PRECIS OF FLIGHT PATH:
When I began ETEC-565A, my digital media skills were limited to Articulate Studio (a PowerPoint add-on), Desire-2-Learn (D2L), and some voice-editing software. In addition, I was only a novice mobile-device user. So, when I read the ISTE Standard – Teachers (2008) which encourages us to “model digital age work and learning” (p. 1), I recognized that was not fluent in the use of digital-age media. In fact, I often felt like I was playing catch-up in terms of educational technology, so I really hoped that ETEC-565A would introduce me to a wider range of learning software and how best to implement these within my online courses.
At present, I am helping to develop online courses that contain excellent information and give learners plenty of opportunity to actively engage with the content and reflect on their own practice. However, there is no occasion for them to collaborate with other learners. I was hoping to find new ways to introduce collaborative learning activities within our courses. In addition, I wanted to explore some networking tools that would assist healthcare providers to make connections with other professionals so that they could co-manage patients with oral-systemic or other interprofessional healthcare issues.
OVERALL ETEC-565A EXPERIENCE:
Overall, I found that ETEC-565A met its stated objectives, in that we learned to evaluate, select and use various learning technologies. It was helpful to have a venue in which to explore new software. I do hesitate to do so at work, because I can’t afford to start a project without knowing how much time it will take or what the results might be. So, I tend to go with the tried and true instead of taking time to explore other options.
The theoretical frameworks presented challenged us to make informed choices about technology. As is stated in the introduction to ETEC565A Module 1 (UBC, 2016, Module 1), it shouldn’t be a race to keep up with the latest software. Although I certainly feel behind the times in terms of the adoption of new technologies, the longer I am in the field of online learning, the more I realize the importance of doing a few things well and knowing why you are doing them rather than dabbling in many just for the sake of novelty. Always, we are taught, technology must support teaching and learning. Therefore, we must always be thinking about the learning outcomes (i.e., what will the student be expected to do after the course) and whether or not a particular technology will help them achieve those objectives. In other words, as Nel, Dreyer and Carstens (2010) state it, our primary criteria must always be learner-centered instruction. Only afterwards should we consider the secondary criteria of access, cost, and operability.
Learner-centred instruction is also a big theme in this program. I think that I am now starting to wrap my head around the concept. It has always made sense to me in terms of student’ learning style preferences. Therefore, including a variety of learning materials and activities from which to choose increases the likelihood of satisfying learners’ needs by enabling them to engage with the content at varying levels and depths (Bates, 2014, Ch. 8; Nel, Dreyer & Carstens, 2010). As an example, I really appreciated that in this course that we were always free to choose the topic of our projects (i.e., digital story, LMS content) so that the work would be meaningful to ourselves. I was actually thrilled that we could work on this individually and not in a group because otherwise, we’d have to compromise in terms of topic or the age group of the learners, which would prohibit any of us from using the assets later. Instead, we each devoted more hours to our projects but it was time well spent because most of us will now be able to reuse them in our educational practices.
In Module 2, we went on to study learning management systems (LMSs). This is technology of which I am familiar. I have used a computer-aided system of instruction; I have had a lot of training in D2L; and I have now taken six courses in Blackboard. It was wonderful to have the chance to build a course from scratch in a new platform. Coates, James and Baldwin (2005) talk about the drivers behind LMS adoption. I’m quite familiar with these, and at this point, I am not surprised that many students just see the LMS as “a general part of university infrastructure rather than as special tools which add value to their learning” (p. 28). I can’t imagine that there is a major university that does not subscribe to some LMS. At the University of Manitoba, most courses have, at the very least, a shell in D2L where instructors can post their syllabus, schedule and a few learning resources. I have always appreciated the benefit in terms of distance learning and access. I love the fact that you can direct students to one place to see many learning assets. Instead of being limited to showing them videos or other multimedia in class, they can be posted online and students can review them whenever they wish. It has certainly changed the dynamic of communication between students and teachers. Instead of saving questions for designated ‘office hours’, students can post questions whenever they think of them and everyone benefits. It really does give the impression that the instructor is more available and hence reduces that ‘transactional distance’ that Coats, James and Baldwin (2005) describe. This does require that teachers become accustomed to this new form of communication, but I think it puts them in better touch with their students.
However, I also know from first-hand experience that an LMS does not work well in all circumstances. I do not think I would go as far as Porto (2015) or Spiro (2014) who both doubt its future but it certainly isn’t an online learning panacea, and in many circumstances could easily be dwarfed by other platforms, such as social media or mobile instruction. For example, in my field of continuing education (CE), I am dealing with professionals who want to access CE whenever it is convenient for them. They have no time to register at an institute, wait for a student number and university email in order to access our LMS. Instead, they need a system that is as easy to access as a website or an app. If we don’t find a way to respond to this need, we will not get professionals taking our courses.
In the process of considering other web-based approaches to online learning, we were assigned to create an online delivery platform rubric. This was my least favourite part of the course. In retrospect, I appreciated doing some hands-on work with a framework such as Bates’ (2014, Ch. 8) SECTIONS, because doing this exercise solidified the framework in my mind. However, I didn’t like that we were creating a rubric for a non-specified platform. I think it would have been more practical to have a small group discussion around a real platform and use the SECTIONS model as a framework to rate it.
In Week 5, we moved on to mobile technologies. I have a psychology degree, and took a full course in motivation, so Ciampa’s (2013) work was a review. The idea that technology is intrinsically enjoyable and thus, motivating is debatable because of the novelty factor that existed when the study was created. In addition, the forces at work to motivate a class of grade 6 students are not the same as the ones motivating working professionals. The people who take our courses are motivated by their respective colleges to collect continuing education credits. We hope that the subject matter of our courses will peak their curiosity, but most of the time, we struggle with the fact that physicians and other professionals tend to take courses in things at which they already excel. To get them learning about topics that encompass their unperceived educational needs (such as the improvement of their communication skills), we often have to plug content inside a physiology course (such as new findings in heart disease). That said, a few ideas of Ciampa’s were helpful. It was good to be reminded that we can tap intrinsic motivation by challenging learners with goals that are personalized to their own learning needs and by giving them control over their learning by enabling them to independently access our resources. For my audience, the more control I can give them, the better because, often, professionals are either looking for specific nuggets of information that they can apply to their practice or need to go in depth into an area that they have only passing knowledge of. I need them to be able to navigate freely to get either benefit.
Module 3 began with communications tools and reviewed the key interactions for learning. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (1999) explored essential elements in educational transactions. Naturally, it is necessary to have (1) a teaching presence which is evidence both in the design and facilitations of a course. I am impressed with the amount of student-teacher interaction we get in the MET program in general, and in this course in particular. I appreciate that you are quick to reply to emails and very positive in your acceptance of where we are in our journey and what we may need to learn next. It must be a challenge as an instructor to come across as if you were running a course for the first time, to keep things fresh. Then, (2) a social presence is important so that participants can connect with each other as real people and develop personal connections. Finally, (3) a cognitive presence happens as participants use their communications to construct their own meaning of the course concepts. An outsider to elearning might find it difficult to believe that a community of inquiry can be established online. However, Garrison, Anderson and Archer (1999) remind us that unlike the fast pace of oral communication, text-based communication enables participants time to reflect and thus practice higher-order thinking skills. Also, since online discussions are mandatory, everyone’s point of view is represented, instead of just those of the assertive few, as is often the case in a face-to-face classroom setting.
Anderson (2008a), in “Towards a Theory of Online Learning”, also discusses crucial online interactions. For him, interaction is “the defining component of the educational process that occurs when students transform the inert information passed to them from another and construct it into knowledge with personal application and value” (p. 55). Anderson emphasizes the importance of creating a safe environment for learners to share their understandings and thus increase their sense of efficacy with the content and in the online environment. Each discipline has its own way of approaching their knowledge and since the Internet provides almost unlimited resources, it is important for an instructor to provide big-picture scaffolding. The community component allows others to support and challenge members of the group, and finally, the assessment component helps to motivate and provide feedback to both learners and instructors. It is recommended that learner to reflect on their own learning and acknowledges that often assessment activities are project and/or workplace based. Certainly this course has given me many opportunities to assess my own learning. At the end of the day though, the real test is whether I think I have made improvements to my course-design skills. We have been assessed many times within this course and within the program in general, but in reality, we are being testing in the outside world, by our employers, by our students, by our own standards. Certainly, being in the course is causing me to raise my own standards and expect more of online-learning in general.
Anderson only touched on the importance of assessment, but we then spent a whole week on the topic. I was very pleased to find such a detailed unit on the importance and effects of assessment. I am an educator by trade, but I was never trained as a teacher. So, this is an area where I have very little experience. It could be argued that it is the area where I need the least training because there is very little assessment in the CE world. Indeed, as I mentioned in my discussion post, in some instances it is actually prohibited. That said, I found assessment methods to be a hole in my education and I can easily say that this is the best learning unit I have had on assessment thus far.
I had to chuckle when Bates (2014, Appendix 1:A.8) in “Assessment of Learning” comments that “assessment always comes at the end, almost as afterthought” (p. 1). That is how I have often thought of it. You build a learning module and only at the end think, alright, now how am I going to test them on this content? It was good to be reminded of the purposes of assessment: (a) to extend students’ learning, (b) to assess competence in desired learning outcomes, and (c) to provide feedback on the effectiveness of teaching. This last part I am very familiar with because evaluation is a necessary part of every CE program. In fact, all colleges require that a formal course evaluation take place in order for a program to be accredited. However, we often fall into Bates’ ‘No Assessment’ category. At CE events, learning can be quite informal and in the end is all about self-assessment and responsibility for one’s own competency. In our courses, we use some computer-based multiple-choice questions but just as a form of self-assessment and to highlight for learners the most important areas of the content. Despite the fact that formal assessment plays a very small part in my practice, I do not think I will ever forget Bates’ comment that “Nothing is likely to drive student learning more than the method of assessment” (Bates, 2014, Appendix 1:A.8, p. 4), especially because it is so well supported by the next article we read by Gibbs and Simpson.
The article “Conditions under which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning” (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004-2005) was very interesting because many of its statements hit home. I have been a student on and off for a long time and the greatest influence on any course for me, was how I was going to be assessed. It never occurred to me that the learning that takes place when completing coursework has much greater long term effects than the involved in cramming for exams. However, I can say with confidence that I still remember details from my first-year Greek theatre recreation project back in 1987, but remember virtually nothing from what I crammed into my head for the final exam on theatre history in the same course. According to Gibbs and Simpson, the trick when designing assessments is to generate engagement with the learning tasks without generating piles of marking. Since they also noted that students pay more attention to feedback and use it to guide their learning when it is given without an assigned grade, I decided to get students to give each other feedback on their long-answer test questions. This works because I just wanted the participants to reflect on the issues raised by the content. I did not need to generate a mark for them.
In Week 9, we moved onto Module 4 on social media. I have been waiting for this module for a long time! Bates (2014, Ch. 7) describes the main difference between social media and computer-based learning as the amount of control social media offers to learners. As our Module 4 notes say, it “moves us beyond the notion of clicking (or consumption) towards a space where anyone can edit and create (contribute)” (UBC, 2016, Module 4, para.7). The overall effect is a blurring of the boundary between formal and informal education. This is important for professionals who are committed to being lifelong learners and never know when they may need access to a new piece of information.
The issue is that as learners are empowered to access resources and manage their own data there is less control over the content by an institution (Bates, 2014, Ch. 7). This is only a problem if the institution is trying to control how users access and apply course information. However, CE learners are only going to bother accessing information if it serves their own needs. So there really will come a point for us when we have to surrender the old controls and acknowledge the ‘democratization’ of the web. I very much want to see self-organising groups of learners using our learning assets beyond the institution’s boundaries. Our customers are independent learners. They are more than capable of judging the quality of resources on their own and deciding what is worthy of being passed onto members of their learning community.
I was hoping that during the course, I would be able to devote some more time to discovering how professionals network online. To that end, I attended a seminar on Twitter and another on eChart Manitoba (2016) which is a new system wherein heathcare professionals can access patient information. I also checked out the eReferral Service that I found on the Canadian Dental Association webpage (2016). However, it appears to be a service wherein general practitioner dentists can digitally refer their patients to dental specialists. In theory, and in time, it should also be a way that medical and dental professional can cross-refer and share patient information, but at this point it doesn’t appear that many are using it for that purpose. I was really hoping to find what Bates (2014, Ch. 8) calls ‘self-managed learning groups’ but in the end, the best I could do was include a Twitter feed in my course and hope to see that social media site grow as more and more people take our courses.
In Week 10, we discussed copyright and I really appreciated reviewing the “Fair Dealing in Practice” document (UBC, 2015). It helped me to understand the ways in which copyright-protected materials can be used with university LMS systems. I am personally frustrated because our courses do not, at present, fall under such a dealing. We are not-for-profit, but we publish hard copies of our courses through a commercial copy shop because the university print shop cannot give us the quality we need. In addition, our online courses are on a website not controlled by the university and so not protected under the fair dealing policy either. Consequently, I was truly appreciative of the ‘records safeguards’ on page 10 of the guide because it confirmed that I am properly documenting our ‘transactional permission’ for our copyright requests.
In Week 11, we moved onto multimedia. Let’s face it, multimedia is fun. However, it does not create itself and most of us, even though we may be creative, cannot build our media-creation skills overnight. So before we even start, it is certainly worthwhile to consider the most important question “What will this add to the learner experience?” If the answer is nothing, but I thought it might be fun, then go seek entertainment kick elsewhere because this is going to sap a lot more of your time than you think.
After having the experience of creating my own digital story, it no longer surprises me that so few MET instructors bother to create their own multimedia, though many use educational videos on the Net. Boyes, Dowie and Rumzan (2005) are quite right when they identify the primary costs of multimedia as software and development time. I do not know if I agree with their belief that students today expect media-intensive environments (p. 2). However I do believe that flash objects and other multimedia can offer a nice relief from text-based instruction (p. 4). For me, it is all about presenting, whenever possible a variety of learning formats, just as Siemens (2003) states: “Proper integration of media formats presents students with rich, varied learning” (p. 3).
Our last challenge was to imagine what the future of educational technology would look like. Bates (2014, Ch. 5) gives us a great description and history of the movement called Massive Open Online Learning, or MOOCs. I would love if in time, the movement developed to the point envisioned by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times (2013): “I can see a day soon where you’ll create your own college degree by taking the best online courses from the best professors from around the world” (cited in Bates, 2014, Ch. 5, 5.2.1, para. 1).
According to Bates, some see MOOCs as a disruption to formal education while others claim it is nothing more than a digital version of educational broadcasting. Although I love the concept, I have yet to experience one, and I think it will be a while before they become the norm. At this point, it is still very important, in most fields, to have formal credentials, so I doubt MOOCs will effect formal education in the near future. However, I can imagine them having a lot of influence over CE. Already, in my career, I have taken dozens of online webinars where I was one of hundreds of participants tuning in on their lunch hours. Some may argue webinars are not full courses, but they are based on the same ‘massive open online’ principle.
In examining Alexander’s “Higher Education in 2024: Glimpsing the Future” (2014), I was able to imagine the future of formal education being split into two cultures wherein some institutions operate wholly online while the brick-and-mortar institutions attract students with their blended-learning offerings. The online institutes could offer greater flexibility and perhaps lower costs while the brick-and-mortar institutions would boast of their on-campus culture and state-of-the-art studios and labs for hands-on work. I find it interesting that Alexander believes that in time the 18-22 year-old education segment will be considered a ‘specialized niche’ within the education system. Perhaps he envisions student working immediately after high school while taking their studies part-time. I certainly believe lifelong learning will be the norm in the future.
The New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report (2015) saw the proliferation of open educational resources as a trend emerging over the next three to five years. I sincerely hope that is the case. Knowledge should be shared and not stored behind password protected sites. I believe one of the reasons that there is so much misinformation out there or movement from “the tyranny of experts with the tyranny of idiots” (A. Keen, 2007, as cited in Bates, Ch. 7, p. 4) is that real science and expert knowledge is hidden behind password protected sights and cost-prohibitive journal subscriptions. Attribution is important, as credit should go where credit is due, but the idea of hoarding knowledge, I hope, will one day be a thing of the past.
NEXT STEPS:
Moving forward, I certainly trust that I will continue to be a lifelong learner. I work on a university campus, so I am very fortunate to have access to regular continuing education sessions. In the charts below, you can see the seminars I attended this term and the seminars I plan to attend in April and May of this year.
|
SEMINAR ATTENDED
|
| DATE |
TOPIC |
| 04 February 2016 |
A Little Bird Told Me: Entering the World of Twitter |
| 10 February 2016 |
Enhancements to eChart Manitoba (Manitoba College of Family Physicians) |
| 11 February 2016 |
Copyright Information Session |
| 16 February 2016 |
Integrating Quality Improvement Curricula into Health Sciences Education |
| 09 March 2016 |
Narrative Medicine I : Writing Prompts/Attentive Listening/Narrative Interviewing |
| 22 March 2016 |
The Art and Science of Powerful Academic Visuals |
| 28 March 2016 |
D2L: How to Use Data to Improve Student Outcomes |
|
FUTURE SEMINARS
|
| DATE |
TOPIC |
| 06 April 2016 |
Presentation on Entrada System |
| 06 April 2016 |
Narrative Medicine II |
| 14 April 2016 |
Adobe Mobile Learning Webinar |
| 26 April 2016 |
Information and Privacy |
| 12 & 13 May 2016 |
Manitoba Association for Distributed Learning and Training Conference |
In terms of next steps, I want to keep in mind Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996) third principle: ‘Good Practice Uses Active Learning Techniques’. They states that “Learning is not a spectator sport. They must talk about what they are learning, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences and apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves” (p.4). I want to find ways of making our CE programs more active and practice-based. Unfortunately, the tradition seems to be for participants to show up, sign in to get their points, and sit passively or play on their phone until the break when they get a chance to socialize with their colleagues. I am hoping that by using mobile devices in the lecture theatres as audience-response systems and creating Twitter feeds for each course, participants will be encouraged to be more active in class. It will also be a good way for people to ask questions and network with others whom they might not yet know but who are attending the same event.
In Chapter 8, Bates (2014) talks about the importance of reflective learning: “At a university level we need strategies to gradually move students from concrete learning based on personal experience to abstract, reflective learning that can then be applied to next contexts and situations” (p. 268). The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada actually offers their members extra credit if they submit a reflective exercise after attending a CE event. I would love to suggest that our course leaders offer the same service, that is, if participants submit a reflection to them after a course, they will get feedback (unmarked) and extra CE credits to claim. The problem is that I don’t know if our subject experts would have time to do this. If they did, I think it would be a very valuable exercise.
For my online learning work, I will certain fall back on Bates’ (2014, Ch. 8) SECTIONS framework. Boyes, Dowie and Rumzan (2005) describe a major benefit of the framework is that it “provides a unified approach for individuals who have widely varying perspectives, backgrounds, and expertise” (para. 2). It such a common sense approach, that I believe that I will be able to use it when discussing my reasoning for wanting to use particular technologies with my coworkers even if their backgrounds are very different from mine.
In terms of furthering my own education, I realized that I have yet to explore universal design for learning. Bates (2014, Ch. 8) addresses this when talking about the needs of a diverse student population. He mentions that BCcampus (2016) has a guide for preparing web-based materials that meet accessibility standards, but I am surprised that none of my courses so far have covered this topic in any detail.
I still feel that I have plenty to explore in terms of presentation technologies. Most notably is Articulate Storyline. At this point, I consider myself to have advanced skills in Articulate Studio (their original software suite.) However, Storyline has more interactive features, and so I will need to learn how it operates. I once had a classmate, in this program, who challenged himself to learn one new piece of educational software per course. I have always thought this was a great idea. At this point, I am six courses in, and have learned the basics of Weebly, PowToon, WordPress, now Moodle and VideoScribe. So I’m at least one piece of software behind. This summer, I’d like to play with GoAnimate. I would also like to take a MOOC at some point, specifically a connectivist or ‘cMooc’ that emphasizes networking and content contributions from participants. I also plan to take 565M – Mobile Education which I hope will give me hands-on experience in a mobile learning environment.
Ultimately, I’d like to find ways of making our programs more personalized for our participants. As Spiro recommends, “Learning organizations have to make a shift from planning and control to facilitating individual learner needs. It has to offer personalized, rich and context aware content” (p. 6). At the moment, we have what Anderson (2008a) calls an ‘Independent Study’ model where participants interact directly with the content in our accredited courses; self-reflection is encouraged but the only real feedback is automated through our LMS. If learners want additional information, they are directed to learning resources or encouraged to collaborate with colleagues. In time, I would love to be able to develop a community-of-inquiry model where learners have some opportunity to collaborate with others. Ideally, once we have enough learning modules developed, learners could create their own learning paths by linking to their next item of interest within our curriculum.
As we adapt our undergraduate learning modules for CE, we will have more freedom to allow users to explore our content without having to force them down a particular path for the sake of a formal curriculum. When that happens, I would like to see shorter, well defined units with many hyperlinks connecting users to resources both within and outside our program. Ideally, by that time, we will have an established Twitter feed on Oral-Systemic Health which can help bind the community at large as well as a connection to one of the provincial apps that will enable healthcare practitioners to refer and share vital patient information. This will support the formation of a community of self-managed learners who may challenge each other, clarify misconceptions, and negotiate meaning within real healthcare contexts.
References
Alexander, B. (2014). Higher education in 2014: Glimpsing the future. Educause Review, 4(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/higher-education-2024-glimpsing-future?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email+marketing&utm_campaign=EDUCAUSE
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Bates. T. (2014). Appendix 1: A.8: Assessment of learning. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-assessment-of-learning/
Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 5: MOOCs. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/chapter-7-moocs/
Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 7: 7.6: Social media. In Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/9-5-5-social-media/
Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 8: Choosing and using media in education: the SECTIONS model. In Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Boyes, J., Dowie, S., & Rumzan, I. (2005). Using the SECTIONS framework to evaluate flash media. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.186.6505&rep=rep1&type=pdf
BCcampus. (2016) BCcampus. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/
Canadian Dental Association. (2016). eReferral Service. Retrieved from http://www.ereferralservice.com/
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 19-36. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9
eChart Manitoba. (2016). eChart Manitoba: Information. Retrieved from http://www.echartmanitoba.ca/
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004-2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from http://www.anitacrawley.net/Articles/GarrisonAndersonArcher2000.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers
Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346
New Media Consortium. (2015). NMC horizon report 2015: Higher ed. edition. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf
Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of Learning Management Systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong Learning Movement. Retrieved from
Siemens, G. (2003). Evaluating media characteristics: Using multimedia to achieve learning outcomes. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/mediacharacteristics.htm
Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system
University of British Columbia. (2015). Fair Dealing in Practice. Retrieved from http://copyright.ubc.ca/requirements/fair-dealing-in-practice/files/2015/04/Fair-Dealing-in-Practice-v-1-0-2015.pdf
University of British Columbia. (2016). ETEC-565A: New Learning Space: Module 1. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/ldash2015/courses/course-1/
University of British Columbia. (2016). ETEC-565A: New Learning Space: Module 4. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/ldash2015/courses/module-4/