Spring 2020 (35 pages: updated January 12): R678 Only 3 Credits

Instead of passive consumption-based learning, we are living in a participatory age where learners have a voice and potentially some degree of ownership over their own learning. Here at the start of the twenty-first century, emerging technologies and activities– such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, ebooks, YouTube videos, massive open online courses (MOOCs), simulations, virtual worlds, and wireless and mobile computing – are generating waves of new opportunities in higher education, K-12 schools, corporate training, and other learning environments.

And today’s millennial learner, immersed in an increasingly digital world is seeking richer and more engaging learning experiences; and now the new “phigital” learner who is equally at home in the digital as well as physical world. Amid this rising tide of expectations, instructors across educational sectors are exploring and sharing innovative ways to use technology to foster interaction, collaboration, and increased excitement for learning. It is time to take advantage of the new participatory learning culture where learners build, tinker with, explore, share, and collaborate with others online. It is also time to utilize free and open educational resources, opencourseware, learning portals, and open source software across educational sectors and income levels. Some of you will create and publish a cross-cultural Wikibook. Others will create video blogs, and still others will design YouTube-like videos. Some might even flip their classrooms or create mobile apps. Still others will enroll in a massive open online course (MOOC) and perhaps obtain a certificate.

The syllabus for this course is purposefully long. I refer to it as “the monster syllabus.” It is the final time the monster syllabus will exist since I go on sabbatical once the class is done. In effect, the monster syllabus and I will be your online concierge or guide through masses of online resources. In an age when eyeball-to-eyeball learning is no longer necessary, effective online instructors do not simply teach, but moderate, coach, and assist in the learning process. Today a teacher, trainer, professor, or instructional designer often assumes the role of concierge with a wealth of freely available tools and resources to guide her learners. Or perhaps, after reading through this syllabus, you might be more inclined to call such a person a “curator” of quality content. Still others might focus on the “counseling” skills needed to help guide learners through their assorted instructional options. In this more open twenty-first century learning world, anyone can learn anything from anyone else at any time.

Course Goals and Objectives

After the course, students should be able to many of the items below (not all):

1. Explain and demonstrate the educational benefits of emerging learning technologies such as augmented reality, synchronous conferencing, online tutorials, podcasts, chatbots and artificial agents, virtual worlds, serious games, OER, simulations, social networking software, open textbooks, digital books, mobile apps, etc.

2. Track and report on trends related to emerging learning technologies.

3. Frame learning technology trends and issues from broader psychological, social, cultural, and educational perspectives.

4. Critique articles and conference papers as well as review books and software related to emerging learning technologies.

5. Use, recommend, or create online resources and portals in a variety of educational settings.

6. Design an innovative research or evaluation project related to online learning;

7. Successfully submit research, grant, and other proposals related to learning technologies, open education (e.g., open textbooks), AI, learning analytics, MOOCs, e-learning, etc. to conferences, foundations, summits, or institutes.

8. Recognize and potentially contact many of the key players and scholars in the field of online learning, open education, MOOCs, and emerging learning technologies.

9. Consult with organizations to develop strategic plans or evaluate the effectiveness of e-learning courses, programs, and events as well as MOOCs, open education, Web 2.0 technologies, etc.

10. Make recommendations regarding online learning initiatives, programs, and strategies as well as various emerging learning technologies, open educational resources, and innovative and nontraditional forms of educational delivery.

11. Obtain a model, guide, or framework for thinking about new technology tools and resources in education. Use this framework for strategic planning reports, retreats, consulting, and other situations where a macro lens on learning technology and educational reform is needed.

12. Obtain the skills to train fellow teachers as well as learners in emerging learning technologies and pedagogically effective instructional activities and approaches.

Required Texts (none)

Required Videos (you select)

Required Journal Article (you pick from a list)

Nothing required!!! The world of learning should be FREE!

Books that I will refer to (don’t buy them):

Bonk, C. J. (July 2009). The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. See: http://worldisopen.com/
Bonk, C. J., Lee. M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds). (2015). MOOCs and Open Education Around the World. NY: Routledge. Book homepage: http://moocsbook.com/
Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2020). MOOCs and open education in the Global South: Challenges, successes, and opportunities. NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429398919; Book homepage: http://moocsbook.com/

20191122_111802

Perhaps get this FREE one instead (it is free in English and Chinese):

Free Book: Bonk, C. J., & Khoo, E. (2014). Adding Some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ Activities for Motivating and Retaining Learners Online. OpenWorldBooks.com and Amazon CreateSpace. Note: Free eBook available at: http://tec-variety.com/; Paperback http://www.amazon.com/dp/1496162722/ and Kindle http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KJ1FAC8

Curt Bonk’s List of journals in educational technology and related fields:

http://www.trainingshare.com/resources/distance_ed_journals_and_online_learning_books.htm

Curt Bonk’s 27 free 10 minute videos on how to teach online:

“Video Primers in an Online Repository for e-Teaching and Learning” (V-PORTAL)

1. Watch & Find Resources in Bonk’s YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TravelinEdMan

Summary of Course Tasks, Due Dates, and Grading

Tasks	Points	Due dates
A. Tidbit and Video Reflection Paper	50	February 24 (+2 day grace)
B. Discussion Activities (FTF students) or Discussion Moderator (online students): http://www.trainingshare.com/r685.php)	50	Sign up or as arranged
C. Discussion Participation in Canvas or in Class	50	(due each week)
D. Discussion and Lecture Reflection Paper	50	April 20 (+2 day grace)
E. Report or Strategic Plan Analysis, Software Tool Review, Special Issue Review or Critique, or Personal Choice	70	February 24 (+5 day grace)
F. Final: Pressbook, Wikibook, MOOC Project, Video Creation, MOOC Review, or Personal Selected Task	70	April 20 (+5 day grace)
Total Points	340

Total points will determine your final grade. I will use the following grading scale:

A+ = 340 high score B- = 272 points

A = 317 points C+ = 261 points

A- = 306 points C = 249 points

B+ = 295 points C - = 238 points

B = 283 points F/FN = no work rec'd or signif. inadequate/impaired

Lateness Policy: I usually accept anything turned in within 48 hours of the original due date. Assignment E and F have a five-day grace period.

Directions: Optional Zoom lecture recorded each week (for the online section):

From Google Chrome (preferred) or from Firefox. Internet Explorer should also work.
Go to Zoom link: https://IU.zoom.us/j/8123222878
Type your name. Show video (optional--recommended). Mute mic (unless speaking).

=========================================================================

Projected Seminar Weekly Topics

Week 1. (January 13) Introduction to the Open World: Visionaries and Visions

Week 2. (January 20) Open Textbooks, E-Books, and Digitally Enhanced Books

Week 3. (January 27) Alternate Reality Learning: AR, VR, Gaming, and Simulations

Week 4. (February 3) The Expansion of Blended and Fully Online Learning

Week 5. (February 10) Nontraditional, Informal, Extreme, and Adventure Learning

Week 6. (February 17) Open Education, Open Universities, OER, and OCW

Week 7. (February 24) Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Open Education

Week 8 (March 2) More MOOCs and Open Education Around the World

Week 9. (March 9) Open Education in the Developing World (i.e., The Global South)

Week 10. (March 23) Informal & Self-Directed Online Learning Environments (includes: language lrng)

Week 11. (March 30) Maker Spaces, Social Media, and Participatory Learning

Week 12. (April 6) Interactive, Global, and Collaborative Learning

Week 13. (April 13) Mobile, Wireless, and Ubiquitous Learning

Week 14. (April 20) The Future of Learning Tech: Networks of Personalized Learning

Week 15. (April 27) The Future of Learning Tech: AI, Robotics, and Personal Digital Assistants

==========================================================================

Note: Learners and participants in this class can find their own articles for any week of the course and ignore any assigned articles in the syllabus. Please share what you find. Best of luck in your journeys.

Class Tasks

A. Tidbit and Video Reflection Paper (40 points: Due February 24)

Tidbits and Videos (50 points): Besides reading 3-4 assigned articles each week, during the semester, I want you to read at least 100 total tidbits during the semester from the list of tidbit readings or about 5 or 6 per week (preferably more than 100 tidbit articles; about half of which should be from tidbits from weeks in March and April). Typically, these are very short online news or magazine articles. I also want you to watch at least 5 videos listed below related to our course (or similar ones that you find). On February 24, you will turn in a list of your top 50 tidbits read so far (best ones at the top; include at least 10 from March and April—i.e., read ahead) and top 3 videos watched. You might also note a few tidbits that you did not enjoy. After those lists, I want you to reflect for 1-2 single spaced pages on what you learned from those tidbits. I am not asking you to summarize each article or video; instead reflect on your learning in general. What themes, trends, or concepts were clarified for you? What new insights did you gain? What inspirations did you feel? You might include brief comments at the beginning or end of the paper on why you ranked the tidbits and videos the way you did. I will send an email with examples upon request. Be creative. Take a look at the examples provided. Post your tidbit reflection to Canvas or your Dropbox account or send to me via email.

B. Discussion Moderation and Activities (50 points)

Face-to-Face Students: You will get involved in weekly tasks in class as group leaders and team members. Face-to-face students will also create posters of key articles, select and bring in quotes from these articles, or offer questions for panel discussions for these 50 points. The instructor will assign these most weeks at the start of end of class. 50 points for weekly tasks like bringing questions or posters or article summaries. In effect, these 50 points are for artifact creation, class involvement, leadership, and engagement.

Online Students: You will start and moderate discussion for your 50 points (50 points): At the start of each week, I want one person in the online section of this class to post a short summary to Canvas on at least 4 of the main articles assigned for that week. That person is the starter for discussion. Other students will add to their conversation with their reflections and reactions. As a summarizer or starter, you might:

Moderators or co-moderators might:

1. State reactions, questions, and suggestions for the upcoming readings.

2. Post author pictures, quotes, figures, tables, etc., from the articles for the coming week.

3. Recap or briefly summarize key parts of the assigned articles for the week.

4. Monitor the discussion. And spark it when it goes weak.

5. Offer feedback to peers on their posts.

6. Add resources and links to resources to the discussion.

7. Connect to experts in the field.

8. Connect or synthesize comments within the week.

9. Point to counter points and inaccuracies in the postings of students during the week.

10. Be creative or offer creative insights when needed.

11. Point out the relationship of upcoming week topic or articles to past lectures or readings.

12. Reflect on the discussion from past weeks; repost prior quotes from others.

13. Discuss the position of a researcher or pioneer in the field (or perhaps even write to him/her);

14. Discuss a recent speech or colloquium you attended related to the week or a visit to a technology center or exhibit.

15. At the end of the week, you might react and reflect on the class discussion that transpired as well as the questions and concerns raised. You might also link to the next week’s readings.

You can sign up for this task at: http://www.trainingshare.com/r685.php

C. Participation in Canvas or in Class (50 points)

Face-to-Face student course participation in class (50 points): Students in the face-to-face section will participate in class discussion on Monday nights for 50 points as follows: 45-50 for high participators; 40-44 for medium participators; 36-39 for low participators; and 0-35 for others. It is optional to post to the online forums.

Online student course participation in Canvas (50 points): We will do discussions each week in either Canvas. This is worth 50 points as follows: 45-50 for high participators; 40-44 for medium participators; 36-39 for low participators; and 0-35 for others. Course participation includes contributing to the online discussion in Canvas, sharing resources, responding to peers, providing feedback on tasks and resource recommendations, and so on. While these will be mainly assessed as to the number of posts, I will also take into consideration qualitative factors such as those listed below.

Participation considerations:

Diversity (some variety in ideas posted, and some breadth to exploration);
Perspective taking (values other perspectives, ideas, cultures, etc.);
Creativity (original, unique, and novel ideas);
Insightful (makes interesting, astute, and sagacious observations).
Relevancy (topics selected are connected to course content); and
Learning Depth/Growth (shows some depth to thinking and elaboration of ideas);

D. Discussion and Lecture Reflection (50 points: Due April 20)

Discussion and Lecture Reflection Paper (50 points): At the end of the semester, you are to reflect on what you learned from weekly discussions in Canvas or in class each week as well as from my recorded lectures and discussions that I will deliver each week via videoconferencing. You should include at least 7 of the weeks in your reflection. What were the ideas, issues, concepts, facts, figures, diagrams, etc., that struck a chord with you? What did you learn during the semester? How did your thinking change in a particular week or over time? What inspired you? What did you find disappointing? What is next?

Using these questions as a guide, please write a 3 page single-spaced reflection paper (not counting any references, appendices, or tables created) on this activity by April 20 (50 points). Though not required, it would help if you included a fourth page with a recap table, chart, figure, or some type of summary of key themes, concepts, terms, etc., mentioned in the reflection paper. This is to be a meta-reflection of your growth in the course, unique learning insights, personal gains, etc., at least in part, from your weekly discussions and responding to your peers. What were the key concepts you grappled with this semester? How has your thinking evolved? What are the gaps in the research that you might target now? What weeks or particular articles inspired you and why? Post your reflection paper to Canvas or your Dropbox account or send to me via email.

Reflection Paper Grading Criteria (50 Points; 10 points each):

1. Relevancy to class: meaningful examples, relationships drawn, interlinkages, connecting weekly ideas.

2. Insightful, Interesting, Reflective, Emotional: honest, self-awareness, interesting observations

3. Learning Depth/Growth: takes thoughts along to new heights, exploration, breadth & depth, growth.

4. Completeness: thorough comments, detailed reflection, fulfills assignment, informative.

5. Connections: linking threads in the discussion, lectures, and readings.

E. Report or Strategic Plan Analysis or Naturalistic Study or Critique or Other (70 pts—Due February 24; students are encouraged to work in teams of 2-3 people)

Midterm Option 1. Summary Report or Strategic Plan Evaluation, Critique, and Extension

Find and evaluate a summary report, technical report, or a strategic plan of a company, university, non-profit organization, school, state, province, country, or region related to e-learning, blended learning, mobile learning, or emerging learning technologies of some type and critique it. For instance, you might pick the state or country where you were born or perhaps where you plan to live after graduation. You might find the strategic plan online or request a hardcopy version. I want you to not simply read and critique the report but to also interview someone who created it or is/was affected by that report. You might discuss and critique the online learning technologies highlighted, proposed pedagogical plans, intended training methods, targeted skills or competencies, or evaluation methods detailed. You might visit the organization or write someone an email. What might this organization do differently in planning for e-learning, open education, MOOCs, or using some emerging learning technology? Has there been an update? You are encouraged to work in teams on this report. When done, you will present an overview of the report to the class. Testimonials, graphs and trends of indicated growth, comparisons, and other data or handouts are welcome. You are also encouraged to directly contact the organization that developed the report or plan and receive additional product information (e.g., DVDs, brochures, white papers, technical reports, product comparison sheets, videotapes, company annual report, customer testimonies, data sheets, Web site information, etc.). Your evaluation, critique, and extension paper should be 4-6 single-spaced pages (excluding references and appendices; those working in teams are expected to have 7-10 single spaced page papers, not counting references and appendices). Please post it to Canvas, Dropbox, or send to me via email .

Summary Report/Strategic Plan Grading (10 pts for each of the following dimensions)

1. Review of Plan or Document (clarity, related to class, organized, facts, data, relevant, style)

2. Relevant Resources and Digging (citations/refs, linkages to class concepts, extensive)

3. Soundness of Critique (depth, clear, complete, practical, detailed, important, coherence)

4. Creativity and Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, unique)

5. Knowledge of Topic (learning breadth & depth, growth, displays understanding of topic)

6. Recommendations, Insights, and Implications (contains relevant recommendations, guides)

7. Overall Quality Review and Critique (would make an excellent consultant, cogent advice)

Midterm Option 2. Naturalistic Study

You have options to the midterm. For instance, you might perform a case study or pilot observation of workers, students, etc. using tools or instructors interacting with employees, students, other instructors, etc. while they use a web-based learning tool, resources, project, or curriculum application. For instance, you might decide to complete a case study of a child, young person, or adult using a particular learning tool for the first time. Such naturalistic studies should include at least five careful observations and commentary of the person and tutor/teacher. The commentary should reflect your learning and provide insights as to how to make this tool more educationally meaningful. If you are looking at student-teacher-tool interaction patterns, teacher guidance, or simply tool use, you will need to design coding schemes and observation log sheets to help interpret tool functionality in this environment.

When done with your brief study, you might interview an instructor, learner, instructional designer, or some other person in that environment about the phenomenon that you observed. Interviewees might come from corporate, K-12, military, government, or higher education settings. These optional interviews can be live (face-to-face), via videoconferencing, phone- or Skype-based, or conducted through email.

Your naturalistic study report should be 4-7 single-spaced pages (excluding references and appendices; those working in teams are expected to have 7-10 page papers, not counting references and appendices). In your report, I want you to reflect on what you learned about e-learning from this assignment. How has it opened your eyes? What might you have done differently next time in your study? What recommendations do you have and what implications do you see? How might you put your new ideas to use in training programs or in your own future teaching? Please post it to Canvas or your Dropbox account or send to me via email.

Sample Format Naturalistic/Research Activities:

I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgements)

II. Topic Literature and Method

1. Res topic & materials;

2. Brief stmt of problem and why impt

3. Brief review of the relevant literature

4. Methods:

a. Subjects & design (i.e., who/how selected);

b. Materials/setting (i.e., hard/software, text)

c. Procedure (i.e., how data was obtained)

d. Coding Schemes & Dep. meas/instr (i.e., how segment/code data);

e. Analyses or comparisons

III. Results and Discussion 1. Preliminary Results; 2. Discussion of results

IV. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)

V. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures)

Sample Grading of Major Project (60 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):

1. Review of the Problem/Lit/Purpose (interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough, grounded)

2. Hypothesis/Research Questions/Intentions (clear, related to class and theory, current, extend field)

3. Method/Procedures (subjects/age groups approp, materials relevant, timeline sufficient, controls)

4. Research Activity/Design/Topic/Tool (clear, doable/practical, detailed, important)

5. Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, unique)

6. Overall Coherence and Completeness (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis, style, accurate)

7. Overall Quality Project and Research (would make an excellent researcher, cogent advice)

Midterm Option 3: Review or Critique

A third option is to review and critique a special journal issue, a special conference symposium or summit, or edited book related to any week of this course. What are the strengths and weaknesses of it? Why or why not would you recommend that others read or explore it? How does the content of it relate to R678 content? If you choose this option, please run the special issue, symposium, summit, or book that you selected by the instructor. This critique will be a 4-6 page single spaced report.

Note: See below for examples of special issues on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that you might read and critique. These special issues are from the Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) and the International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL).

Midterm Option 4: Software or Technology Tool Review

In the fourth option, you are to review at least 3 emerging technologies for learning. What are the key features? How could they each impact on education? What skills do they potentially enhance? What audience do they each serve? Who are the stakeholders? List at least 5 pedagogical ways in which each of these tools or applications can be used in education or training? For each emerging technology, please identify at least 3 features you like best and explain why and how these features can foster or enhance teaching and learning. Please also list at least 3 features you think need improvement and detail why and what can be done to add, modify, change, or delete different features. You should also detail how you would redesign these technology tools or products to improve them for educational use if you were the educational product designer. This review will be a 4-6 page single spaced report (excluding references and appendices; those working in teams are expected to have 7-10 single spaced page papers).

Midterm Option 5: Other (requires instructor approval)

Other options to the midterm might be grant proposals, research interventions (as opposed to observations), technology tool design proposals, curriculum integration plans, or conference research papers. If one of these appeals to you, please write to the instructor for additional information and guidance.

F. Web 2.0 Final Project (70 points—Due April 20; final project to be conducted with a partner, unless approved by the instructor)

Option 1. Pressbook assignment

Do you want to be an author? Do you want to be famous? In this assignment, you will create an open textbook related to emerging technologies using Pressbook. If the textbook can also be related to your current job or research interest it would be perfect. You can share this textbook with your colleagues, students, classmates, or families. You can also put your Pressbook link in your resume. Maybe your opentext book can be used as next years’ assignment examples! For this assignment, you can have at least two chapters. In total, it should be a minimum of 3,000 words. If you work in a team, each of you should contribute at least 2,000 words. A 1-2 single-spaced reflection paper from each student on what you learned from this Pressbook activity needs to be included (not counting references and appendices). Describe what you learned from the task including specific course concepts and ideas mentioned in your chapter as well as ideas related to open educational resources. If you work in a team, attached to your reflection paper will be documentation of what you contributed to the Pressbook. Your paper and chapter will be graded according to the dimensions listed below.

Pressbook Grading (70 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):

1. Chapter and reflection paper relevance: Contribution is meaningful to class, we learn from it

2. Chapter and reflection paper coherence: flow, well organized, good layout, enjoyable to read

3. Chapter and reflection paper completeness: Sufficient coverage of info, extends topic & class

4. Overall chapter creativity: Original and distinctive ideas, insightful points, something unique in it such as a figure, model, graph, timeline, comparison chart, acronym, quote or set of quotes, etc.

5. Overall reflection paper insightfulness, depth of thought, flow, informational content, etc.

6. Shared and discussed in Canvas or in Class

7. Effort, digging, extensiveness of the project, etc.

Option 2. Wikibook Online Work (WOW)

In this option, you help with a Wikibook related to emerging technologies. About seven years ago, students from five universities designed a wikibook on “The Web 2.0 and Emerging Learning Technologies” (The WELT); see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Web_2.0_and_Emerging_Learning_Technologies. If you write a unique chapter for the WELT, it should be a minimum of 2,000 words. A 2-3 page reflection paper (3-4 pages if with a partner) on what you learned from this wikibook activity needs to be included (not counting references and appendices). Describe what you learned from the task including specific course concepts and ideas mentioned in your chapter as well as ideas related to the social construction of knowledge. Attached to your reflection paper will be documentation of what you contributed to the wikibook, including your chapter (with highlights or special notations of your contribution), highlights to the chapters worked on, and perhaps even print outs of the wikibook chapter editing history. Your paper and chapter will be graded according to the dimensions listed below.

Wikibook Grading (70 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):

1. Chapter and reflection paper relevance: Contribution is meaningful to class, we learn from it

2. Chapter and reflection paper coherence: flow, well organized, good layout, enjoyable to read

3. Chapter and reflection paper completeness: Sufficient coverage of info, extends topic and class

5. Overall reflection paper insightfulness, depth of thought, flow, informational content, etc.

6. Shared and discussed in Canvas and in Class

7. Overall quality of assignment

=================================================

Option 3. Cool YouTube Video Creation

So you want to be cool? You want to be creative? In this option, you are to create a shared online video (e.g., YouTube) related to this class. You cannot be the only person in it. What do different topics in this course mean to you? Alternatively, you can design a YouTube video for someone else. You should post this video of at least 5 minutes in length. You will turn in a 2-3 page single-spaced summary reflection of your design (3-4 pages if with a partner). Your video and paper will be graded according to the dimensions listed below.

Video Grading (70 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):

1. Insightfulness, creativity, and originality;

2. Design and visual effects;

3. Coherence and logical sequence;

4. Completeness;

5. Relevance and accuracy of the content;

6. Shared and discussed in Canvas and in class;

7. Overall quality of assignment

Option 4. R685/R678 Course Syllabi Historical Evaluation:

Perhaps, like me, you like history. A version R678 was first co-taught at West Virginia University by Dr. W. Michael Reed and myself back in the fall of 1990. Since that time, this course has evolved into many formats. Below are links to more than a dozen syllabi from the course including the present one. Unfortunately, I have yet to locate the original version but did find an outline of the topics addressed. If you select this option, I want you to track the history of this course over time. For instance, you might explore the topics, people, concepts, etc., that were popular in the 1990s, 2000s, and today. You will turn in a 4 to 6 page single spaced paper on what you discovered (7-10 pages with a partner); not counting references and appendices. Additional pages may be attached such as reference lists, visuals depictions mapping out trends over time, correspondences with researchers about their articles from previous versions of the course, and interviews with scholars about their perceptions of changes in the field over time. You might, in fact, gather oral histories or accounts from experts as well as former students about how the field has changed.

Many questions can be asked. Among them, are there any topics that remain popular over the past two decades? How did the focus of this course change over time? Is this course more or less important today than it was back in the 1990s? Is the total number of pages any indicator of how the field has changed? If so, in what ways? Please compare the tasks from 1995 to those in 2001 or 2002 as well as 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2019. Please look at the books, journals, new sources, online resources, etc. that now comprise this course and note how they have changed over time. Is there anything from the 1990s that remains important today and should be added back to the current syllabus? Are there any tasks, activities, or articles that you found interesting and want to know more about? Is there anything that remains missing despite the fact that the current syllabus is now over 60 pages long? What do see about the field of education or educational technology from browsing through these syllabi and resources?

You should end your paper with 1-2 page single spaced reflection of your own learning in this course. Included in that summary should be an account of what inspired or mattered to you. In addition, you might reflect on the areas wherein you learned or grew the most during the semester.

History Evaluation Grading (70 Total Points or 10 pts each dimension):

1. Insightfulness, creativity, and originality;

2. Learning growth displayed;

3. Coherence and logical sequence;

4. Completeness and fulfills spirit of the assignment;

5. Relevance and accuracy of the content;

6. Shared and discussed in Canvas and in class;

7. Overall quality of assignment

Option 5. Analysis of Issues and Challenges in the Field of Learning Technologies:

In this option, you will identify and briefly outline 10-20 key issues in the field (e.g., institutional supports for nontraditional learners, corporate recognition of microcredentials and nanodegrees, faculty awareness of open textbooks and OER, cost effectiveness and consumer utility of virtual and augmented reality, teacher training for online and blended forms of learning; instructional design challenges for MOOC instructors and the instructional support team, etc.). What are the issues that you have noticed when doing the readings for this class, watching the videos, talking to your peers, and attending the lectures? What are some open research questions? To create an historical context for your paper, you might indicate in a timeline when each of these issues arose or potentially make become more salient in the future. You will turn in a 4-6 single spaced paper if working alone and 7-10 page paper if with a partner (plus any references, charts, graphs, appendices, etc.) on the issues and challenges in the field of emerging learning technologies. Meina Zhu and I want to know if you have a grasp of the key issues. We also want to know what your role might be in resolving these challenges or issues after graduation. Among these issues and challenges, choose one or two that you are highly interested in or want to address most and describe your possible plan on addressing them or map out some possible future research. Finally, please do not limit your references to our assigned course readings. You are encouraged to add at least half of your references from articles, books, and other resources that are not listed in our class readings. A minimum of 15 references should be used. Please follow APA guidelines when writing your paper. (Note: It will use a similar grading rubric to those above.)

Option 6. Student Selection Option (e.g., Usable Class Product):

Students choosing Option 6 might design their own final project or combine ideas together into something truly unique (i.e., a mash-up). As part of this effort, they might create or perform a meaningful activity for the class. For example, you might summarize the learning principles embedded in different articles or readings for each week of the course. Or, they might create a unique categorization scheme of the technology tools and resources studied during the semester. The more ambitious of you might create an interactive multimedia glossary or comprehensive Website for the course as an individual or as part of a team. Still others might create an online database of articles from two or more open access journals related to emerging learning technologies including links to the major themes and trends in those journals over a significant period of time (e.g., 3-5 years).

There are still more options. Among them, you might create a mobile application, an educational activity in a virtual world, an interesting global collaboration activity or partnership, or a mobile book. Others might organize a class mini-conference or real conference symposium or demonstrate a set of e-learning tools to your school, company, or organization and then reflect on it. Such tools might have relevance in K-12, military, corporate, or higher education settings or perhaps in more informal settings such as a museum, zoo, or computer club.

You might also engage in a major problem-based learning project related to this class with a school, company, organization, or institution. In this option, you make the contact and find out what needs to be resolved and then get it approved by the instructor. The final product might be a distance learning evaluation project. It might involve the design of e-learning tools and resources. It might entail the creation of a strategic plan, white paper, or vision statement. Whatever the problem or task, it must be authentic. Anyone selecting this option should include a 2-4 page single-spaced reflection paper on what your learned; slightly longer with a partner (not counting references and appendices). Note: any final project report to an organization or institution can substitute for that final reflection paper. The grading scheme will be project specific.

Volunteerism Note: If you want to volunteer your services as part of your final project, you might check out Designers for Learning: http://designersforlearning.org/

Option 7. OpenCourseWare (OCW) or MOOC Review Option

Recently, there is a huge explosion of open educational contents. Among these new learning resources are open educational resources (OER), OpenCourseWare (OCW), and massive open online courses (MOOCs). OCW and OER typically are freely available contents without direct contact with instructors. MOOCs are instructor-driven courses which are usually free and open to the world community, thereby involving large enrollments. An optional assignment idea for this class is to explore or enroll in one or two massive open online courses (MOOCs) related to learning, cognition, and instruction. Even if you do not select this task, you might explore a few of these MOOCs and observe how they are conducted. And then reflect, reflect, reflect!

You could replace the midterm or final by enrolling in one or more MOOCs and writing a 2-4 page single spaced reflection paper (4-6 pages with a partner) on what you learned as it relates to various topics from this course (not counting references and appendices). Note: you might include a recap table or chart at the end summarizing key concepts or ideas mentioned in your paper. You would NOT have to complete the course; just sit in and lurk if you want. Your MOOC review paper should include your insights about the learning environment and learning theories relied upon as well as a few specific examples of instructional tasks and ideas from the course. It will be graded for: (1) connections to course content; (2) coherence and organization; and (3) overall insights and conceptual understandings.

If you complete the course or get a certificate (Coursera calls these “Signature” courses), you can replace your final assignment. Even if you do you not complete a MOOC, you could replace your final assignment if you write a longer reflection paper or extend the assignment in some way (e.g., interview the MOOC instructor(s) about their instructional approaches and beliefs about learning; interviewing other participants/students taking this course about their learning experiences; etc.). As part of these efforts, you might also explore some of the open educational portals and contents listed in your syllabus or that you find online.

Some questions you might ask before writing your paper:

What is the overall feel of this learning environment? Is there any particular learning approach or philosophy that you feel or experience?
What aspects of learning and instruction are addressed in this MOOC or by this open educational resource? Stated another way, what theory of learning and instruction does the instructor or the course design tend to rely upon?
What learning theory or perspective might be used to improve the course? How might you improve this course if asked?
Are there any specific learning concepts and principles embedded in any module or in multiple modules of the course?
How does the MOOC utilize existing OER content? How might it better take advantage of such resources?
Which tasks or activities seem most effective and why? What are the most creative?
What is the least effective aspect of this course and why?
What aspects of learning and instruction or theoretical perspective do you understand better now? And why?

MOOC Review Grading Criteria if a Final Project (70 Points; 10 points each):

Insightful/Originality: innovative ideas, insightful relationships drawn about MOOCs and open education, helps the reader form new understandings about MOOCs.
Interesting: engaging writing, unique perspective on MOOCs and open education.
Completeness: thorough, detailed, dig deep, effort, fulfills spirit of the assignment.
Relevance: concepts and ideas from MOOC experience appropriate and related to class, perhaps includes a recap list or summary table of what learned.
Content: learning displayed, made several key connections to class from MOOC experience, highly informative reflection (helps the reader form new understandings).
Exploratory and Reflective: pushing out, metacognitive, reflecting on oneself as a learner or on how fellow learners benefit from MOOCs, shows that one was reflecting on the experience both as a learner as well as in light of the content of this class.
Coherent, Logical Flow, and Well Organized: easily read, transitions, conclusions, logical flow to the critique or review of MOOCs or MOOC experience, well organized review, sequence of ideas makes sense.
I will also look for: breadth/depth of thought, knowledge growth displays, understands theories, concepts, and principles in relation to the MOOC experience. And I will want to see some critical thinking displayed including sound analysis and evaluation of instructional approach taken in MOOC, logical, backs up claims.

Grading Note #1: I will use a rubric for the above. Write me an email if you would like to see that rubric.

Grading Note #2: Extra consideration (and the potential for bonus points) given for those who cite references on MOOCs or open education, create a summary or recap table of terms or concepts mentioned in their reflection paper, participate in more than one MOOC, and those who actually complete the course. Summary or recap tables are especially welcome.

Class Sharing of Final Projects: If possible, I would like you to post your final projects to Canvas. In addition, some people “might” briefly share their final projects in class. Online students do not have to worry about the presentation part. I will contact you ahead of time if needed. But I do take volunteers.

=================================================

Weekly Reading Requirements

We will read 3-4 main articles and 5-6 tidbits per week and watch some of the embedded videos—it is your choice what to read.

Projected Seminar Weekly Topics:

Week 1. (January 13) Introduction to the Open World: Visionaries and Visions

1. January 2017, Higher Education Supplement to the National Education Technology Plan, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology,
https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/Higher-Ed-NETP.pdf

Vannevar Bush (1945, July). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly; Volume 176, No. 1; pages 101-108. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm

Infed on Ivan Illich: Deschooling, conviviality and the possibilities for informal education and lifelong learning. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-illic.htm (Ivan Illich. Deschooling Society (New York: Marion Boyars. 1970).

Sections from: Bonk, C. J. (July 2009). The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. (Book homepage: http://worldisopen.com)

Bonk, C. J. (2011). Prequel: Sharing…the Journey. The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education (pp. xi-xxx). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. Available: http://worldisopen.com/misc/prequel.pdf (written for softcover/paperback edition)
Bonk, C. J. (2011). Postscript: An Open Letter to the Learners of this Planet. The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education (pp. 415-422). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint. Available: http://worldisopen.com/misc/postscript.pdf
Bonk, C. J. (2011). Foreword to the Chinese Edition. The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education. Shanghai, China: South China Normal University. Available: http://worldisopen.com/China_Foreword.pdf

(Note: The above three sections of the book are combined and available at: http://publicationshare.com/pdfs/World%20is%20Open_2011_Prequel_and_Postscript_for_paperback_and_Foreword_for_China.pdf and http://publicationshare.com/1)

Charles A. Wedemeyer, University of Wisconsin

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wedemeyer
Introduction to Distance Education: Theorists and Theories—Charles Wedemeyer: http://distance-educator.com/introduction-to-distance-education-theorists-and-theories-charles-wedemeyer/
A Brief History of Distance Education: http://www.seniornet.org/edu/art/history.html
In Memorandum: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923649909527031#preview
Learning at the Back Door: Reflections on Nontraditional Learning in the Lifespan (1981), by Charles A. Wedemeyer, Reissued: September 2010. Available: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/6491

i. http://www.amazon.com/Charles-A.-Wedemeyer/e/B001KDB9TM (used books)

Douglas Engelbart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart

"The Mother of All Demos” is a name given retrospectively to Douglas Engelbart's December 9, 1968, demonstration of experimental computer technologies that are now commonplace. The live demonstration featured the introduction of the computer mouse, video conferencing, teleconferencing, hypertext, word processing, hypermedia, object addressing and dynamic file linking, bootstrapping, and a collaborative real-time editor."

a. The Mother of All Demos, presented by Douglas Engelbart (1968) Original Video on YouTube (140:52): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY

b. Douglas Engelbart Interviewed by John Markoff of the New York Times, (113:50), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeSgaJt27PM

Week 2. (January 20) Open Textbooks, E-Books, and Digitally Enhanced Books

1. Talae Anderson and Carrie Cutler (2020). Open to Open? An Exploration of Textbook Preferences and Strategies to Offset Textbook Costs for Online Versus On-Campus Students. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 21(1), 23-39. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4141/5286 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4141

2. Hong Lin (2019, July). Teaching and Learning without a Textbook: Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Open Educational Resources, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). 1-18. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4224 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/download/4224/5119

Dennen, V.P., & Bagdy, L.M. (2019, September). From proprietary textbook to custom OER solution: Using learner feedback to guide design and development. Online Learning, 23(3), 4-20. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i3.2068. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2068

4. Julia E. Seaman and Jeff Seaman (2019, January 9). 2018 National Higher Education Report. Available: Freeing the Textbook: Open Education Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2018;
https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/oer.html

a. Julia E. Seaman and Jeff Seaman, Opening the Textbook: Open Education Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2017, I. Babson Survey Research Group
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthetextbook2017.pdf (also accessible from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/oer.html)

b. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, July 2016, Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-2016, I. Babson Survey Research Group
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthetextbook2016.pdf

Special Issue (2017, June): Outcomes of Openness: Empirical Reports on the Implementation of OER, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/85

Articles in this issue include:

The Adoption of an Open Textbook in a Large Physics Course: An Analysis of Cost, Outcomes, Use, and Perceptions, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3006
Cultivating Textbook Alternatives From the Ground Up: One Public University’s Sustainable Model for Open and Alternative Educational Resource Proliferation, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3010
Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of Open Textbook Adoption (Eulho Jung, Christine Bauer, & Allan Heaps), http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3120
Rating the Quality of Open Textbooks: How Reviewer and Text Characteristics Predict Ratings, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2985

Ozgur Ozdemir & Christina Hendricks (2017, April). Instructor and student experiences with open textbooks, from the California open online library for education (Cool4Ed). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), pp. 98-113. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-017-9138-0

Stacie L. Mason and Royce Kimmons (2018, July). Effects of open textbook adoption on teacher’ open practices. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 128-150. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3517

Jennifer Baker, Ken Jeffrey, Rajiv Sunil Jhangiani, & George Veletsianos (2018, July). Eight patterns of open textbook adoption in British Columbia. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 321-334. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3723/4641

Lane Fischer, John Hilton, Jared Robinson, David Wiley (December, 2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159-172. Available:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x/fulltext.html

(also see the briefer Campus Technology explanation, Dian Schaffhauser, November 11, 2015: https://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/11/10/major-study-finds-oer-students-do-just-as-well-or-better.aspx

John Levi Hilton III, Neil Lutz, & David Wiley (2012, April). Examining the reuse of open textbooks. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(2). Article: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1137/2130

10. Bella Rossa, Ekaterina Pechenkina, Carol Aeschliman, & Anne-Marie Chase (2017, November 3). Print versus digital texts: Understanding the experimental research and challenging the dichotomies, Research in Learning Technology, 25 (12 pages). Available: https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1976

https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1976/html (HTML)

https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1976/pdf_1?acceptCookies=1 (PDF)

11. Jhangiani, R. S., & Jhangiani, S. (2017). Investigating the Perceptions, Use, and Impact of Open Textbooks: A survey of Post-Secondary Students in British Columbia. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4), Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3012/4214

a. Jhangiani, R. S., Green, A., & Belshaw, J. D. (2016). Multiple approaches to open textbook development: Lessons learned from three disciplines. In P. Blessinger & T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher Education. Open Book Publishers. Available: http://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-278-3/ch9.xhtml#_idTextAnchor024

Week 3. (January 27) Alternate Reality Learning: VR, AR, Gaming, and Simulations

Chris Dede, Tina A. Grotzer, Amy Kamarainen, & Shari Metcalf (2017). EcoXPT: Designing for deeper learning through experimentation in an immersive virtual ecosystem. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 166-178. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13bIe6557e5-eg0xLI06pKjrFja2fpsgP/view

Susan Yoon, Emma Anderson, Joyce Lin, & Karen Elinich (2017). How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging science content. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 156-168. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312053926_How_Augmented_Reality_Enables_Conceptual_Understanding_of_Challenging_Science_Content

Hsin-Hun Liou, Stephen J. H. Yang, Sherry Y. Chen, & Wernhuar Tarng (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 110-121. Available: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/56c1/a617bdb11d07c6372d248b4c0153f25c0eb2.pdf

Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown (2009, January). Why Virtual Worlds Matter. International Journal of Media and Learning, Vol. 1(1). http://www.johnseelybrown.com/needvirtualworlds.pdf

Squire, Kurt. (2008). Open-Ended Video Games: A Model for Developing Learning for the Interactive Age. The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 167–198. Retrieved from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ecology-games and http://trainingshare.com/pdfs/Squire-2007.pdf

Bonnie A. Nardi, Stella Ly, & Justin Harris (2007). Learning conversations in World of Warcraft. forthcoming in Proc. HICSS 2007. Retrieved from http://darrouzet-nardi.net/bonnie/pdf/Nardi-HICSS.pdf

Sara de Freitas (2007). Learning in Immersive worlds a review of game-based learning. JISC. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.1997&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Week 4. (February 3) The Expansion of Blended and Fully Online Learning

Swapna Kumar, Florence Martin, Kiran Budhrani, & Albert Ritzhaupt (2019, December). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Elements of award-winning courses, Online Learning, 23(4), 160-180. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2077

Owston, R., York, D., & Malhotra, T. (2019). Blended learning in large enrolment courses: Student perceptions across four different instructional models. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4310

Ron Owston (2017). Empowering learners through blended learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(1), 65-83. Retrieved from http://www.yorku.ca/rowston/IJEL2017.pdf (see also Ron Owston homepage: http://edu.apps01.yorku.ca/wordpress/ronowston/ and presentation at OEB 2016 (Empowering Learners in Higher Ed, December 7, 2016): Video (18 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1G_FZU_4bE

Sloan Reports (2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018). Now the Online Learning Consortium: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/ and https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/surveys/ (free survey reports) https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html

Seaman, J. E., Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Full Report: https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf (recap: http://www.babson.edu/about/news-events/babson-announcements/babson-survey-research-group-tracking-distance-education-report/)
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. with Russell Poulin and Terri Taylor Straut (2016, February). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Full Report: http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
February 5, 2015, I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, 2014 Survey of Online Learning, Grade Level: Tracking Online Education in the United States, 2014, Online Learning Consortium (formerly the Sloan Consortium). Homepage. Full Report.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014, October) Opening up the curriculum: Open educational resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2014. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthecurriculum2014.pdf

Infographic: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/Opening_the_Curriculum_infographic.pdf

Barbara Means, Yukie Toyama, Robert Murphy, Marianne Bakia, & Karla Jones (2010, September). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U. S. Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Chuck Dziuban and Anthony Picciano (June 17, 2015). The Evolution Continues: Considerations for the Future of Research in Online and Blended Learning. Available: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/6/erb1513-pdf.pdf

7. Amber Dailey-Heber, (2018, December). Maximizing Interactivity in Online Learning: Moving beyond Discussion Boards. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3). Available: https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2018_15_3/hebert_interactivity

Rebecca Mary Quintana, Yuanru Tan (2019, December). Characterizing MOOC Pedagogies: Exploring Tools and Methods for Learning Designers and Researchers. Online Learning, 23(4), 62-84. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2084

Thomas Arnett, Andrew Benson, Brian Bridges, Katrina Bushko, Lisa Duty, and Saro Mohammed (2015, October). State of Opportunity: The Status and Direction of Blended Learning in Ohio. OBL. (From the Clayton Christensen Institute and The Learning Accelerator). Homepage: http://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/state-of-opportunity/; Full Report: http://learningaccelerator.org/media/abc5d315/Ohio%20Report%20101415_F.pdf

i. Note: See also Reports from the Innosight Institute: https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/classifying-k-12-blended-learning-2/

ii. Blended Learning Universe, Clayton Christensen Institute; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWoz9cN2KT93VujFnGqL8MQ; http://blendedlearning.org /

iii. Video: What is Blended Learning? Clayton Christensen Institute; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSPgvwZMdS8

Sedef Uzuner Smith, Suzzane Hayes, & Peter Shea (2017, March). A Critical Review of the Use of Wenger’s Community of Practice (CoP) Theoretical Framework in Online and Blended Learning Research, 2000-2014. Online Learning, 21(1), 209-237. Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/963

Baiyun Chen, Aimee deNoyelles, Kerry Patton, & Janet Zydney (2017, March). Creating a Community of Inquiry in Large-Enrollment Online Courses: An Exploratory Study on the Effect of Protocols within Online Discussions. Online Learning, 21(1), 165-188. Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/816

Regina Ruane & Vera J. Lee (2016, December). Analysis of Discussion Board Interaction in an Online Peer Mentoring Site, Online Learning, 20(4), pp. 79-99. Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1052

Week 5. (February 10) Nontraditional, Informal, Extreme, and Adventure Learning

Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Hybrid online education: Identifying integration models using adventure learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 23-41. Available: http://lt.umn.edu/earthducation/expedition1/wp-content/files/2011/01/hybridOnlineEd.pdf

Miller, C., Veletsianos, G., & Doering, A. (2008). Curriculum at forty below: a phenomenological inquiry of an educator/explorer’s experience with adventure learning in the Arctic. Distance Education, 29(3) 253-267. (Note: must have access from library for this article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01587910802395789 another link to it: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587910802395789 (see download PDF link)

Veletsianos, G., & Klanthous, I. (2009). A review of adventure learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10 (6), 84-105. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/755/1435 or http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/755 (various formats)

Rick Bennett (2011, March). Global classrooms, rural benefits: Creative outreach through computing in education. Paper presented at Global Learn: Global Conference on Learning and Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Available: http://www.trainingshare.com/pdfs/Rick-Bennett-Global-Learn-Paper.pdf

5. Bonk, C. J., Kim, M., & Xu, S. (2016). Do you have a SOLE?: Research on informal and self-directed online learning environments. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Section: Informal Resources and Tools for Self-Directed Online Learning Environments (35-1, pp. 1-32). Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_35-1. Available: http://publicationshare.com/sole

Kim, M., Jung, E., Altuwaijri, A., Wang, Y., & Bonk, C. J. (2014, Spring). Analyzing the human learning and development potential of websites available for informal learning. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning. 11(2), 12-28. Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/dfdeaf_1989e2278e76458ba77c06aadae54ad1.pdf#page=17

Week 6. (February 17) Open Education, Open Universities, OER, and OCW

Eamon Costello, Tom Farrelly, and Tony Murphy (2020). Open and shut: Open access in hybrud educational technology journals 2010-2017. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 21(1), 112-133. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4383/5271 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4383/5294

Alysia D. Roehrig, Devin Soper, Bradley E. Cox, & Gloria P. Colvin (2018, October). Changing the default to support open access to education research. Educational Researcher, 47(7), 465-473. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/mNc7rK5rQWudaeq3vUqw/full

David Wiley and John Hilton (2018, September). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). 19(4). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3601 or http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3601/4769

Kyungmee Lee (2019, October). Rewriting a History of Open Universities: (Hi)stories of Distance Teachers. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 20(4). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4070/5186 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4070

Asha S. Kanwar & Sanjaya Mishra (2018, June), Access and Affordability in Higher Education, Commonwealth of Learning, Canada. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/3044/2018_Kanwar-Mishra_Access-and-Affordability-in-Higher-Education.pdf and http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3044

i. Short Version: August 2018, Asha Kanwar and Sanjaya Mishra, Staying ahead: Open learning in the Commonwealth, Bulletin, https://issuu.com/the_acu/docs/bulletin_no_194/22

Gainne Conole and Mark Brown (2018). Reflecting on the impact of the open education movement. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 187-203. Available: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/314/346

Martin Weller, Katy Jordan, Irwin DeVries, & Viv Rolfe (2018, April-June). Mapping the open education landscape: Citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126. Available: https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/822

Nicholas B. Colvard, C. Edward Watson, & Hyojin Park (2018, July). The Impact of Open Educational Resources on Various Student Success Metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Available: http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE3386.pdf

Santosh Panda and Sujata Santosh (2017, November). Faculty perception of openness and attitude to open learning at the Indiana National Open University. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7), 89-110. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2942/4444 (HTML), http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2942/4463 (PDF)

Special Issue (2017, June): Outcomes of Openness: Empirical Reports on the Implementation of OER, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(4). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/85

Articles in this issue include:

How Korean Language Arts Teachers Adopt and Adapt Open Educational Resources: A Study of Teachers' and Students' Perspectives, by SuBeom Kwak

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2977/4213

Evaluating NTU’s OpenCourseWare Project with Google Analytics: User Characteristics, Course Preferences, and Usage Patterns, bu Feng-Ru Sheu & Meilun Shih (former IU students), http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3025/4219
Incentivizing the Production and Use of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education Institutions, by David Annand and Tilley Jensen, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3009/4226
A Preliminary Exploration of the Relationships Between Student-Created OER, Sustainability, and Students Success, David Wiley, Ashley Webb, Sarah Weston, & DeLaina Tonks, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3022/4222
Student Perceptions of College Faculty Who Use OER, Gabrielle Vojtech & Judy Grissett, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3032/4215
Tracking the Money for Open Educational Resources in South African Basic Education: What We Don't Know, by Sarah Goodier, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2990/4225
Exploring Open Educational Resources for College Algebra, by Marcela Chiorescu, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3003/4223

11. Guo, Y., Zhang,M., Bonk, C. J., & Li. Y. (2015). Chinese Faculty Members’ Open Educational Resources (OER) Usage Status and the Barriers to OER Development and Usage. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(5), 59-65. Available: http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/4819 and http://publicationshare.com/pdfs/IJET_2015.pdf

Sanjaya Mishra (2017, August 24). Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance Education, 38, 369-380. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369350 (HTML) and https://tinyurl.com/ycfu9hwk (PDF)

Vivien Rolfe (2017, November). Striving toward openness: But what do we really mean? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(17), 75-88. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3207/4445 (HTML), and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3207/4461 (PDF)

Lee, M., Lin, M.-F., & Bonk, C. J. (2007, November). OOPS, turning MIT OpenCourseWare into Chinese: An analysis of a community of practice of global translators. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/463/980 (HTML) http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/463/982 (PDF)

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/463/966 (audio file)

Week 7. (February 24) Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) and Open Education

Barbara Oakley, Debra Poole, and MaryAnne Nestor (2016, March). Creating A Sticky MOOC. Online Learning, 20(1), 1-12. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/731

https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/731/197 (PDF)

“MOOCs and Open Education Around the World.” In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee., T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (xxx-xlii). NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://publicationshare.com/moocsbook/ and http://moocsbook.com/free.php or http://publicationshare.com/moocsbook/TOC_Preface_MOOCs_Open_Ed_book_by_Bonk_Lee_Reeves_Reynolds.pdf

Or:

2b. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reynolds, T. H., & Reeves, T. C. (2015). Preface to MOOCs and Open Education Special Issue: The Power of Four. In Special Issue: MOOCs and Open Education. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 265-277. Retrieved from http://moocsbook.com/TOC_Preface_Special.pdf

2c. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2018). The emergence and design of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Demsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4^th Ed.), (pp. 250-258). Boston, MA: Pearson. Available: http://www.publicationshare.com/3 or http://publicationshare.com/pdfs/MOOCs_Reiser_book_by_Bonk_Reeves_Reynolds_Lee_Final_with_citation.pdf

2c. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2018, December). Instructor experiences designing MOOCs in higher education: Pedagogical, resource, and logistical considerations and challenges. Online Learning, 22(4), 203-241. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1495 (special issue: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj)

2d. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2019). MOOC instructor motivations, innovations, and designs: Surveys, interviews, and course reviews. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 45(1), 1-22. Available: https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27795

Zhijun Wang, Terry Anderson, & Li Chen (2018, February). How learners participate in connectivist learning: An analysis of the interaction traces from a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(1), 44-67. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3269/4502

Dillahunt, T., Wang, Z., & Teasley, S. D. (2014). Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use among those who cannot afford a formal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 177-196. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1841/3070 (HTML)

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/64 (PDF)

Kimberly F. Colvin, John Champaign, Alwina Liu, Qian Zhou, Colin Fredericks, and David E. Pritchard (2014, September). Learning in an Introductory Physics MOOC: All Cohorts Learn Equally, Including an On-Campus Class, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), Available:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1902/3009

Khe Foon (Timothy) Hew, Chen Qiao, & Ying Tang (2018). Understanding student engagement in large-scale open online courses: A machine learning facilitated analysis of sudent’s reflections in 18 highly rated MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3596

Khe Foon (Timothy) Hew (2018, April). Unpacking the Strategies of Ten Highly Rated MOOCs: Implications for Engaging Students in Large Online Courses. Teachers College Record, 120(1), 1-40. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324559398_Unpacking_the_Strategies_of_Ten_Highly_Rated_MOOCs_Implications_for_Engaging_Students_in_Large_Online_Courses

Klemke, Roland; Eradze, Maka; & Antonaci, Alessandra, The Flipped MOOC: Using Gamification and Learning Analytics in MOOC Design--A Conceptual Approach. Education Sciences, v8 Article 25 2018. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b30e/79f76ef3444bd16ab832a8653b9ccdcaeb63.pdf

Week 8. (March 2). More MOOCs and Open Education Around the World

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., Mitchell, R., Warburton, S., & Williams, S. A. (2019). A MOOC Taxonomy Based on Classification Schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22(1), Available: http://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&sp=full&article=798 and http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2019/Liyanagunawardena_et_al.pdf

Yuan Wang & Ryan Baker (2018-July). Grit and intention: Why do learners complete MOOCs. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(7). 20-42. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3393/4659

Daeyeoul Lee, Sunnie Lee Watson, & William R. Watson (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28-41. Available: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3749 and https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3749/1515

Daeyeoul Lee, Sunnie Lee Watson, & William R. Watson (2020). The relationships between self-efficacy and self-regulated learning strategies in online courses. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 21(1), 23-39. Available http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4389/5284 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4389

Juan Miguel L. Andres, Ryan S. Baker, Dragan Gašević, George Siemens, Scott A. Crossley, and Srećko Joksimović. 2018. Using the MOOC Replication Framework to Examine Course Completion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Sydney, Australia, March 2018 (LAK’18), 8pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170369 and http://www.upenn.edu/learninganalytics/ryanbaker/LAK_Paper49.pdf

Rita Kop and Hélène Fournier, National Research Council of Canada, John Sui Fai Mak, Australia (2011, November). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(7). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025 (see also entire special issue on Emergent Learning, Connections, Designs for Learning: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/49)

6. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2018, December). Instructor experiences designing MOOCs in higher education: Pedagogical, resource, and logistical considerations and challenges. Online Learning, 22(4), 203-241. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1495 (special issue: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj)

7. Aras Bozkurt, Ela Akgun-Ozbek, & Olaf Zawacki-Richter (2017, August). Trends and patterns in massive open online courses: Review and content analysis of Research on MOOCs (2008-2015). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 118-147. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3080

Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Aras Bozkurt, Uthman Alturki, and Ahmed Aldraiweesh (2018, February). What research says about MOOCs—An explorative content analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198-221. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3356/4490

George Veletsianos and Peter Shepherdson (2016, February). A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature Published in 2-13-2015. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198-221. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2448

See also: George Veletsianos and Peter Shepherdson (2015, June). Who Studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinary in MOOC Research and its Changes over Time. IRRODL, 15(3), http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2202

See also George Veletsianos, Justin Reich, & Laura A. Pasquini (2016, July-September). The life between big data log events: Learners’ strategies to overcome challenges in MOOCs. AERA Open, 2(3), 1-10. Available:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2332858416657002 (abstract)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332858416657002 (PDF)

Video explanation of results (4:18): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0nIB_pcmEE

10. Bonk, C. J. (2015). Foreword: Scratching the seven year itch: Perhaps it’s time to MOOC on! In J. R. Corbeil, M. E. Corbeil, & B. H. Khan (Eds.). The MOOC case book: Case studies in MOOC design, development and implementation (pp. xii – xxii). Ronkonkoma, NY: Linus Books. Available: http://www.moocsbook.com/free.php or http://moocsbook.com/MOOC_Foreword_by_Bonk_for_Corbeil_Khan_book.pdf

More MOOC Readings:

1. Nathaniel Ostashewski, Jennifer Howell, & Jon Dron (2017). MOOCifying courses: Delivery of a MOOC to enhance university course activities. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 4(2), 184-195. Available: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/217 http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/217/231 (HTML)

http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/217/230 (PDF)

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., Mitchel, R., Warburton, S., & Williams, Sa. A. (2019). A MOOC taxonomy based on classification schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(1). pp. 85-103. ISSN 1027-5207. Retrieved from https://www.ucem.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-MOOC-Taxonomy-Based-on-Classification-Schemes-of-MOOCs.pdf and http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/83058/

Sergey Kruchinin (2019). An investigation into the attraction and completion rates of MOOCs. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 11(1), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.003 and https://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/view/401

Wang, X. H., Hall, A. H., & Wang, Q. Y. (2019). Investigating the implementation of accredited MOOCs in higher education: The boon and the bane. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3896 and https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3896 and https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3896/1546

David Santandreu Calonge, Mariam Aman Shah, Karina Riggs, & Melissa Connor (2019). MOOCs and upskilling in Australia: A qualitative literature study. Cogent Education, 6: 1687392. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1687392

Patrick Lowenthal, Chareen Snelson, and Ross Perkins (2018, July). Teaching Massive, Open, Online, Courses (MOOCs): Tales From the Front Line. International Research of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3505 or http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3505/4660

April 2017, Why Study on a MOOC? The Motives of Students and Professionals, IRRODL, 18(2)
Colin Milliganand Allison Littlejohn, Glasgow Caledonian University, The Open University, Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3033/4086

Jeffrey P. Emanuel & Anne Lamb (2017). Open, online, and blended: Transactional interactions with MOOC content by learners in three different course formats. Online Learning, 21(2) (25 pages). Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/845 https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/viewFile/845/272 (PDF)

Jeffrey A. Green, Christopher A. Oswald, & Jeffrey Pomerantz (2015). Predictors of Retention and Achievement a Massive Open Online Course. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 925-955. Preprint available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.908.4811&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Tali Kahan, Tal Soffer & Rafi Nachmias (2017, September). Types of participant behavior in a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6) (18 pages). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3087

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3087/4377 (HTML)

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3087/4381 (PDF)

Nati Cabrera and Maite Fernández-Ferrer, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Universitat de Barcelona (UB). (2017, April). Examining MOOCs: A Comparative Study among Educational Technology Experts in Traditional and Open Universities, IRRODL, 18(2), Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2789
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2789/4088 (HTML)

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2789/4113 (PDF)

Freda Wolfenden, Simon Cross, & Fiona Henry (2017). MOOC adaptation and translation to improve equity in participation. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 4(2), pp. 127-142. Available: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/209

http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/209/243 (HTML)

http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/209/245 (PDF)

Interviews of Bonk et al. on MOOCs and Open Education:

Zhu, M., & Zhao, Y. (2017). MOOCs and open education: Possible roles, pedagogical practices, personalization, and pending trends. China Educational Technology-conversation with Drs. Curtis J. Bonk, Mimi Miyoung Lee, Thomas C. Reeves, and Thomas H. Reynolds, China Educational Technology, (5), 30-39.

Available in Chinese: http://publicationshare.com/10

Available in English: http://publicationshare.com/11

Abbreviated version of above interview: Zhu, M., & Zhao, Y. (2017, May 16). MOOCs and open education: Possible roles, pedagogical practices, personalization, and pending trends. China Educational Technology-conversation with Drs. Curtis J. Bonk, Mimi Miyoung Lee, Thomas C. Reeves, and Thomas H. Reynolds, Innovate Learning Review. Available HTML: http://innovatelearningreview.org/china-educational-technology-a-conversation-with-curtis-j-bonk-mimi-miyoung-lee-thomas-c-reeves-and-thomas-h-reynolds/ and PDF: http://publicationshare.com/12 (Note: This is an excerpt of interview in China Educational Technology, May 2017)

Mark Viner, Ellen Gardiner, and Michael F. Shaughnessy (2016, July/August). Q&A with Ed Tech Leaders: Interview with Curtis J. Bonk, Mimi Miyoung Lee, Thomas C. Reeves, and Thomas H. Reynolds, Educational Technology, 56(4), 59-64. Available: http://publicationshare.com/6; and http://publicationshare.com/pdfs/Ed_Tech_Interview_MOOC_Team_July_August_2016_with_TOC_order_form.pdf

4. Jin, Hui, & Liu, Di (2016, June 9). Indiana University MOOCs expert Curtis Bonk: Focus on technology to bring educational reform and personal development. A Comparative Study of International Education Information Center, Pan Yongjun Online.

Chinese: https://kknews.cc/education/mnovz.html

English translation: http://trainingshare.com/temp/k2e-online.html

5. Bonk, C. J. (2015, August 31). Profile: Curt Bonk. New Learning Times. Interviewed by George Nantwi, EdLab, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY. Available: https://newlearningtimes.com/cms/article/2757

6. Yan Li & Muhua Zhang (2015). Global Impact of Open Educational Resources and Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) Movement on Higher Education and its Future: Interview with Prof. Curtis Bonk. Open Education Research, 21(5), 4-13.

Article (Chinese): http://curtbonk.com/pdfs/201509281654002945.pdf

Article (English): http://publicationshare.com/pdfs/Bonk--Yan_Li_China_Journal.pdf

Week 9. (March 9) Open Education in the Developing World (i.e., the Global South)

Mariam Aman Shah and David Santandreu Calonge (2019, December). Frugal MOOCs: An Adaptable Contextualized Approach to MOOC Designs for Refugees. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3350

Jima Ngei (2019). Looking at the impact and future of MOOCs from an African experience. Paper presented at conference in Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. Available: http://business-school.open.ac.uk/sites/business-school.open.ac.uk/files/files/Events/oic-papers/PAPER-ID-10(1).pdf

Monty King, Mark Pegrum, Martin Forsey (2018, November). MOOCs and OER in the Global South: Problems and Potential, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5), Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3742/4804

Carol Kidu (2018). Informal Lifelong Learning for Development in Papua New Guinea: A Case Study from the Margins into the Mainstream. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 5(1), 13-22. Retrieved from http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/275/298

Bandalaria, M. d.P. (2018). Open and Distance eLearning in Asia: Country Initiatives and Institutional Cooperation for the Transformation of Higher Education in the Region. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 5(2), 116-132. Retrieved from http://www.jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/301/328

Arul Chib and Reidinar Juliane Wardoyo (2018, July). Differential OER impacts of formal and informal ICTs: Employability of Female Migrant Workers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 94-113. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3538

Narend Baijnath (2018). Learning for development in the context of South Africa: Considerations for open education resources in improving higher education outcomes. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(2), 87-100. Available: http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/299/319

Marianne E. Krasny et al. (2018, June). Small groups in a social learning MOOC (slMOOC): Strategies for fostering learning and knowledge creation. Online Learning, 22(2), 119-140. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1339

Trang Phan (2018, June). Instructional strategies that respond to global learners’ needs in massive open online courses. Online Learning, 22(2), 95-118. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1160

Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2020). Frontmatter (i.e., Foreword, Preface, and Chapter 1). MOOCs and Open Education in the Global South: Challenges, Successes, Opportunities. NY: Routledge. Available: http://moocsbook.com/front.

Zhang, K., Bonk, C. J., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2020). Chapter Abstracts and Contributors Bios. MOOCs and Open Education in the Global South: Challenges, Successes, Opportunities. NY: Routledge. Available: http://moocsbook.com/bios.

Arinto, P.. B., Hodgkinson-Williams, C., King, T., Cartmill, T. & Willmers, M. (2017). Research on Open Educational Resources for Development in the Global South: Project landscape. In C. Hodgkinson-Williams & P. B. Arinto (Eds.), Adoption and impact of OER in the Global South. Cape Town & Ottawa: African Minds, International Development Research Centre & Research on Open Educational Resources for Development. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1038981 and https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3c49/6e55c4e86bd7170066c1090c6e72f5ca7441.pdf and https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/record1887 and https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/26435

Week 10. (March 23) Informal and Self-Directed Online Learning Environments (including online language learning)

Mitra, Sugata (2019). Does Collaborative Use of the Internet Affect Reading Comprehension in Children? Journal of Learning for Development, 6(1), 20-36. Retrieved from https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/323/376 or https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1212515.pdf

de Waard, Inge; Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes, & Sharples, Mike (2015). Self-Directed Learning in Trial FutureLearn courses. In: Proceedings Papers, EMOOCS, pp. 234–243. Available: http://oro.open.ac.uk/44499/1/eMOOCs-2015_submission_65.pdf

Bonk, C. J., & Lee, M. M. (2017). Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal learners in open educational environments and MOOCs. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1), 36-57. Retrieved from http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/195/188

Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Kou, X., Xu, S. & Sheu, F.-R. (2015). Understanding the self-directed online learning preferences, goals, achievements, and challenges of MIT OpenCourseWare subscribers. Educational Technology and Society, 18(2), 349-368. Retrieved from http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132326892/pendidikan/Pembelajaran%20Mandiri_Artikel%204_Curtis%20J.%20Bonk.pdf

Song, L., & Hill, J. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 27-42. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/6.1.3.pdf

Zhu, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2019). Designing MOOCs to facilitate participant self-monitoring for self-directed learning. Online Learning, 23(4), 106-134. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i4.2037. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2037 (special issue: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/issue/view/113)

Zhu, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2019). Designing MOOCs to facilitate participant self-directed learning: An analysis of instructor perspectives and practices. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 16(2), 39-60. Available: https://6c02e432-3b93-4c90-8218-8b8267d6b37b.filesusr.com/ugd/6c1db2_3ab135498618442abe908811fb68a1b2.pdf

Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2010). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 2-20. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285750999_New_dimensions_to_self-directed_learning_in_an_open_networked_learning_environment

Hyland, N., & Kranzow, J. (2012). Faculty and student views of using digital tools to enhance self-directed learning and critical thinking. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 8(2), 11-27. Retrieved from http://sdlglobal.com/IJSDL/IJSDL8.2.pdf

Week 11. (March 30) Maker Spaces, Social Media, and Participatory Learning

Terry Anderson (2019). Challenges and Opportunities for use of Social Media in Higher Education. Journal of Learning for Development, 6(1), 6-19. Retrieved from https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/327/361 or https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/327

Paskevicius, M., Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2018, February). Content is king: An analysis of how the Twitter discourse surrounding open education unfolded from 2009 to 2016. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/3267/4539

3. Veletsianos, G. (2017). Toward a generalizable understanding of Twitter and social media use across MOOCs: who participates on MOOC hashtags and in what ways?. Journal of Computing in Higher Ed., 29(1), 65-80. Available: https://www.veletsianos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/veletsianos_twitter_in_MOOCs.pdf

Special Issue (2017, February): Advances in Research on Social Networking in Open and Distributed Learning, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1). Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/84

Articles in this issue include:

Why Do Academics Use Academic Social Networking Sites?, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2643/4044
Enriching Higher Education with Social Media: Development and Evaluation of a Social Media Toolkit, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2656/4043
The Effects of Integrating Social Learning Environment with Online Learning, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2645/4031
Properties of Teacher Networks in Twitter: Are They Related to Community-Based Peer Production?, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2644/4036
Using Social Learning Networks (SLNs) in Higher Education: Edmodo Through the Lenses of Academics, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2623/4037
Analysis of Social Media Influencers and Trends on Online and Mobile Learning, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2640/4027

Zhang, Ke, & Gao, Fei (2014). Social media for informal science learning in China: A case study. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 6(3). Available: http://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/view/360

Peppler, K. (2013). New Opportunities for Interest-Driven Arts Learning in a Digital Age (Deliverable to the Wallace Foundation). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University. Available: http://kpeppler.com/Docs/2013_Peppler_New-Opportunities-for-Interest-Driven-Art.pdf

See also: Peppler, K., & Solomou, M. (2011). Building Creativity: Collaborative Learning and Creativity in Social Media Environments. On the Horizon, 19(1), 13-23. Also published in the proceedings of the 2010 International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, IL. Available: http://kpeppler.com/Docs/2011_Peppler_Building_Creativity.pdf

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008, January/February). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32. Retrieved on December 26, 2017, from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm0811.pdf

Mimi Ito (2014, August 25). Think Education 2014 - Mimi Ito, Google, San Paulo, Brazil (29:21); Video of keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uL0d2ShPU
Mimi Ito (2013, October 22). Mimi Ito on Learning in Social Media Spaces (Big Thinkers Series, from Edutopia), (7:24), Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF5pxnXwMBY
John Seely Brown (2010, June). Closing Keynote at the New Media Consortium 2010 in Anaheim, CA. A Culture of Learning. Gardner Campbell’s reflective blog post: http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=1278 and Mimi Ito’s “Learning with Social Media”: http://www.gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=1258; Video of keynote (51:48): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4FPH-Oo1iM
John Seely Brown (2006, December 1). Relearning learning—Applying the long tail to learning. Presentation at MIT iCampus, Video available from MITWorld: https://techtv.mit.edu/videos/16155-relearning-learning-applying-the-long-tail-to-learning

and http://video.mit.edu/

John Seely Brown (2013, March 6). John Seely Brown on Motivating Learners (Big Thinkers Series; from Edutopia) (8:28). Video Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41pNX9-yNu4
John Seely Brown (2008, December 20). Tinkering as a Mode of Knowledge Production, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching - Stanford, CA, Oct. 23-25, 2008 (10:09). Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-MczVpkUA

8. Baiyun Chen and Thomas Bryer (2012, January). Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Media in Formal and Informal Learning. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(1). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1027/2073

Henry Jenkins, Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice J. Robison, & Margaret Weigel. (2008). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21^st Century Chicago: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved on June 25, 2010, from http://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Week 12. (April 6) Interactive, Global, and Collaborative Learning

Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2018, December). Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning framework for online instructors. Online Learning, 22(4), 181-201. Available: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1520

Kevin Oliver, Michael Cook, & Angela Wiseman (2019). Teachers’ First Experiences with Global Projects: Emerging Collaboration and Cultural Awareness. Journal of Online Learning Research, 5(1), 65-96. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/182263/ and https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208814.pdf

Mimi Li and Wei Zhu (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96-120. Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2998

Zsuzsanna Abrams (2019, June). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs, Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22-42. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44681/1/23_02_10125-44681.pdf and https://www.lltjournal.org/item/3105

Soobin Yim and Mark Warschauer (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146-165. Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2989

Merryfield, M. M. (2003). Like a veil: Cross-cultural experiential learning online. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. [Online serial], 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm

a. Note: also in Canvas: Merry Merryfield, Joe Tin-Yau Lo, Sum Cho Po, & Masataka Kasai (2008). Worldmindedness: Taking Off the Blinders. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26498772_Worldmindedness_Taking_Off_the_Blinders (see also her homepage at ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Merry_Merryfield/publications)

Lee, M. & Hutton, D. (2007, August). Using interactive videoconferencing technology for global awareness: The case of ISIS. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(8). Available: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_07/article01.htm

Note: also in Canvas:

Lee, M. (2007) “Making it relevant”: A rural teacher’s integration of an international studies program. Intercultural Education. 18(2). 147-159. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14675980701327254 or https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ929442 (see Canvas for full article)
Lee, M. M. (2010) “We are so over pharaohs and pyramids!” Re-presenting the othered lives. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 23(6), pp. 737-754. Also available for some at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09518390903362359 (preview: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09518390903362359#preview)
Lee, M. M., & Bonk, C. J. (2013). Through the words of experts: Cases of expanded classrooms using conferencing technology. Language Facts and Perspectives, 31, pp. 107-137. (see Canvas)

Note: More articles from Mimi Miyoung Lee at ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mimi_Lee5

For more related to online videoconferencing, see:

1. Soliya: http://www.soliya.net/

i. Georgetown Learning Initiatives, Soliya Connect:
http://gli.georgetown.edu/#soliya

ii. Connect from Soliya: https://vimeo.com/38328511

Sajjapanroj, S., Bonk, C. J., Lee, M, & Lin M.-F. (2008, Spring). A window on Wikibookians: Surveying their statuses, successes, satisfactions, and sociocultural experiences. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 36-58. http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v7/n1/a-window-on-wikibookians-surveying-their-statuses-successes-satisfactions-and-sociocultural-experiences#.UrYBf9oo5js

Lin, M.-F., Sajjapanroj, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2011, October-December). Wikibooks and Wikibookians: Loosely-coupled community or the future of the textbook industry? IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(4), 327-339. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5744067

Terumi Miyazoe & Terry Anderson (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System (An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics), 38, 185-199. Available: http://miyazoe.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MiyazoeandAnderson_20100602_System.pdf

Lee, H., & Bonk, C. J. (2014). Collaborative Learning in the Workplace: Practical Issues and Concerns. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 7(2), 10-17. Available: http://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jac/article/view/3850

Week 13. (April 13) Mobile, Wireless, and Ubiquitous Learning

Ying Tang & Khe Foon (Timothy) Hew. (2018, November). Examining the utility and usability of mobile instant messaging in a graduate-level course: A usefulness theoretical perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 128-143. Available: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/4571 or https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/4571/1568

Greig Krull & Josep M. Duart (2017, November). Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011-2015). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2893/4449 (HTML) and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2893/4453 (PDF)

Mohamed Ally & Avgoustos Tsinakos (Eds.) (2014). Perspectives on Open and Distance Learning: Increasing Access through Mobile Learning. Commonwealth of Learning (COL) and Athabasca University. Vancouver, BC. Available: http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/558

and http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/558/pub_Mobile%20Learning_web.pdf

Matthew Kearney, Sandra Schuck, Kevin Burden, & Peter Aubusson (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20 (17 pages). Retrieved from https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1225 and https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1225/html

Traxler, John (2011). Context in a Wider Context, Medienpaedagogik, Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung. The Special Issue entitled Mobile Learning in Widening Contexts: Concepts and Cases (ed.) N. Pachler, B. Bachmair & J. Cook, Vol. 19 http://www.medienpaed.com/19/traxler1107.pdf

Traxler, John (2017, April). Learning with Mobiles in Developing Countries: Technology, Language, and Literacy. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 9(2) (15 pages). (Note: See Canvas for article.)

a. John Traxler: http://wlv.academia.edu/JohnTraxler).

i. Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a Mobile Age, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1-12, January-March 2009. Available: https://www.academia.edu/171500/Learning_in_a_Mobile_Age,

ii. Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and Evaluating Mobile Learning: The moving finger writes and having writ…IRRODL, 8(2). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/882

(Note: More from same issue: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/29)

Paul Kim (2010). Is Higher Education Evolving? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(1). Available: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/3/is-higher-education-evolving

More from Paul Kim

Pocket School and other projects (e.g., Seeds of Empowerment: http://seedsofempowerment.org/ ote: See Canvas for many articles on mobile learning from Paul Kim at Stanford. He was the class guest in the fall of 2010.). Paul Kim’s Homepage: http://www.stanford.edu/~phkim/

Various articles: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xrvmtpkhe5vhrn1/AABy84P4pjuWo37ZlZa4K-Hja?dl=0

Week 14. (April 20) The Future of Learning Technology: The Personalization of Learning

Cavanagh, T., Chen, B., Lahcen, R. A., & Paradiso, J. (2020, January). Constructing a design framework and pedagogical approach for adaptive learning in higher education: A practitioner’s perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 21(1), 172-196. Available: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4557 and http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4557/5300

Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., Jones, D., Jowers, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., Misiejuk, K., Ness, I. J., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Wasson,B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2019.pdf and http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2016: Open University innovation report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from http://proxima.iet.open.ac.uk/public/innovating_pedagogy_2016.pdf and http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/

2019 Higher Education Edition, Increasing Demand for Digital Learning Experience and Instructional Design Expertise, EDUCAUSE Horizons Report, https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonreport.pdf

Other Horizon Reports (i.e., technology on the horizon): https://www.nmc.org/publication-type/horizon-report/

a. NMC Horizon report 2016 K-12: https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmccosn-horizon-report-2017-k-12-edition/

b. NMC Horizon Report 2017 Higher Education: https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2017-higher-education-edition/ and http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf

c. May 14, 2018, NMC Horizon Report Preview 2018
https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/4/nmc-horizon-report-preview-2018; https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2018/4/previewhr2018.pdf

d. August 16, 2018, 2018 NMC Horizon Report, 2018 Higher Education Edition, https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2018/8/2018horizonreport.pdf

4. Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Kim, M., Xu, S., Sabir, N., & Sari, A. (2018, September). Pushing toward a more personalized MOOC: Exploring instructor selected activities, resources, and technologies for MOOC design and implementation. The International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL), 19(4), 92-115. Available: HTML: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3439/4726; PDF: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3439/4765; Audio file: https://tinyurl.com/y7spvyc3

5. Bella Ross, Anne-Marie Chase, Diane Robbie, Grainne Oates, & Yvette Absalom (2018, December). Adaptive quizzes to increase motivation, engagement and learning outcomes in a first year accounting unit. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-018-0113-2
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs41239-018-0113-2.pdf

6. Sara Kol, Miriam Schcolnik and Elana Spector-Cohen (2018, September). Google Translate in Academic Writing Courses? The EUROCALL Review, 26(2), https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2018.10140. Retrieved from https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/eurocall/article/view/10140/11322 and https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/eurocall/article/view/10140/11315

7. Charles Dziuban, Patsy Moskal, Constance Johnson, & Duncan Evans (2017). Adaptive Learning: A Tale of Two Contexts. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 4(1), Article 3, pp. 26-62. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol4/iss1/3/

a. Charles Dziuban, Patsy Moskal, & Joel Hartman (2016, September 30). Adapting to Learn, Learning to Adapt. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR). Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/9/adapting-to-learn-learning-to-adapt and https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2016/9/erb1610.pdf

b. Charles Dziuban, Patsy Moskal, Jeffrey Cassisi, & Alexis Fawcett (2016, September). Adaptive Learning in Psychology: Wayfinding in the Digital Age. Online Learning, 29(3), 74-96. Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/972

8. Haiyan Fan and Marshall Scott Poole (2006). What is personalization? Perspectives on the design and implementation of personalization in information systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 16(3), 179-202, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250890289_What_Is_Personalization_Perspectives_on_the_Design_and_Implementation_of_Personalization_in_Information_Systems

Week 15. April 27 The Future of Learning Technology: AI, Robotics, and Personal Digital Assistants

Janna Anderson, Lee Rainie, and Alex Luchsinger, Pew Research Center (2018, December 10). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans. Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/12/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-humans

2. November 6, 2018, How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, Cultures, National Academy of Sciences, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24783/how-people-learn-ii-learners-contexts-and-cultures or https://www.nap.edu/download/24783 (read chapter on technology)

3. Aras Bozkurt, Whitney Kilgore, & Matt Crosslin (2018). Bot-teachers in hybrid massive open online courses (MOOCs): A post-humanist experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 39-59. Available: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3273

4. Noah L. Schroeder (2017). The Influence of Pedagogical Agent on Learners’ Cognitive Load. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 138-147. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76bc/68f874f083b9ba29f7b26681543411e85d2e.pdf

5. The Future from Contact North, Ontario, Canada

a. Stephen Downes (2017, October). Quantum Leaps We Can Expect in Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age—A Roadmap. Contact North. https://teachonline.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/quantum_leaps_we_can_expect_in_teaching_and_learning_in_the_digital_age_-_a_roadmap.pdf

b. Richard Katz (2017, October). EDU@2035. Contact North. https://teachonline.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/edu2035.pdf

Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence (2016, October), Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, United States of America, Blog: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/03/preparing-future-artificial-intelligence; Summary Blog: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/12/administrations-report-future-artificial-intelligence; Full Report: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf