From a teaching perspective, NGL can be used with greater efficacy if learners first possess a high degree of multi-literacy, self-regulation and comfort making external connections. Conversely, multi-literacy, SRL and connectivism can be enhanced through NGL. Therefore, as an experiential designer, my role is one that must facilitate each set of skills through the design of digitally enhanced, connected learning programs that call for a large degree of autonomy.
Furthermore, the programs I design focus on experiential learning. So, in order to both enhance and facilitate NGL they must include elements of chaos, anxiety and complexity, as well as filtration, SRL and structure. I see this involving four components:
Component 1: Experiential Learning.
The concept of experiential learning can be attributed to David A Kolb’s (1984) work, ‘Experiential Learning’, which took its foundations from Carl Rogers Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, and John Dewey. Experiential learning theory has evolved since Kolb’s primary works, (Fenwick 2003; Kolb & Kolb 2005; Seaman 2008; Bergsteiner, Avery & Neumann 2010) however, its fundamentals are still widely accepted. Kolb (1984) claimed that when learning experientially, students must undergo a four-stage cycle; concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. This process is represented here:
Furthermore, the programs I design focus on experiential learning. So, in order to both enhance and facilitate NGL they must include elements of chaos, anxiety and complexity, as well as filtration, SRL and structure. I see this involving four components:
- Experiential learning: Contextual, task-based learning.
- Controlled chaos: Providing clear expectations followed by freedom to achieve them.
- Expected connectivity: Creating some outcomes only achievable through external connections and networks
- Multi-modal design: Resources, artefacts and tools catering to different levels of 21st century and learning preferences.
Component 1: Experiential Learning.
The concept of experiential learning can be attributed to David A Kolb’s (1984) work, ‘Experiential Learning’, which took its foundations from Carl Rogers Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, and John Dewey. Experiential learning theory has evolved since Kolb’s primary works, (Fenwick 2003; Kolb & Kolb 2005; Seaman 2008; Bergsteiner, Avery & Neumann 2010) however, its fundamentals are still widely accepted. Kolb (1984) claimed that when learning experientially, students must undergo a four-stage cycle; concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. This process is represented here:
Experiential learning is a process whereby concepts are learnt through continually modified experiences. Subsequently, Baasanjav (2013) maintains reflection and abstraction are crucial and must be applied by teachers in the learning process.
According to Ramsden (2003), the purpose of teaching is to make learning possible so that students may conceptualise knowledge in the way experts do. On the other hand, instructional design offers guidance on how teaching can be applied in order to help students learn and develop (Reigeluth 1999). Furthermore, instructional design for online learning can be thought of as a strategy of creative problem solving that generates workable solutions for multifaceted problems (Kays 2003).
Consequently, experiential design is similar to instructional design, yet its outcomes result in experiential learning programs. Thus experiential design presents a strategy by which learning can be achieved experientially, via personal experience, context and involvement, as opposed to conventional teaching or learning, where educators instruct and dictate to students (Gentry, 1990).
According to Ramsden (2003), the purpose of teaching is to make learning possible so that students may conceptualise knowledge in the way experts do. On the other hand, instructional design offers guidance on how teaching can be applied in order to help students learn and develop (Reigeluth 1999). Furthermore, instructional design for online learning can be thought of as a strategy of creative problem solving that generates workable solutions for multifaceted problems (Kays 2003).
Consequently, experiential design is similar to instructional design, yet its outcomes result in experiential learning programs. Thus experiential design presents a strategy by which learning can be achieved experientially, via personal experience, context and involvement, as opposed to conventional teaching or learning, where educators instruct and dictate to students (Gentry, 1990).
Component 2: Controlled chaos.
The concept of controlled chaos in this context implies that learners are unique and will be able to achieve learning outcomes in their own way, as long as the expected results are reasonably defined. Also, it requires that suitable resources are offered that provide fundamental information, exemplars and tools to assist those who are less comfortable learning autonomously.
Jonassen (1990) counseled against eliminating chaos in teaching, encouraging instructional designers to employ techniques that accommodate it. His theory was that chaos should not be conquered, as it would render the learning process sterile and unstimulating. As a teacher, or experiential designer, learner engagement is paramount for focus (Murphy 2011). A networked learning environment creates complexity within its cohort, which is a catalyst for both chaos and stimulation (De Laat and Lalley 2003). Therefore, Rather than strictly containing the instructional process in my designs there should be elements of chaos to generate excitement. Murphy (2011) cites Ilya Prigogine, who focused on the emergence of order from disorder, termed dissipative structures. The theory here being that if our instructional systems are more dynamic by allowing room for learners’ personal intentions, structures and social realities, they will enable a more inclusive, autonomous result.
Discussion of dissipative structures in design compares to that of constructivist design principles. Chen, Hsu and Caropreso (2008) inferred that although teachers must provide appropriate orientations and direction, there is more power in facilitating a resource rich learning environment in which learners can solve complex problems through their own networks. Of course, in NGL, these networks are commonly digital.
Clarifying expectations, but leaving the discovery process to each student requires the capability to design experiences that require self-regulated learning using digital literacy. Digital literacy is critically inclusive of searching, vetting and integrating information into the meaning-making process during online learning (Greene, Seung & Copeland 2015). It becomes enhanced when students see that results are achieved by accessing better information. Thus, what starts out as seemingly chaotic, finds order through controlled chaos.
The concept of controlled chaos in this context implies that learners are unique and will be able to achieve learning outcomes in their own way, as long as the expected results are reasonably defined. Also, it requires that suitable resources are offered that provide fundamental information, exemplars and tools to assist those who are less comfortable learning autonomously.
Jonassen (1990) counseled against eliminating chaos in teaching, encouraging instructional designers to employ techniques that accommodate it. His theory was that chaos should not be conquered, as it would render the learning process sterile and unstimulating. As a teacher, or experiential designer, learner engagement is paramount for focus (Murphy 2011). A networked learning environment creates complexity within its cohort, which is a catalyst for both chaos and stimulation (De Laat and Lalley 2003). Therefore, Rather than strictly containing the instructional process in my designs there should be elements of chaos to generate excitement. Murphy (2011) cites Ilya Prigogine, who focused on the emergence of order from disorder, termed dissipative structures. The theory here being that if our instructional systems are more dynamic by allowing room for learners’ personal intentions, structures and social realities, they will enable a more inclusive, autonomous result.
Discussion of dissipative structures in design compares to that of constructivist design principles. Chen, Hsu and Caropreso (2008) inferred that although teachers must provide appropriate orientations and direction, there is more power in facilitating a resource rich learning environment in which learners can solve complex problems through their own networks. Of course, in NGL, these networks are commonly digital.
Clarifying expectations, but leaving the discovery process to each student requires the capability to design experiences that require self-regulated learning using digital literacy. Digital literacy is critically inclusive of searching, vetting and integrating information into the meaning-making process during online learning (Greene, Seung & Copeland 2015). It becomes enhanced when students see that results are achieved by accessing better information. Thus, what starts out as seemingly chaotic, finds order through controlled chaos.
Component 3: Expected connectivity.
Expected connectivity introduces the expectation that students will actually connect to a network. Designing courses so that some outcomes within each module of learning require ‘connections’ with external networks is a means of facilitating NGL in a way that directly affects a students’ results. However, these results need not be fundamental to one’s overall success. If there are activities of connectivism in each course I develop, the action of ‘connecting’ through NGL will become habitual.
As an experiential designer, creating habit through NGL should focus on three areas; repetitive, digital activity and reflective social experiences, which take place in a relevant contextual environment. Goodyear et al (2004) profess that within each repetitive task learners should be afforded relevant artefacts and resources reflective of their physical environment. However, there should be no mandate as to how these tools are used, for the task does not prescribe the result. Downes (2012) stresses that in a connectivist course the content isn’t as important as the connections. Accordingly, once small gains are made by learners applying their own methods to complete certain tasks, trust in the NGL process will increase (Hodgson, McConnell & Dirckink-Holmfeld 2011).
Trust and information sharing give networks the advantage of resilience in times of change according to Goodyear (2014), who recognises that students will configure their own personal learning experience, so it might as well benefit their results. What he advocates is the creation of connected forms that favour the emergence of convivial learning relationships, thus supporting the social construction of networked knowledge. Eventually, this may for what Siemens (2011) calls network-directed learning.
Therefore, by creating the expectation that simple repetitive connections are part of the course without mandating the specific content to be learnt, adding expected connectivity can create network habituation and trust in the process, which will benefit future networked learning.
Expected connectivity introduces the expectation that students will actually connect to a network. Designing courses so that some outcomes within each module of learning require ‘connections’ with external networks is a means of facilitating NGL in a way that directly affects a students’ results. However, these results need not be fundamental to one’s overall success. If there are activities of connectivism in each course I develop, the action of ‘connecting’ through NGL will become habitual.
As an experiential designer, creating habit through NGL should focus on three areas; repetitive, digital activity and reflective social experiences, which take place in a relevant contextual environment. Goodyear et al (2004) profess that within each repetitive task learners should be afforded relevant artefacts and resources reflective of their physical environment. However, there should be no mandate as to how these tools are used, for the task does not prescribe the result. Downes (2012) stresses that in a connectivist course the content isn’t as important as the connections. Accordingly, once small gains are made by learners applying their own methods to complete certain tasks, trust in the NGL process will increase (Hodgson, McConnell & Dirckink-Holmfeld 2011).
Trust and information sharing give networks the advantage of resilience in times of change according to Goodyear (2014), who recognises that students will configure their own personal learning experience, so it might as well benefit their results. What he advocates is the creation of connected forms that favour the emergence of convivial learning relationships, thus supporting the social construction of networked knowledge. Eventually, this may for what Siemens (2011) calls network-directed learning.
Therefore, by creating the expectation that simple repetitive connections are part of the course without mandating the specific content to be learnt, adding expected connectivity can create network habituation and trust in the process, which will benefit future networked learning.
Component 4. Multi-modal design:
A mode is an artefact of communication. Communication modes typically have two main subsets: verbal (written and spoken language) and visual Willems (2008) explains that. Experiential digital learning requires communication to be absolutely discernible, as there are no instructors to offer an explanation (Jin 2013). Enhancing clarity in uninstructed experiential learning can be accomplished by producing the same information in multiple modes that cater to numerous learner styles. In any learning experience learning styles should be taken into account (Kolb 1984; Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone 2004; Felder and Spurlin 2005; Willems 2008 and Burdick & Willis 2011). Experiential learning is no exception. Connectivism provides a framework for understanding how students learn, and good learning in turn involves critical evaluation and synthesis of connections Barnett, McPherson & Sandieson 2013).
Essentially, to be an effective teaching practice, connectivism must incorporate multi-modal design and 21st Century literacies (Dunaway, 2011), which include self-paced learning technologies and possess different forms or meaning transmission. The tools include some or all of the following social media:
• Blogs & Microblogging
• Discussion forums
• File sharing
• Social bookmarking
• Tags
• User profiles
• Wiki pages
While text-based communication is prevalent in e-learning, to facilitate the effective use of NGL through 21st century literacy additional forms of multimedia must be added. Today, making-meaning, information sourcing and communication relies heavily on multi-modal practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Thus, in order to design effective networked experiential learning, knowledge of those modes and how they can be used appropriately is essential for experiential designers. Meaning-makers do not simply use what they have been given: they are also re-makers of signs and transformers of meaning (Cope & Kalantzis 2009).
Where once meaning was acquired through text, it is now largely absorbed through digital technology. Digital text uses technology interactively yet similarly to the basic cognitive processes used to read traditional text (Shapiro and Niederhauser, 2004). Still, students occasionally have difficulties learning via digital text (Dillon & Jobst, 2005; Sung & Mayer, 2012), so as an experiential designer my consideration is how to use it in a clear an d consistent manner.
Clarity isn’t always gained text on a page; rather it is multimodal, and also involves images, actions and sounds Gee (2004). Prensky (2006) and Charsky (2010) discovered learners possess notable preferences towards visual learning formats in e-learning environments. Subsequently, images, videos, diagrams and illustrated elements can add depth to learning, and provide strong representations of meaning.
Also, aural modes mustn’t go unheralded. These include music, ambient echoes, noises, alerts (representing meaning to another); as well as hearing, listening (representing meaning to oneself) Cope and Kalantzis (2009). Deep contextualisation is fundamental to aural modes, as they enhance the situational experience, and when used effectively can augment orientation.
Cognitive overload and disorientation are two primary reasons why students struggle with technology (Gerjets, Scheiter, & Schuh, 2008). However, if experiential design can reduce these factors through the application of appropriate modes of communication, networked technologies can be more effectively experienced, thus facilitating greater appreciation for NGL.
A mode is an artefact of communication. Communication modes typically have two main subsets: verbal (written and spoken language) and visual Willems (2008) explains that. Experiential digital learning requires communication to be absolutely discernible, as there are no instructors to offer an explanation (Jin 2013). Enhancing clarity in uninstructed experiential learning can be accomplished by producing the same information in multiple modes that cater to numerous learner styles. In any learning experience learning styles should be taken into account (Kolb 1984; Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone 2004; Felder and Spurlin 2005; Willems 2008 and Burdick & Willis 2011). Experiential learning is no exception. Connectivism provides a framework for understanding how students learn, and good learning in turn involves critical evaluation and synthesis of connections Barnett, McPherson & Sandieson 2013).
Essentially, to be an effective teaching practice, connectivism must incorporate multi-modal design and 21st Century literacies (Dunaway, 2011), which include self-paced learning technologies and possess different forms or meaning transmission. The tools include some or all of the following social media:
• Blogs & Microblogging
• Discussion forums
• File sharing
• Social bookmarking
• Tags
• User profiles
• Wiki pages
While text-based communication is prevalent in e-learning, to facilitate the effective use of NGL through 21st century literacy additional forms of multimedia must be added. Today, making-meaning, information sourcing and communication relies heavily on multi-modal practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Thus, in order to design effective networked experiential learning, knowledge of those modes and how they can be used appropriately is essential for experiential designers. Meaning-makers do not simply use what they have been given: they are also re-makers of signs and transformers of meaning (Cope & Kalantzis 2009).
Where once meaning was acquired through text, it is now largely absorbed through digital technology. Digital text uses technology interactively yet similarly to the basic cognitive processes used to read traditional text (Shapiro and Niederhauser, 2004). Still, students occasionally have difficulties learning via digital text (Dillon & Jobst, 2005; Sung & Mayer, 2012), so as an experiential designer my consideration is how to use it in a clear an d consistent manner.
Clarity isn’t always gained text on a page; rather it is multimodal, and also involves images, actions and sounds Gee (2004). Prensky (2006) and Charsky (2010) discovered learners possess notable preferences towards visual learning formats in e-learning environments. Subsequently, images, videos, diagrams and illustrated elements can add depth to learning, and provide strong representations of meaning.
Also, aural modes mustn’t go unheralded. These include music, ambient echoes, noises, alerts (representing meaning to another); as well as hearing, listening (representing meaning to oneself) Cope and Kalantzis (2009). Deep contextualisation is fundamental to aural modes, as they enhance the situational experience, and when used effectively can augment orientation.
Cognitive overload and disorientation are two primary reasons why students struggle with technology (Gerjets, Scheiter, & Schuh, 2008). However, if experiential design can reduce these factors through the application of appropriate modes of communication, networked technologies can be more effectively experienced, thus facilitating greater appreciation for NGL.
References
Baasanjav, U. (2013). Incorporating the Experiential Learning Cycle into Online Classes. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(4), 575-589.
Barnett, J., McPherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685-698.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neumann, R. (2010). Kolb’s experiential learning model: Critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32, 29-46.
Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 546-556. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.005
Charsky, D. (2010). From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177-198.
Chen, S. J., Hsu, C. L., & Caropreso, E. (2009, March). Designing E-learning 2.0 Environment for Cross-cultural Collaborative Learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 2257-2263).
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, England: Routledge
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Retrieved from http://www.lsrc.ac.uk/publications/index.asp
De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional science, 31(1-2), 7-39.
Dillon, A., & Jobst, J. (2005). Multimedia learning with hypermedia. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 569-588.
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm Stephen Downes Web.
Dunaway, K.M. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685.
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Learning through experience: Troubling orthodoxies and intersecting questions. Malabar, FL: Krieger
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London, England: Routledge.
Gentry, James W. (1990). Guide to Business Gaming and Experiential Learning. Nichols Pub Co.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 73-92.
Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004, April). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In proceedings of networked learning (pp. 449-455).
Goodyear, P. (2014). PRODUCTIVE LEARNING NETWORKS. The architecture of productive learning networks,Vol 23.
Greene, J. A., Seung, B. Y., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & education, 76, 55-69.
Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291-305). Springer New York.
Jin, S.-H. (2013). Visual design guidelines for improving learning from dynamic and interactive digital text. Computers & Education, 63, 248-258.
Jonassen, D. H. (1990, February). Chaos in instructional design. Educational Technology, 32–34.
Kays, E. (2003). Architecture and instructional design: A model for e-learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003(1), 1050-1056.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212
Murphy, D. (2011). " Chaos rules" revisited. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 116-134.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don't Bother Me, Mom, I'm Learning!: How Computer and Video Games are Preparing Your Kids for 21st Century Success and how You Can Help!. New York: Paragon House.
Ramsden, P., (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edition, Routledge Falmer, London
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruction theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Seaman, J. (2008). Experience, reflect, critique: The end of the “learning cycles” era. Journal of Experiential Education, 31, 3-18.
Siemens, G. (2011). Moving beyond self-directed learning: Network-directed learning. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=307
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Willems, J. (2008). Beyond words alone: Considering the role of visual images in e-learning design and related copyright issues. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.
Baasanjav, U. (2013). Incorporating the Experiential Learning Cycle into Online Classes. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(4), 575-589.
Barnett, J., McPherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685-698.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neumann, R. (2010). Kolb’s experiential learning model: Critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32, 29-46.
Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 546-556. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.005
Charsky, D. (2010). From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177-198.
Chen, S. J., Hsu, C. L., & Caropreso, E. (2009, March). Designing E-learning 2.0 Environment for Cross-cultural Collaborative Learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 2257-2263).
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, England: Routledge
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Retrieved from http://www.lsrc.ac.uk/publications/index.asp
De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional science, 31(1-2), 7-39.
Dillon, A., & Jobst, J. (2005). Multimedia learning with hypermedia. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 569-588.
Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/me/mybooks.htm Stephen Downes Web.
Dunaway, K.M. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685.
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Learning through experience: Troubling orthodoxies and intersecting questions. Malabar, FL: Krieger
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London, England: Routledge.
Gentry, James W. (1990). Guide to Business Gaming and Experiential Learning. Nichols Pub Co.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 73-92.
Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004, April). Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In proceedings of networked learning (pp. 449-455).
Goodyear, P. (2014). PRODUCTIVE LEARNING NETWORKS. The architecture of productive learning networks,Vol 23.
Greene, J. A., Seung, B. Y., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & education, 76, 55-69.
Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291-305). Springer New York.
Jin, S.-H. (2013). Visual design guidelines for improving learning from dynamic and interactive digital text. Computers & Education, 63, 248-258.
Jonassen, D. H. (1990, February). Chaos in instructional design. Educational Technology, 32–34.
Kays, E. (2003). Architecture and instructional design: A model for e-learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003(1), 1050-1056.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212
Murphy, D. (2011). " Chaos rules" revisited. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 116-134.
Prensky, M. (2006). Don't Bother Me, Mom, I'm Learning!: How Computer and Video Games are Preparing Your Kids for 21st Century Success and how You Can Help!. New York: Paragon House.
Ramsden, P., (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edition, Routledge Falmer, London
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruction theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
Seaman, J. (2008). Experience, reflect, critique: The end of the “learning cycles” era. Journal of Experiential Education, 31, 3-18.
Siemens, G. (2011). Moving beyond self-directed learning: Network-directed learning. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=307
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618-1625.
Willems, J. (2008). Beyond words alone: Considering the role of visual images in e-learning design and related copyright issues. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.