Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds


Published on

Dublin Institute of Technology, 13 February 2018

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds

  1. 1. Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds Dublin Institute of Technology, 13 February 2018 Dr Chrissi Nerantzi FSEDA, PFHEA, CMALT, NTF @chrissinerantzi
  2. 2.,- 8.8601238,3416532m/data=!3m1!1e3 My journeys so far
  3. 3. • 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
  4. 4. Dr Chrissi Nerantzi FSEDA, PFHEA, CMALT, NTF @chrissinerantzi
  5. 5. • 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…
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Community ChoiceActivities Facilitator support Collaboration fostered Key features of reviewed frameworks
  8. 8. Collaborative learning. What is it?
  9. 9. “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)
  10. 10. Open and social timeline (Nerantzi, 2017b)
  11. 11. 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)?
  12. 12. “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
  13. 13. Connected Curriculum Framework (Fung, 2017, 5)
  14. 14. 4Ps… of creative learning (Resnick, 2017, 16-17) 4Ps Projects Passion Peers Play Anything missing?
  15. 15. The Playground model (Nerantzi, 2015) Close your eyes: baby/toddler, school age child, teenager
  16. 16. 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 Theory 2: Teaching as organising or facilitating student activity - active Education 2.0/Creativity 2.0/Learning Ecology 2.0 – constructivist Playground 2.0 participatory > gaining playful confidence through guided playful learning Theory 3: Teaching as making learning possible – self-directed Education 3.0/Creativity 3.0/Learning Ecology 3.0 - connectivist Playground 3.0 self- determined > autonomy, developing and sustaining play-active practice
  17. 17. Playground model (Nerantzi, 2015; Nerantzi, accepted) To foster playfulness and develop creative learning capacity and capabilities VisualisationbyLizWalshaw
  18. 18. 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.”
  19. 19. Now also online
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. Competition Collaboration & Openness A proposition: An alternative for engaging academics in CPD, raise the quality of teaching & innovate (Nerantzi, 2017a)
  22. 22. 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?
  23. 23. 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)
  24. 24. 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)
  25. 25. Case study 2 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 Collective case study approach to collect data PBL Negotiated Learning in groups was a choice! Groups supported by facilitators from collab institutions
  26. 26. 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)
  27. 27. Connected Curriculum Framework (Fung, 2017, 5)
  28. 28. 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)
  29. 29. QUOTES…
  30. 30. “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
  31. 31. “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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. Quotes linked to cross-boundaries “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
  34. 34. Quotes linked to cross-boundaries “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
  35. 35. Quotes linked to cross-boundaries “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
  36. 36. • 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)
  37. 37. Learning needs Design considerations Engagement patterns The dimensions of the cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework
  38. 38. VisualisationbyElizabethWalshaw Cross-boundary collaborative open learning framework (Nerantzi, 2017b)
  39. 39. Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners (Newman & Beetham, 2017, 16)
  40. 40. New horizons?
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. BYOD4L site Jan 18 LTHEchat site Jan 18 Course vs community?
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. Towards a cross-boundary open learning framework (Nerantzi, working on it) Immersive collaboration Autonomous learning Selective collaboration
  45. 45. What is in your basket? What are you taking away? What (else) could you try?
  46. 46. 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 BIS (2016a) Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility & student choice, Department for business, innovation & skills. London: BIS. Accessed from 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 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 on 27th November 2015. Crawford, K. (2009) Continuing professional development in higher education: Voices from below. University of Lincoln. [EdD thesis]. Accessed from 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 2/Dil.7.1.14.pdf on 26th June 2014. Fung, D. (2017) A connected curriculum for higher education, London: UCL Press. Accessed from 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 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 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 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 Newman, T. & Beetham, H. (2017) Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners, JISC, available at 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 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
  47. 47. Designing for learning using pedagogical scaffolds Dublin Institute of Technology, 13 Feb 2018 Dr Chrissi Nerantzi FSEDA, PFHEA, CMALT, NTF @chrissinerantzi
  48. 48. “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… Part 2 Let’s meet downstairs #CCTDIT