a portfolio using RedBubble.
  • Learning Space
    The course material will be hosted here on WetPaint (a Wiki). WetPaint supports OpenID which allows us to learn some lessons in that area.
  • Announcements
    Most likely implemented as a blog using Blogger or similar.

There may also be a course barometer – which isn’t (yet) very Web 2.0.

What will it achieve

At the least we will learn some lessons about what is involved, what works and what doesn’t. It help inform us around what I (and some others) think is the next step in “course sites”.

Helping create innovative, good quality learning and teaching

In an earlier post I drew on a “model of teaching” from Trigwell (2001). The model is shown below

Trigwell's model of teaching

Sadly, because of the “streaming” way I tend to write these blog posts, I titled that post “A model for evaluating teaching”, this title did not match the intent of the post.

This post is intended to revisit the purpose of that post and build on it using insights gained from the comment made on that original post.

Purpose of the two posts

I’m currently responsible for a group that is charged with helping academic staff improve the quality of learning and teaching at CQU.

I’m trying to get a handle on how we should go about doing this.

My attraction to Trigwell’s model is that matches nicely with my own beliefs which might be summarised as creating a teaching/learning context which positively influences the thinking of academics and enables them to effectively translate that into planning, strategies and student experience.

I’m actually, to a large extent, not at all interested in evaluating teaching. I tend to like the phrase, “It’s not how bad you start, it’s how quickly you get better”.

My Orientiation

The comment on the original post by Kathleen Gray pointed to a paper by Ray Land (2001), the abstract for which is

This article explores the notions of change that seem to underpin the ways in which academic developers practice within speciŽ c organizational contexts and cultures. Drawing on a two-year empirical study across UK institutions it links concepts of change to the different ‘orientations’ that developers consider appropriate to their strategic terrain. It provides an opportunity for colleagues to examine their own concepts of change and a conceptual tool for auditing the extent to which the approaches adopted in our Units and Centres might appropriately address the cultures and needs of our organizations.

Land (2001) identifies 12 orientations (not claimed to be exhaustive) for academic development practice. I feel a resonance with the following

  • Romantic (ecological humanist)
    My romantic notion is that staff want to be effective in their T&L, it’s just other contextual factors that get in the way. Fix those and some good things will happen.
  • Vigilant opportunist
    At least to the extent that I try and take advantage of opportunities that help support the above point.
  • Reflective practitioner
    A key plank in an effective teaching/learning context, at least for me, is a culture that requires or strongly encourages critical reflection amongst colleagues (it’s not how bad you start, it’s how quickly you get better). The REACT project is all about this.
  • Internal consultant
    By the nature of CQU’s structure our group will need to act somewhat along these lines. Though I hope we will not stop at an advisory capacity but take a more active role, not in the direct teaching process but in terms of creating that contet.
  • Interpretive-hermeneutic
    I’m a strong believe in diversity of views. Mainly because it is through the unique combination of those views and abilities that really interesting innovation arises.

What I reject and why

The orientations to which I am somewhat less favourably inclined include

  • Managerial
    I’ve argued in a number of places (paper, presentation and various posts on this blog) why I think this approach is incredibly problematic for a university context, especially at this point in time. Since this approach generally involves a small number of people, with limited perspective and rationality (we all have limited rationality) it results in a limited solution.
  • Political strategist
    Within a university, or any organisation, to some extent you cannot get things done unless you play the political game. However, just at CQU I’ve seen too many examples of folk for whom the political game is the be all and end all. Those folk, in my experience, are poison for the organisation.
  • Researcher
    Land’s characterisation of this group is that they present compelling educational research evidence as the most effective way of influencing colleagues’ practice. How naive can you get? The questionable assumptions behind this approach include finding research that is beyond question, matches the research prejudices of the academic audience, effective bridges the research/practice relevance gap and talks effectively to the unique features and problems of the local learning and teaching context. Personally, I’m a great believe in Rogers’ diffusion theory in terms of how people choose to adopt innovations. I even co-authored a paper applying diffusion theory to choosing innovations.
  • Professional competence
    Who seeks to ensure staff have a baseline competence. Again diffusion theory and academic freedom enters the picture. Academic staff won’t engage effectively in that sort of training, especially if divorced from a purpose they find meaningful, at least that’s my belief.
  • Modeller-broker
    Getting academic staff to adopt good practice because they are shown it. Observability is one of the characteristics which Rogers’ indicates can improve the likelihood of adoption. But it is fairly minor when compared to relative advantage, complexity and compatibility. There’s also the question of how similar the identity/context/nature of the modeller and the observer. The more difference, the less likely is adoption.
  • Discipline-specific
    The problem here is the lack of diversity. Most discipline people tend to think alike. Effective collaboration of diverse folk offers a much better long term quality of outcome.

Other factors

Land (2001) also talks about the understanding of the context, the nature of the organisation, the university. Land (2001) identifies 6 cultures: anarchic, collegial, enterprise, hierarchical, managerial and political.

