27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Relationships and Interactions in University Students' Learning Trajectories
Maria Domingo-Coscollola2, Sandra Soler-Campo1, Juana M Sancho-Gil1
1UB, Spain; 2UIC, Spain
Presenting Author: Sancho-Gil, Juana M
We live in a globalised world where Information and Communication Technologies allow our communication to take place immediately. The vast majority of today's college students were born after the advent of the Internet. They have grown up connected to virtual environments and have access to more information than any other generation (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). Moreover, they live in an increasingly digital world that transforms people's lifestyles by reshaping personal, educational and professional environments. In this increasingly digital world, the human relationship with technology has changed considerably (Marín & Castañeda, 2022, p. 16). As stated by Acevedo-Gutiérrez, Cartagena-Rendón, Palacios-Moya, and Gallegos-Ruiz (2019), the introduction of digital technology in education has impacted the improvement of education quality. It has meant the opening of services, the personalisation and flexibilisation of conditions in training, given the creation of strategies to support learning. However, according to UNESCO (2020), the excessive use of digital technology is increasing the isolation of university students, becoming one of the main concerns.
At present, each person inhabits their learning ecosystem with multiple interactions. Thus, today's society's distinctive features cause changes in how new generations learn and access knowledge. They also influence how they relate and their personal and social interactions (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2016). For example, Castro et al. (2019) argue that this generation tends to communicate, relate, generate and share content through networks in real-time, but without boundaries between public and private. Currently, young people use multimodal forms of communication and information search (McCrlinde & Wolfinger, 2011), giving preference to non-textual content platforms (Geraci et al., 2017).
Universities must face challenges related to these new scenarios, heavily influenced by corporations, and consider the new students' profiles. Educators and researchers are key players in meeting these challenges, particularly in their relationship with a student body that grows and learns differently. (Castro et al., 2019). To address these challenges, it seems necessary to understand young people and hence the need to deepen and understand the changes taking place in the meaning they give to learning and knowledge, both at the University and outside it. That is why we set out to carry out research that would offer ways of understanding the question: how do young people learn inside and outside the University? What are their conceptions, strategies, technologies and contexts of learning? What is the role of relationships and interactions during their learning processes?
This paper builds on the research project [project name], whose main objective is to address the above challenges by exploring, through participatory and inclusive research, how, where, with what and when university students learn.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used[Project] has been developed following a participatory and inclusive type of research (Bergold & Thomas, 2012; Nind, 2014). [Project] project intends to know the learning needs of current university students and how to meet them. To this end, we contacted students of different profiles to study their learning life experiences and inquire about them.
In the last 20 years, this generation has been considered the best prepared in history (Howe & Strauss, 2000). But in return, also superficial, unable to pay attention, more fearful, conservative and less prepared for adult life (Carr, 2010; Desmurguet, 2020; Twenge, 2017).
In the first phase, fifty university students participated in the [Project] project, 28 from Catalonia and 22 from the Basque Country. Of these, 30 are women, and the rest are men, a sample close to the distribution in Spanish universities in the 2019-20 academic year (Ministerio de Universidades, 2021, p. 25). With each of them, we held four meetings to explore and build their learning lives (Erstad & Sefton-Green, 2012).
In the first meeting, we explained to each participant the research goals and the type of engagement for all involved. They signed the ethical protocols. Then, we shared different statements, some contradictory, obtained from scientific publications and media discourses on the attitudes of today's young people towards education and society.
In the second meeting, they shared a reconstruction of their learning trajectories from childhood to the present. Through textual, multimodal and rhizomatic narratives, they highlighted moments, places, people, activities, objects, frames, turning points, and everything they considered fundamental in their learning trajectories.
The third focused on the moments, methods, and strategies they develop and use in their daily learning, whether academic or non-academic, inside and outside the University. After compiling and conceptualising the information generated, for the fourth and last session, the researchers wrote and shared with the students a draft of their learning trajectories so that they could review and validate it, thus contributing to the final version of the text. We recorded and transcribed all meetings' content. Almost all meetings took place during the COVID-19 pandemic but fortunately, most were face-to-face.
Throughout all the sessions, we emphasised the relationship with institutions, digital technology and people, both as motivators of learning and distractors. Our contribution builds on the analysis of the meetings' content based on concepts derived from the theoretical basis of the research and those arising from the participants' productions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur research participants live in an analogical and virtual universe that influences their learning and relationships. They state that the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced their personal and social life and pedagogical relationships. Students generally explained that they missed social contact and interaction with their teachers and peers. They perceived online communication and collaboration as more strained due to more screen time and a lack of non-verbal communication. They also experienced a greater sense of isolation and anxiety.
They point out that, in the special moments of the COVID-19 pandemic, the University did not prioritise accompaniment and care as emotional and affective dimensions of learning. Thus, some students were not motivated to participate in online learning and showed different levels of psychological distress, from moderate to severe (Arënliu & Bërxulli, 2020). Others had negative experiences connecting from familiar environments that were not conducive to digital distance learning (Killian, 2020). Also, participants discovered new possibilities for learning, collaboration, and sharing and identified severe limitations of online teaching and learning. This last point is in line with Pineda (2018), who concludes that there is a significant relationship between the use of digital educational resources and autonomous learning, taking into account the categories of motivation, self-direction, and self-efficacy.
Participants value the ability of people to interact and collaborate. Interactional practices are generally considered a central factor in developing well-being, productivity and innovations at work (e.g. Kauppi et al., 2019). Thus, the importance of learning interactional skills has also increased (Kauppi et al., 2019). Learning interaction skills can be addressed in various ways with approaches that facilitate effective and active collaboration and interaction and the learning of such competence.
The current university context needs more research to become more inclusive, participatory, and humane institutions where meaningful and responsible learning and education occur.
ReferencesArënliu, A., & Bërxulli, D. (2020). Rapid Assessment: Psychological Distress Among Students in Kosovo During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Research Gate. https://bit.ly/3bt6Yfv
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), 191-222.
Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
Desmurget, M. (2020). La fábrica de cretinos digitales. Península.
Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (Eds.). (2012). Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge University Press.
Geraci, J., Palemerini, M., Cirillo, P., & McDougald, V. (2017). What teens want from their schools: A National Survey of High School Student Engagement. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Vintage Original.
Kauppi, S., Muukkonen, H., Suorsa, T., & Takala, M. (2020). I still miss human contact, but this is more flexible-Paradoxes in virtual learning interaction and multidisciplinary collaboration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1101-1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12929
Killian, J. (2020). College students, professors adjust to COVID-19 life. NC Policy Watch, 1. https://bit.ly/3A3cTCg
Marín, V. I., & Castañeda, L. (2022). Developing Digital Literacy for Teaching and Learning. In O. Zawacki-Richter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 1-20). Springer.
McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2009). ABC of XYZ: Understanding the Global Generations. UNSW Press.
Ministerio de Universidades. (2021). Datos y Cifras del Sistema Universitario Español. Publicación 2020-2021. Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de Universidades. https://bit.ly/3jW9tuW
Nind, M. (2014). What is Inclusive Research? Bloomsbury.
Pérez-Escoda, A., Castro-Zubizarreta, A., & Fandos, M. (2016). Digital Skills in the Z Generation: Key Questions for a Curricular Introduction in Primary School. Comunicar, 49, 71-79. https://doi.org/10.3916/C49-2016-07
Pineda , M. I. (2018). Uso de Recursos Educativos Digitales y aprendizaje autónomo de estudiantes. Antioquia.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey Bass.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why today's super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy -and completely unprepared for adulthood- and what that means for the rest of us. Simon and Schuster.
UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 y educación superior: De los efectos inmediatos al día después. Análisis de impactos, respuestas políticas y recomendaciones. Instituto Internacional para la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. https://bit.ly/3RYc1E9
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
"Processes Creating Preconditions for the Exclusion of Gamers in School: Point of View of the Gamers"
Birute Vityte, Ona Monkeviciene
Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Vityte, Birute;
Monkeviciene, Ona
The gamers are a unique group of students who feel that their uniqueness comes from their self-identification with the phenomenon that represents them—i. e. digital games—and who prioritise digital game-based learning (DGBL) strategies. Research has shown the educational value of digital games as a motivational and learning aid and has revealed their significance in learning both general skills and various school subjects such as Physics, Biology, Mathematics, etc. (Tobias, Fletcher, Dai, Wind, 2011; Van Eck, 2006, 2015). DGBL has some features that are beneficial for teaching and learning: learning within a context relevant to the student (Van Eck, 2006), immersion in the activity (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Meyer, Sørensen, 2011), immediate feedback (Van Eck, 2006; Adams, 2009), enjoyment and motivation (Plass, Homer, Kinzer, 2015), personalisation (Kickmeier-Rust et al., 2011), and learning from each other (Egenfeldt‑Nielsen, Meyer, Sørensen, 2011). However, according to researchers, some parents and teachers still doubt the positive impact of DGBL and are questioning whether it is useful to students and whether it does not distract them from serious learning (Kirstavridou, Kousaris, Zafeiriou, Tzafilkou, 2020). In school, there is a clear dissonance between the learning approaches and methods desired by the students of the upcoming generation and the approaches and methods they are offered (Paul, Hansen, Taylor, 2005). A failure to satisfy the needs of students creates preconditions for the exclusion of certain student subgroups (e. g. the gamers) by not embracing and not applying learning methods that are acceptable to them. Studies show contrast between the growing number of students who play digital games and declining enthusiasm and motivation for school (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes, Vicari, 2014). It could be assumed that the gamers represent the group of unmotivated students who spend more time playing digital games than formally studying in school. It is important to analyse what are the reasons that reduce the motivation of the gamer group to study in the formal education process, which of their learning needs are not being met and what kind of learning process would be acceptable to them.
Our study based on the classical Grounded Theory unexpectedly revealed certain processes that create preconditions for the exclusion of the gamers as a subgroup of students in school. The following processes emerged: Stereotyping of digital games and gamers, Power Without Authority, Domination, Hyper-Intellectualisation, Standardisation and Hyper-Care. These processes reveal how the exclusion of the gamers is cultivated in school. They demonstrate the learning needs of a specific group of students, their expectations for school and the mismatch between the said expectations and the characteristics of formal education. The study data also shows that these processes are related to the transfer of behaviours which are characteristic of the gamers (and considered undesirable in school) to digital games. The gamers use digital games to experiment with things that are taboos in school: they choose games with aggressive content (because it is frowned upon by teachers) and explore the consequences of more aggressive solutions and hostile actions (provoke conflicts, allow themselves to act aggressively, explore limit states, conduct social experiments, etc.) For them, it is a counterbalance to the processes cultivated in school such as Hyper-Care, over-emphasising of intellectual activities, or sterile educational content (not containing certain controversial topics).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was based on the classical Glaser`s version of the Grounded Theory. The basis of the classical GT version is the emergence of theory from the data. It is an inductive reasoning method that creates a theory through the systematic collection, synthesis, analysis and conceptualisation of data. The researchers move in their study field without a predefined study problem; the study problem and its resolutions emerge from research data (Glaser, 2018, Glaser, Holton, 2004).
The following data were used: 21 interviews with gamers; 1 interview with an art critic and expert teacher; 1 focus group with 8th grade students of gymnasium (all of them have played or play digital games); observations at video game culture exhibition GameOn in 2015 and 2019; observations at Animation and Games Festival BLON in 2019; informal observations at Tallinn University during the Course on the Creation of Serious [digital] Games; informal conversations with the developers, players and researchers of digital games from November 2017 to January 2018 during the author`s internship at the Digital Games Research Group of the IT University of Copenhagen; written interviews with 8 art teachers and 3 art teachers-to-be; comments on Facebook; informal correspondence with interview participants.
The data of this study were analysed in the following stages: substantive coding that includes open coding and selective coding, and theoretical coding. Data analysis stages were accompanied by continuous memoing. All steps, i.e. data collection, open coding, theoretical sampling, memoing, conceptualisation, etc. were carried out simultaneously in a cyclic manner, with the author repeatedly returning to the first steps. The stages were repeated until data categories were saturated. The literature review had not been performed until processes that create preconditions for the exclusion of gamers in school emerged and were conceptualised; only then literature was used as one of data sources (Glaser, 1998).
Research ethics was followed: all participants were informed about the purpose for which their data were collected and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage. The parents of minors were informed in writing about the study purpose and their written consents allowing their children to participate were obtained. All identifying personal information of participants was changed. All participants took part voluntarily and gave their consents. The study complied with the Regulation on the Assessment of Conformity of Scientific Research to the Main Principles of Professional Research and Ethics approved by Vytautas Magnus University Senate (MTAPTPEPVN, 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsProcesses that cultivate the exclusion of gamers in school emerged during the study. The main one is the stereotyping of digital games which makes the gamers who identify themselves with games also feel stereotyped and stigmatised. The stereotypes (digital games are harmful, reduce the creativity of children or cause addiction) cause the rejection of digital games as unsuitable for education and the negative image of gamers at school: when playing, they do not think, they shoot in the game to shoot in reality, they are obese. This create preconditions for the gamers to feel rejected and misunderstood.
According to them, Power Without Authority means that teachers have formal power but no authority (wise people do not work as teachers, teachers hate children, they think in old-fashioned ways). Therefore, gamers consider teachers incompetent, unable to meet their needs and unaware of innovations.
During Hyper-Intellectualisation process, “intellectual” powers and subjects such as Mathematics or English are praised and emphasised, while other subjects such as Arts or Physical Education are undervalued. This process rejects innovative or non-standard phenomena including digital games as “non-intellectual”.
Standardisation process maintains strict regulations, typical methods and assessment standards in school, eliminates possibility to be creative, rejects non-standard learning methods such as digital games and opposes to the individuality of students.
Domination process emphasises the importance of teachers creating unequal relationship. The students are only allowed to be passive participants, which makes the gamers despise school and choose another space—digital games—where they can be active.
Hyper-Care is an intense process of care, supervision and protection in school manifesting as the elimination of “threatening” stimuli, also eliminating certain modes of action: experimenting, acting without unknowing consequences, etc. This approach treats digital games as unsafe, unsuitable for learning and creates an environment without any competition, challenge or intrigue.
References1.Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Meyer, B., ir Sørensen, B. H. (Red.). (2011). Serious games in education: A global perspective. Aarhus University Press.
2.Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Sociology Press.
3.Glaser, B. G. (2018). Getting started. Grounded Theory Review, 17(1), 3–6. Sociology Press. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2018/12/27/getting-started/
4.Glaser, B. G., ir Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607
5.Kickmeier-Rust, M., Mattheiss, E., Steiner, C., ir Albert, D. (2011). A psycho-pedagogical framework for multi-adaptive educational games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(1), 45–58. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011010104
6.Kirstavridou D., Kousaris K., Zafeiriou C., ir Tzafilkou K. (2020). Types of game-based learning in education: A brief state of the art and the implementation in Greece. The European Educational Researcher, 3(2), 87-100. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1265904.pdf
7.MTAPTPEPVN. (2021). Regulation on the Assessment of Conformity of Scientific Research to the Main Principles of Professional Research and Ethics. Resolution No. SEN-N-17 of 24 March 2021 by the Senate of Vytautas Magnus University. https://www.vdu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Moksliniutyrimu-atitikties-pagrindiniams-tyrimu-profesionalumo-ir-etikos-principams-vertinimonuostatos.pd
8.Paul, N., Hansen, K. A., ir Taylor, M. (2005). ‘Modding’ education: Engaging today’s learners. The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 2, 69–74.
9.Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., ir Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50, 258–283.
10.Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., ir Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. Iš S. Tobias ir J. D. Fletcher (Red.), Computer games and instruction (p. 127–221). IAP Information Age Publishing. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-11269-006
11.Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., ir Vicari, C. (2014). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game designcharacteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1–2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380
569.2014.890879
12.Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16–30. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/digital-gamebased-learning-its-not-just-the-digital-natives-who-are-restless
13.Van Eck, R. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless after all these years. EDUCAUSE Review, 50(6), 13–28. http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-game-based-learning-still-restless-after-all-these-years
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Learner Experiences and Possibilities and Constraints in Live-streamed Museum Lessons on Animals
Minna Seppänen Panas
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Seppänen Panas, Minna
During the pandemic of COVID-19 in-place lessons at museums were stopped and a remote, live-streamed lesson format was developed and launched.The learners, their teachers, the museum teacher, and the objects of learning are roomily separated, and the lesson takes place on a screen. With that in mind, I have surveyed how live-streaming shapes the instruction of animals at a natural history museum. The research questions were:
- What experiences do learners, class teachers and museum teachers have with a live-streamed lesson?
- What affordances of resources allow or constrain the teaching and learning of animals in a live-streamed museum lesson?
- What, if any, impact does a class teacher have on the interactions between learners and the museum teacher?
The first research questions aimed to investigate participants' experience of the activity and learning outcome of a live-streamed lesson as a new lesson experience, with the second research question to see possibilities or constraints in remoteness and the use of didactical resoursec (affordances).The overarching aim of this study is to investigate how a live-streamed museum lesson formats through material and didactical affordances.
The objects were 76 learners in ages 9 to 12 years in grades 3 (n=27), grade 5 (n=27) and grade 6 (n=21) from five classes in three municipal schools in Sweden, their class teachers (n=3) and one museum teacher who led the lessons and two other museum teachers.
The lower age limit was at grade 3 to be sure the learners could read and write independently to answer the questions. The higher age limit was at grade 6 as the lesson content on animals aligned with the curriculum contents up to grade 6. I selected two lesson themes for my study: "A giraffe, an elephant and a rhino" and "Wild animals in Sweden ".
The theoretical framework is rooted in a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978) and Designs for learning (Selander & Björklund Boistrup, 2021). The sociocultural approach comes with the concept of appropriation, making words into somebody's intellectual and cultural property. The sociocultural theory and designs for learning perspective point out that communication is mediated by semiotic modes of speech, gestures, objects, or environments. The theoretical background is complemented by the ecological approach to visual perception (Gibson, 2015) and the concept of affordances (Gibson & Pick, 2000) as resources in the learning environment. either allowing or constraining activity. ‘When no constraints are put on the visual system, people look around, walk up to something interesting and move around it so as to see it from all sides and from one vista to another.’ (Gibson, 2015, p. 2). Moreover, the use of senses, not only the audiovisual but also touch, is lacking in live-streamed lessons. Still, there is a need to actively engage learners in a live-streamed lesson, for example hands-on (Gaylord-Opalewski & O’Leary, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study uses qualitative and quantitative methods. Data comes from a questionnaire to the learners and their teachers, written interview questions to the three museum teachers that have been involved in the planning of the lessons and five screen recordings. Learners and their class teachers filled in the questions directly after live-streaming. The museum teachers answered the written questions about their experiences after one and a half terms of experiences of live-streamed lessons. The questionnaire to the learners and their teachers had closed-ended questions which I analysed for the percentage distribution of the learners’ audiovisual experience, and used a 4-Point Likert Scale (Likert,1932) without a neutral choice for their selfestimation of their activity level. The open-ended questions of the learners’ own appreciated learning outcomes were grouped in two main categories that I found in their answers. I analysed the interactions in the screen recordings using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2020). The themes developed from open coding of the teacher's interactions with participants and artefacts, as seen in the transcripts of the screen recordings and the open-ended questions. I transcribed the screen recordings following the correct Swedish everyday language. I started studying the data in the video recordings with an inductive bottom-up approach to understanding what happened in the lessons, and what means of instruction about animals were performed. The themes showed patterns of behaviour that could be explained by the analytical perspective of multimodality (Kress & Selander, 2012; Selander & Björklund Boistrup, 2021). The analyses showed signs of design to overcame a roomy separation. To analyse the learners’ responses and initiative-taking I used the Interaction analysis of Amidon (1968) that I modified by adding the class teacher as a participant in the matrix. According to the method records of actions are taken every 3:rd second and made notes for in the matrix. The counts of interactional acitivities gave a quantitative description of the participants responses and initiatives. NVivo was used to tag and name data items.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe museum teacher mediated the biological content by semiotic modes of speech, gestures, objects, positionings and the environment. Findings showed that the perceptions of the mounted animals were impacted by the limitations of the flat screen, for example, the lack of the objects' three-dimensionality. The learners showed engagement in the lesson by expressing joyfulness and activity by asking and answering questions. Yet there were differences in the learners' response and initiative. The class teacher type 1 engaged by asking questions and suggesting ideas and the teacher type 2 mainly helped learners to speak louder. It showed that the teacher type 2 had learners who took more initiative, while the learners of the type 1 teacher were more responsive. One finding was about lacking the possibility to look around and examine an object from all sides. However, the museum teacher’s responsiveness is critical to help learners to perceive the objects through the handling of space and surfaces to help distinguish the details and sizes of the objects.
Generally, the learners desired to use more senses. The learners’ assessments of their learning outcomes showed mostly single animal names, but there were fewer examples of deep factual learning. The analysis showed that the learners’ expectations were high of the museum as an expert institution and the museum teacher as more knowledgeable than their science teacher. The participants appreciated the knowledge contribution and the possibility of ‘visiting’ the museum but preferred to visit the museum in place, to stroll around, see more animals, see details and touch.
There are misconceptions about what a visitor can do at a museum, which indicates that many learners have never visited a museum. The live-streamed lessons allow a broader audience to get knowledge of species not acquainted with and contribute to understanding biodiversity conservation in a European context.
ReferencesAmidon, E. (1968). Interaction analysis. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 159-167.
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis.
Qualitative Psychology (Washington, D.C.), 9(1), 3-26.
Gaylord-Opalewski, K., and O'Leary L. (2019). "Defining Interactive Virtual
Learning in Museum Education: A Shared Perspective." Journal of Museum Education
44.3 229-41. Web.
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press
Classic Editions. Web.
Gibson, E., & Pick, A. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and
development. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G., and Selander S., (2012). "Multimodal Design, Learning and Cultures of
Recognition." The Internet and Higher Education 15.4 265-68. Web
Likert, R. (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes." Archives of
Psychology 22:5-55.
Selander S., and Björklund Boistrup L. (2021). Designs for Research, Teaching and
Learning. Taylor and Francis. Web.
Vygotskij, L., and Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes.
|