I believe there are aspects of all 6, but that the presence of all 6, especially when combined with a range of uncertain, rapidly changing external factors, contributes to an overall tendency towards anarchy.

Land then goes on to present a range of different understandings/approaches to change. Again many of these apply – I even mention diffusion theory which is one – but I lean towards “uncertainty, non-linearity and chaotic theories of change”.

Returning to the original problem

So then, how does a group helping learning and teaching operate. Some initial thoughts:

  • It’s more than what the students want.
    A lot of emphasis within the Australian university context understanding what students want from learning and teaching. First, there’s a lot of literature in a number of design fields that indicate the folly of resting too much on what users want. They generally don’t even know and what they do know is generally limited to their past experience with no appreciation for what might be possible.

    More importantly, knowing what students want is relatively easy compared to how you get academics to make use of this information to improve the student experience. Typically there will be a range of factors in the learning/teaching context that get in the way.

    Once you know what the students want (even though its questionable) you need to look at how you change the learning/teaching context to make it possible, even desirable for academics to change their thinking, planning and strategies to enable these to be implemented.

  • Knowing the current state of affairs
    You can’t improve the current teaching/learning context unless you know what the current state is. This is incredibly difficult. There is no one objective teaching/learning context. Different academic staff will perceive it in different ways. Certainly a tutor in a large course will perceive it differently to the Vice-Chancellor.


Keith Trigwell, Judging University Teaching, The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1): 65-73

Land, R. (2001). “Agency, context and change in academic development.â€? The International Journal for Academic Development. 6(1): 4-20

Governance, e-learning and learning design

One of the challenges facing CQU and in particular “my group” is the question of governance around e-learning (the use of ICTs to support/enhance learning and teaching) and learning design. The essential problem, from my perspective, is that there are limited resources how and who makes the decisions about how those resources are used.

While we’re struggling with e-learning and learning design “governance” CQU’s Information Technology Division is also seeking to recast its governance structures.

The aim of this post is to force me to reflect on what I think and generate some perspectives and ideas. I think it’s turned into a disconnected diatribe against the current dominant model – not sure that’s all that useful.

What is governance?

Previously I’ve drawn on the Wikipedia definition. Which includes statements such as

Governance (in business) is the action of developing and managing consistent, cohesive policies, processes and decision rights for a given area of responsibility.

and defines the aims of corporate governance as

  • align the actions of the individual parts of an organisation toward aggregate mutual benefit
  • provide the means by which each individual part of the organisation can trust that the other parts each make their contribution to the mutual benefit of the organisation and that none gain unfairly at the expense of others
  • provide a means by which information can quickly flow between the various stakeholders to ensure that the changing nature of both the stakeholder needs and desires and the environment in which the organisation operates get effectively factored into decision processes

Looking a bit further the Wikipedia entry on Information Technology Governance quotes the Australian Standard for Corporate Governance of ICT which defines IT governance as

The system by which the current and future use of ICT is directed and controlled. It involves evaluating and directing the plans for the use of ICT to support the organisation and monitoring this use to achieve plans. It includes the strategy and policies for using ICT within an organisation.

My main problem with traditional governance

My main problem is that traditional governance as practiced by most organisations is at the extreme teleological end of the spectrum. It is plan driven. It is based on the assumption that a small group of people can go away and analyse the situation and develop plans and goals for the rest of the organisation.

Introna (1996) posits that there are three necessary conditions that must hold in order for this approach to work

  1. The system’s behaviour must be relatively stable and predictable.
  2. The designer(s) is/are able to manipulate the system’s behaviour directly.
  3. The designer(s) is/are able to determine accurately the goals or criteria for success.

I challenge anyone to claim that these three conditions apply in universities, particularly those in the Australian context. I challenge anyone to claim that these three conditions apply to e-learning – helping academics (Can you successfully manipulate their behaviour?) use ICTs (Are ICTs stable and predictable? Is how ICTs are used in learning and teaching stable and predictable?).

Kezar (2001) says

The unique characteristics of higher education are in conflict with the assumptions of teleological models, which assume a clear vision, unambiguous plans, a decision-making chain of command, clear delegation of responsibility, decisions based on facts and rationality.

Does somebody know of any university that has those features?

If not, it begs the question why universities, and more importantly, governments and their “functionaries” require the adoption of teleological approaches to governance, strategic planning, quality etc.

The alternatives

It’s not as if I have some brilliant insight that no-one else knows about. A lot of people have been talking about this issue and providing alternatives to traditional teleological approach. This includes, but I’m betting is not limited to,

  • The information systems research literature in the 90s (Baskerville et al, 1992; Introna, 1996)
  • The consulting companies in the late 90s and early 2000s (Voloudakis, 2005)
    It is interesting that Voloudakis (2005), after banging on about the need for the ateleological “adaptive organisation” then proceeds to trumpet his consulting group’s 6 domains to take an adaptive approach to strategy which, at least to me, appear to be fairly standard components of any teleological approach to governance. Much of the later recommendations in the article appear to be minor tweaks to traditional governance approaches rather than a recognition that there is a need for a major paradigm shift. There’s a whole other post about how wrong this article goes once the author stops quoting other folk.
  • Universities and e-learning (Kezar, 2001; Voloudakis, 2005; Wise and Quealy, 2006a; Wise and Quealy, 2006b)
  • Land (2001) provides an overview of numerous different conceptualisations of universities which demonstrates that the traditional teleological (Land uses the term Managerial) approach is only one of numerous approaches.

After her review of literature around change management at universities Kezar (2001) identifies these research-based principles for change

  • Promote organisational self-discovery
  • Focus on adaptability
  • Construct opportunities for interaction
  • Strive to create homeostasis
  • Combine teleological with social-cognition, cultural and political strategies

Voloudakis (2005) offers a range of quotes from other folk and his own comments about the nature of alternate approaches

Whatever it is called, the essential message is that organizations need to rethink how they plan for the future. They need to focus on their strengths and build capabilities to rapidly adapt to changes in customer demand, market dynamics, shifting technology, and other unforeseen events.

Becoming an adaptive enterprise means abandoning our management habits of prediction and control and developing instead the capacity to respond to change.

A sense-and-respond organization does not attempt to predict future demand for its offerings. Instead, it identifies changing customer needs and new business challenges as they happen, responding to them quickly and appropriately.

Daniel J. Forno, Vice President, IBM Global Services, who described this change as “Sense and Respond vs. Plan, Make, and Sell.”9 Forno noted that in this model, effective tactics in essence become the strategy. Organizations focus their strategic thinking on how to most effectively respond to anything the market throws their way, rather than planning for one or more specific scenarios.

Lord John Browne, Group Chief Executive of BP, offers yet another perspective: “Giving up the illusion that you can predict the future is a very liberating moment. All you can do is give yourself the capacity to respond . . . the creation of that capacity is the purpose of strategy.”

Separation of what and how

Traditionally IT governance structures seek to firmly define the separation of responsibility for answering the following two questions

  1. What needs to be done?
    In the old model this question must be answered by the business, and in particular senior management.
  2. How should it be done?
    The aim of IT governance is to ensure that it is only the central IT division that makes this decision. i.e. what technology should be used to achieve the “what”?

That made sense “back in the day” when technologies were inflexible, complicated and expensive. In those days it required specialist skills to achieve outcomes with technology. Skills a normal person simply didn’t have. A bit like the role of scribes in the very early days of writing.

Increasingly information technology, most recently in the form of Web 2.0/social software is becoming incredibly more simple to use and more powerful. It means that you don’t need the same skill level as previously required. In some cases you don’t need to be an IT person to construct something useful.

In this environment, the separation of what and how becomes a barrier that slows down response. It is slower because the people who have the need have to climb the governance ladder, at each stage attempting to explain why their “how” is important enough for the people who can decide the “what” to take an interest. Climbing that ladder takes time.

Even you climb the ladder you have the Chinese whispers problem where the original intent is lost due to errors that accumulate as the description moves further and further away from the original source of the need for the “what”.

How teleological limits innovation

Again from Voloudakis (2005)

“Most institutions use IT planning as an exercise in developing infrastructure to accomplish simple extrapolations of current practices. Rather than enabling a new future, they extrapolate more efficient versions of current practices into the future, five years at a time.

The rationality of the people involved in planning is influenced by the past experience and knowledge. In traditional governance structures it’s senior executive and the IT division. Senior executive are traditionally a long way from existing practice in learning and teaching at universities and generally struggle to handle their own email inbox without outside assistance (though that is reducing).

The IT division folk, who tend to get continually crucified about how much IT is costing the organisation, bring a continual focus on being cheaper in terms of their bottom line budget cost. The negative impact that the IT divisions cost savings may have on the overall bottom line of the organisation is never captured by current financial practices.


Baskerville, R. J. Travis, D. Truex. (1992). Systems without method: the impact of new technologies on information systems development projects. The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development. K. E. Kendall. Amsterdam, North-Holland: 241-251

Introna, L. (1996). “Notes on ateleological information systems development.” Information Technology & People. 9(4): 20-39

Kezar, A. (2001). “Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptulizations.” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28(4).

Land, R. (2001). “Agency, context and change in academic development.” The International Journal for Academic Development. 6(1): 4-20

Voloudakis, J. (2005). “Hitting a moving target: IT strategy in a real-time world.” EDUCAUSE Review 40(2): 44-55

Wise, L. and J. Quealy. (2006). “LMS Governance Project Report

Wise, L. and J. Quealy. (2006). “At the limits of social constructivism: Moving beyond LMS to re-integrate scholarship“. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén