Grainne Conole, Rebecca Galley, and Juliette Culver
Open University, United Kingdom
This paper describes a new social networking site, Cloudworks, which has been developed to enable discussion and sharing of learning and teaching ideas/designs and to promote reflective academic practice. The site aims to foster new forms of social and participatory practices (peer critiquing, sharing, user-generated content, aggregation, and personalisation) within an educational context. One of the key challenges in the development of the site has been to understand the user interactions and the changing patterns of user behaviour as it evolves. The paper explores the extent to which four frameworks that have been used in researching networked learning contexts can provide insights into the patterns of user behaviour that we see in Cloudworks. The paper considers this within the current debate about the new types of interactions, networking, and community being observed as users adapt to and appropriate new technologies.
Keywords: Cloudworks; social networking; Web 2.0; social and participatory web practices; frameworks; connectivism; actor-network theory; activity theory; communities of practice; communities of inquiry; design-based research
Research into the use of technologies and in particular networked technologies is now well established (Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007; Conole & Oliver, 2007). Niche research sub-domains have emerged, such as networked learning, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), e-learning, and technology-enhanced learning (TEL), each with its own particular focus, underlying principles, and preferred methodologies (such as case studies, evaluations, ethnography, quasi-experimental studies, discourse analysis, and social network analysis). See Conole (2010c) for a more detailed discussion of theory and methodology in the field. In a recent series of interviews, broad notions of socio-cultural theoretical perspectives and in particular activity theory, actor-network theory, and design-based research seemed to be commonly cited points of reference for TEL researchers (Conole, Scanlon, Mundin, & Farrow, 2010). In addition, a range of popular frameworks and models have been used, such as Laurillard’s conversational framework (Laurillard, 2002), Salmon’s e-moderating framework (Salmon, 2000), Garrison et al.’s community of inquiry framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), and Wenger’s community of practice framework (Wenger, 1998). Collectively, research in the field, and in particular the application of these frameworks, has given us insights into the nature of interactions within these online spaces and some indication of barriers and success factors. However, the emergence of new forms of social and participatory technologies, sometimes referred to as Web 2.0 practices, has given rise to new challenges in terms of understanding the nature of user behaviour in these spaces. Specifically, what is the nature of interactions, networking, and community in these spaces?
It has been five years since publication of the key paper by O’Reilly (2005) that coined the phrase Web 2.0. Since then the breadth and variety of Web 2.0 tools have expanded rapidly (see Conole & Alevizou, 2010 for a recent review of Web 2.0 tools and practices). There are now many examples of different ways in which Web 2.0 tools are used, and there are empirical accounts of user behaviour and interactions. Perhaps a more descriptive term for these tools is social and participatory technologies, as this indicates more clearly the affordances these technologies provide. At the same time, a number of new theoretical and methodological insights have emerged, including new ideas/conceptualisations around the nature of learning in these spaces, most notably connectivism (Siemens, 2005a) and broader notions of networked learning (Steeples & Jones, 2002). However, it is evident that there is no clear understanding of exactly what these user behaviours and interactions are. This paper will attempt to provide a critique of these issues through the lens of an evaluation case study on the use of a new social networking site for learning and teaching, Cloudworks. It will consider in particular descriptions of user behaviour and interaction, including notions of interaction, connectivity, networking, and community.
Before considering some of the frameworks that have been used to describe and make sense of interactions in online environments, it is worth first discussing in general terms the nature of tool-user interaction.
Tools and users are not static. Of course technologies are continually developed and upgraded, but more importantly users adapt and change their behaviour and interaction with tools over time, as they a) gain more proficiency using the tools, b) begin to appropriate and personalise use, and c) see new ways in which the tool can replace previous patterns of behaviour. Think, for example, of the way tools such as word processors, email, and mobile phones have become more ingrained in everyday practice since their original introduction. This shift is both at an individual and an organisational level. For example, Internet use for finding and disseminating information is now ubiquitous across education, email has replaced memo communication, and secretaries no longer laboriously type up handwritten letters (Conole, White, & Oliver, 2007). Gibson defines affordances as “All ‘action possibilities’ latent in an environment… but always in relation to the actor and therefore dependent on their capabilities” (Gibson, 1979). In considering the nature of user interaction with tools, this definition is useful.
Salomon describes Gibson’s concept of affordances this way: “Affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of a thing, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” (Salomon, 1993, p. 51).
Simplistically, a tall tree has an affordance of food for a giraffe but not for a sheep; two parallel strips of wood with connecting rungs construe a ladder when against a wall or a fence when horizontal. Application of this concept to a technological context is useful because it describes the inter-connection between tools and users. As Pea et al. (cited in Borgeman et al., 2008) argue, there is a co-evolution of tools and users over time; interactions and patterns of user behaviour are not static. This co-evolution depends on both the inherent affordances of the tools and the characteristics of the users (i.e., their skills base, personal preferences and beliefs, and the context and culture within which they are interacting with the technologies). While this has always been the case, arguably the pace of change/co-evolution has increased dramatically in recent years, particularly around use of Web 2.0 tools. There has been a shift from a static-content Web to one that is more interactive; peer critiquing, user-generated content, sharing, personalisation, adaptation, and remixing are the kinds of user behaviours that characterise these new tools.
Understanding existing and evolving user behaviour in such online environments and being able to trace the co-evolution described above is a key challenge in networked learning research. Numerous frameworks and models have been developed and used in networked learning, both as guidance in the development of learning systems and as frameworks to structure the nature and form of analysis for understanding patterns of behaviour in networked learning contexts. These frameworks and models are valuable as they provide a specific lens on practices, which enables us to view them and understand them in a particular way. For example, some foreground communicative aspects of practice, and others aim to describe the context within which practices occur. There are too many to describe in detail here; instead, a selection of four is considered to give a representative overview of the breadth and types that have been used. The four frameworks are as follows: communities of inquiry (Garrison, 2009; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001); communities of practice (Wenger, 1998); activity theory (see for example Daniels, Cole, & Wertsch, 2007; Engeström, Punamäki-Gitai, & Miettinen, 1999); and actor-network theory (Latour, 1997). These were chosen because they provide distinct and different lenses on existing practices. Conole (2010b) provides a more detailed review, and describes twenty frameworks and models commonly used in networked learning, mapping these against the classification of learning theories derived by Mayes and De Freitas (i.e., where theories are grouped according to whether they are fundamentally associative, cognitive/constructivist, or situative) (Mayes & De Freitas, 2004).
After briefly describing the four frameworks and how they have been used in networked learning contexts, we will explore to what extent they are useful in describing patterns of user behaviour and interaction in a new form of social networking site, Cloudworks, which has been developed to promote sharing and discussing of learning and teaching ideas and in particular to support reflective practice. It is worth stating at this point that a broad definition of learning and learners has been used, covering learning across formal, non-formal, and informal contexts, and including learners in professional practice contexts. In particular, the Cloudworks site was primarily developed to support scholarly reflection and academic practice, and therefore sits within an informal learning context with professionals as learners.
Before describing the frameworks it is important to give some notion of the types of interaction with others that occur in modern online environments. Certainly within a formal educational context, much of the reported research into the use of the Web in the 1980s and 1990s centred on fairly well-defined groups, such as cohorts of learners. The research focus tended to be around analysing their use of tools, such as email and forums, in predominately closed settings (Hiltz & Goldman, 2005; Mason & Kaye, 1989). Social and participatory tools and their associated open practices enable learners to connect and interact with a broader audience beyond their class cohort, which has resulted in a blurring of the boundaries between formal and informal learning, moving beyond groups to more loosely connected actors. Researching these new environments raises new methodological challenges as the approaches used to describe relatively closed contexts often do not scale and are restricted by the inherent constraints of tightly defined contexts.
Dron and Anderson (2007) argue that in addition to groups in learning contexts, interactions in new social mediating tools lead to a network and a collective category (i.e., collectives) with a progressively looser connectivity across the three. Therefore groups are defined as relatively tightly formed with shared interests and intentions; networks are a more fluid form of social entity in which members join, create, and remove themselves through informal and semiformal connections; and collectives consist of individuals whose networked activities are harvested to generate the “wisdom of crowds” (Surowiecki, 2004). Dron and Anderson argue that most individuals use a mixture of all three in their practice, and the affordances of different tools may lend themselves better to use in a group, network, or collective context. Their categorisation provides a useful set of guidelines and strategies for how to use tools most effectively to suit the needs of the three different types of learning contexts.
The four frameworks chosen for discussion were all developed before the emergence of recent social and participatory tools; nonetheless, it is interesting to see to what extent they are applicable in terms of describing the rich mix of interactions and interplay of the groups, networks, and collectives Dron and Anderson describe. Each is briefly described then the next section considers to what extent they can be applied to describing patterns of user interaction in the Cloudworks site.
Originating out of CSCL research, and in particular analysis of online discussion forums, the community of inquiry (CoI) model developed by Garrison et al. (2000) has been used extensively. The model focuses on a community of inquiry consisting of teachers and students. Learning occurs within the community when three key prerequisites are sustained: cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence. This framework is often used as a basis to derive coding templates for analysis of online discussions, used to develop student evaluations of learning contexts (Arbaugh et al., 2008) and is particularly powerful when triangulated with methods such as critical recall and social network analysis (De Laat, 2006; De Laat et al. 2006).
Although originating from a different research context (social anthropology and the analysis of work-based community practices), Wenger’s communities of practice (CoP) framework (1998) has also been extensively applied to understand networked learning and it shares a number of similarities to the CoI model. It is very much an example of a socially situated theory of learning where learning is seen as social participation and consists of four aspects: learning as community, learning as identity, learning as meaning, and learning as practice. Wenger’s theory is valuable in that it considers the ways in which communities of practice are formed and developed; notions of trajectories of belonging, legitimate participation, and boundary objects/crossings have provided useful lenses to describe many interactions observed in online spaces. However, it does not lend itself as easily to direct codification or participant assessment as the CoI framework does; rather, it provides a generic, descriptive approach for contextualising community formation and identity.
Firmly derived from socio-cultural perspectives, activity theory (AT) provides a descriptive framework for considering online interactions (see for example Daniels, Cole, & Wertsch, 2007; Engeström, Punamäki-Gitai, & Miettinen, 1999). The central premise is that activities occur in a context and that this context needs to be taken into account if we are to make meaning of the situation and appropriately interpret the results. One of the most common ways of representing activity theory is as a triangle diagram, showing a subject-object nexus of mediating artefacts (MAs) intended to achieve an outcome; around this are rules and regulations, divisions of labour, and community. Both the broader contextualisation that AT enables and the foregrounding of mediating artefacts are useful in terms of understanding interactions in online environments (see Conole, 2008, for a description of the use of mediating artefacts in learning design). Enablers and constraints can be identified by focusing on questions such as what environment is the activity occurring in, how is this influencing it, who is involved, and what are their roles? In addition, the focus on mediating artefacts helps to identify and crystallise the role of the tools in the process.
Latour (1997) argues that instead of thinking in terms of surfaces or dimensions, actor-network theory (ANT) focuses on nodes and connections. The central concept is the notion of an evolving, dynamic actor-network. A second key aspect of ANT is that it combines the basic properties of a network with actors (or actants) who do some work; these actors include both human and non-human entities. “Actors and networks are mutually constitutive, meaning that there is no actor without action; that is, relationship with other actors, and the network is built on the mutual influences and intermediaries that actors exchange between each other” (Esnault, 2007).
The inclusion of non-human actants is one of the attractions of using ANT in a networked learning context as it enables researchers to foreground technological mediating artefacts and to describe their interactions with other actants within the networked context. ANT is also useful because of its focus on networks and connections instead of on physical distances, which arguably is a more appropriate metaphor to apply to technological communication and interaction environments.
The examples described above give an indication of some of the different approaches that have been used to study and understand networking learning contexts. Of course each emphasises different aspects of the network: CoI focuses on individuals and types of presence; CoP focuses on the group or community; AT foregrounds the context within which the event occurs; and ANT emphasises connectivity and privileges of both human and non-human actants within the network.
The next section describes an example of a social networking site, Cloudworks, and describes in particular the approach we have taken to the design and evaluation of the site. A major focus of our research is on analysing and understanding evolving user behaviour and interactions in the site. The paper will conclude by considering the extent to which the four frameworks described above can be used to shed light on interactions in Cloudworks.
Cloudworks is a social networking site to support the sharing and discussing of learning and teaching ideas and designs (see http://cloudworks.ac.uk). The site combines social and participatory functionalities and enables multiple forms of communication, collaboration, and cross-boundary interactions among different communities of users. The core object in the site is a cloud, which can be aggregated into community spaces called cloudscapes. A cloud can be anything to do with learning and teaching (e.g., a description of a learning/teaching practice, an outline about a particular tool or resource, a discussion point).
Clouds combine a number of features of social and participatory technologies. Firstly, they act like multiuser blogs: Links and resources can be added to a cloud, which appear as series of sequential entries under the first contribution. Secondly, they are like discussion forums as users can post comments that appear sequentially. Thirdly, they are similar to social bookmarking sites, enabling the aggregation of resources (both links and academic references can be added). Finally, they have a range of other functionalities common to networking sites, such as tagging, favouriting, RSS feeds, Twitter-like follow-and-be-followed options, and activity streams for different aspects of the site. Cloudscapes are aggregations of clouds, and clouds can belong to more than one cloudscape. Collectively these features provide a range of routes through the site and enable users to collectively improve clouds in a number of ways. The homepage of the site, in addition to providing standard navigation routes (such as browsing of clouds, cloudscapes, and people, and searching), shows recent activities, currently active clouds, and featured cloudscapes.
We have adopted a design-based research (DBR) approach to the design and evaluation of the site. Design-based research has emerged in recent years as an approach for studying learning in context through systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools (Barab, 2006; Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). It is used to study learning in environments that have been designed and systematically changed through interventions by the researcher and practitioners (Barab, 2006). Wang and Hannafin (2005, pp. 5-6) define DBR as “a systematic, but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practice through iterative analysis design, development and implementation, based on collaboration between researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories.”
Reigeluth and An (2009, pp. 378-379) articulate a comprehensive set of characteristics of DBR that readily map to the approach we are taking with Cloudworks: It is driven by theory and prior research, which is pragmatic, collaborative, contextual, integrative, interactive, adaptive/flexible, linked to actual practice, and generalisable (Conole, 2010a). We subscribe to the notion of co-evolution of tools and practices discussed earlier, and hence within our DBR approach we have adopted a socio-technical co-evolution approach (Figure 2) with two parallel strands of intervention, one technical and one social. Alongside this we have put in place a rich virtual ethnographic approach to evaluation of the use of the site and identification of emerging user behaviours.
Use and development of the site is being monitored in a number of ways (see Conole & Culver, 2010, for a description of the first few phases of design and evaluation of the site). Data collection has included Web stats and Google analytics, analysis of site activities and discussions, collation of references to Cloudworks elsewhere (such as in the blogosphere and on Twitter), and use and evaluation of the site at numerous workshops and conferences. A Cloudworks evaluation and feedback questionnaire is also available online (see http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/1906). This multifaceted evaluation strategy has gathered data that has then been used to inform ongoing design activities, thus ensuring an alignment between evolving technical developments and user needs. The data, and particularly the user feedback, has given us a rich understanding of how the site has evolved and how it is being used. At key points we have commissioned an expert review of the site and have to date undergone three site redesigns, commissioning an expert external designer.
A range of standard statistics is gathered routinely, along with an administrative cloudstream, which, in addition to listing activities on the site chronologically (in the way that the main site cloudstream does), documents when new users register with the site (the site is open, but users need to register if they wish to post anything or create clouds or cloudscapes) and when users choose to follow others. We will also be capturing the following on a biannual basis: the number of users who have posted clouds, the number of users who have posted comments, and the number of unique users posting a cloud or comment in the last 60 days. To measure sustainability and longevity of contribution, we are also capturing the following: the number of registered users who post a cloud or comment at least one month after registration (this way we don’t count the initial use of the site for, say, a conference or workshop) and the number of registered users who post a cloud or comment at least one year after registration. Table 1 provides a summary of some of the cumulative quantitative figures for the site in mid-July 2010. By distinguishing between team and non-team contributions we are able to get a measure of the impact of our social interventions described above and the extent to which the site is moving toward being self-sustaining. The team consists of the authors of this paper and an additional researcher. They are all e-learning researchers with a range of both pedagogical and technical expertise.
The site is also linked to Google analytics, which shows the growth of the site since its launch in July 2009. As is evident with other social and participatory sites, the number of active contributors to the site (currently 2,935 registered) is less than the number of unique visitors (87,325 visits from 167 countries). The top five countries are the UK, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Italy. From the monthly statistics we can see both a steady growth in the number of users signing up and in the number of unique visitors. In addition, from the contributions made, we can see that there is a growing number of users who are regular contributors both in terms of their activities and their reflections on the value of Cloudworks for their practice (see for example some of the comments in Table 2).
We have used a mix of theoretical perspectives for the design of the site and the analysis of the way in which it is being used. Conole and Culver (2009) describe the theoretical perspectives that informed the initial design of the site, and Alevizou et al. (2010) describe recent work drawing on broader theoretical frameworks in order to understand emerging patterns of behaviour. In particular, Engestrom’s notion of social objects (Engeström, 2005) has formed the basis for the design of Cloudworks around clouds as social objects. Similarly, Bouman et al.’s framework for sociality (Bouman et al., 2007) has provided a useful approach to the design and development of the site, based on developing environments that both mimic existing user behaviour and provide opportunities to expand and shift to new patterns of behaviour. We have undertaken a number of qualitative studies of the use of the site, including explorations of how the site is being used by a particular community or theme and through a series of interviews with users. Galley has developed a community of indicators framework as a mechanism for analysing interactions on the site and we have begun exploring how this might be used for analysing evaluation case studies of the site (Galley, Conole, Dalziel, & Ghiglione, 2010).
Applying a broad range of theoretical perspectives is proving necessary because of the unique structure/functionality of Cloudworks and the way in which we are seeing emergent patterns of user behaviour on the site. For example, one of the distinctive features of Cloudworks (in comparison to other social networking sites) is the way it enables and facilitates not only connections within communities but among them. It facilitates boundary crossings among communities, enabling different stakeholders (policy makers, researchers, teachers, learners, etc.) to interact in unanticipated ways. It has a genuine global reach with different kinds of stakeholders. The affordance of clouds, arising from their general layout/functionality (i.e., the initial cloud entry plus collective additional entries, embedded content, links, and references, coupled with a social space for discussion), seems to promote new and interesting forms of social interaction. A core principle of the site is that it is totally open; anyone can see anything in the site. This ensures that the site harnesses the best of social and participatory practices and affordances. Serendipity has been built into the site in a variety of ways, which enables individuals to cross community boundaries and to make unexpected connections. The site offers powerful mechanisms for supporting social networks in a range of ways and at different levels.
To date we have identified eight ways in which the site is being used.
Having provided an overview of the statistics for the site and the categories of user behaviour, in this section we will attempt to map where and to what extent the frameworks described earlier for understanding interactions, networks, and communities in online spaces are evident from the Cloudworks evaluation data.
Table 2 provides examples of where each of the frameworks maps to activities in Cloudworks. This demonstrates the benefits of each framework in terms of providing a particular lens with which to describe what is happening. However, none of these frameworks on its own is adequate to describe the full range of user behaviour and interactions we see within the site.
In terms of Dron and Anderson’s classifications, there is evidence of all three types in Cloudworks, although the majority of interactions are either networks or collectives, as group activities are already relatively well provided for by existing tools, it could be argued. Nonetheless, some of the learner cohorts and workshop cloudscapes could be classified as groups or at least straddle the network/collective categories. The many types of events show patterns of behaviour associated with both networks and collectives. This can be attributed in part to the fact that the structure of clouds is designed to promote both discussion and collective aggregation.
This paper has addressed a number of themes. Firstly, it describes an innovative new social networking site, Cloudworks, which has been designed to support discussion and sharing of learning and teaching ideas. Cloudworks provides a good example of emergent technologies, and it provides a good opportunity for exploring some of the methodological issues that arise in the use and understanding of new social mediating spaces. Secondly, the paper describes how we have adopted a design-based research approach to the design and evaluation of the site. Finally, the paper explores how a range of frameworks for understanding networked learning might be applied to understanding Cloudworks.
The paper considers one of the key challenges in researching new learning contexts through socially mediated environments, namely articulation and understanding of the nature of the interactions among users within these environments and between the users and the tools that form part of the environment. Four frameworks have been described and discussed in terms of the light they shed on patterns of user behaviour in one social networking site for academic practice, Cloudworks. The paper has demonstrated that these frameworks are indeed useful but only offer a partial solution. None of the frameworks provides a comprehensive holistic description. We plan to continue to explore different theoretical perspectives and frameworks in order to try to find an approach that provides this more holistic solution. As described earlier, Galley has developed a set of community indicators, which we are currently using to analyse some case study data on the site. We are also interested in exploring to what extent the notions of connectivism developed by Siemens (Siemens, 2005b) and later critiqued by Downes (Downes, 2007) might be useful. In particular we are interested in exploring how the eight principles of connectivism (Siemens, 2005b) might be used both as a foundation for developing an analytic framework for understanding online interactions and as good practice principles. Crucial is the notion that connectivism emphasises the fact that knowledge is distributed and that learning is the process of growing/pruning those networks and connections in a dynamic and evolving way over time. We believe sites like Cloudworks can facilitate this process and provide learners with new connections and access to a distributed intelligence.
Certainly it is possible to see synergies with the four frameworks described in this paper; for example, two of the principles (1 and 5) related to the nature of interactions among users online mirror aspects of CoI, CoP, and Dron and Anderson’s categories. However, perhaps not surprisingly, connectivism seems to have a particularly strong synergy with ANT (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
However, it is worth reiterating that one of the main problems with social networking sites is achieving critical mass: building a substantive user base that is self-sustaining over time. This paper has discussed the ways in which we have fostered various social interventions on the site in an attempt to do this. Comparisons of the contributions by team members and non-team members over time shows evidence of an ongoing shift toward non-team member contributions, which is encouraging; however, much of the site activity clusters around specific events, such as conferences and workshops. A challenge in the coming year will be to grow the number of core contributors and attempt to foster other types of activities, such as the flash debates, open reviews, and reading circles. We anticipate needing to remain active as a core team but hope that a growing body of Cloudworks champions will emerge as users see the benefits of the site and begin to use it in their daily practices.
In conclusion, focusing on Cloudworks as a case study in relation to existing and potential frameworks has provided a vehicle for considering some of the issues around understanding online interactions. What is evident is that as yet we do not have either the right metrics or an overarching framework to adequately describe the patterns of user behaviour we are seeing in today’s online environments. The distinctive feature of these new environments in comparison to previous technologies is the importance and influence of the network in shaping user interactions and activities. Hence, further work is needed to explore how ideas like ANT, connectivism, and other recent theoretical perspectives on networking might be used to develop a more unifying and practical framework for describing and understanding these online spaces.
This work is part of a broader program of study on Learning Design at the Open University (see http://ouldi.open.ac.uk). We are grateful for partial funding for this work from the JISC and the EU.
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of e-learning research. London: Sage.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
Barab, S. (2006). Design-based research. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153-169). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Borgeman, C., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., Linn, M., et al. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge (Report of the National Science Foundation task force on cyberlearning). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf08204.
Bouman, W., Hoogenboom, T., Jansen, R., Schoondorp, M., de Bruin, B., & Huizing, A. (2007). The realm of sociality: Notes on the design of social software. The 28th International Conference on Information Systems.
Conole, G. (2008). Capturing practice, the role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinhi, & B. Harper (Eds.). Handbook of learning designs and learning objects. IGI Global.
Conole, G. (2010a). Learning design - making practice explicit. Paper presented at the ConnectEd 2nd International Conference on Design Education. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/4001
Conole, G. (2010b). Review of pedagogical frameworks and models and their use in e-learning. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2982
Conole, G. (2010c). Theory and methodology in networked learning. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference Hotseat. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2881
Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). Review of the use(s) of Web 2.0 in higher education. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/1895
Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2009). Cloudworks: Social networking for learning design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5).
Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The desing of Cloudworks: Applying social networking practice to foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers and Education, 54(3), 679-692.
Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (2007). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Conole, G., Scanlon, E., Mundin, P., & Farrow, R. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning as a site for interdisciplinary research. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3419
Conole, G., White, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and structure. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Downes, S. (2007, June). An introduction to connective knowledge. Paper presented at the Media, Knowledge & Education - Exploring New Spaces, Relations and Dynamics in Digital Media Ecologies, Vienna.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-learning. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 2460-2467).Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Engeström, J. (2005). Why some social network services work and others don't — Or: The case for object-centered sociality. Retrieved from http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html
Engeström, Y., Punamäki-Gitai, R. L., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.
Esnault, L. (2007). Actor-network theory and e-learning. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(11).
Galley, R., Conole, G., Dalziel, J., & Ghiglione, E. (2010). Cloudworks as a 'pedagogical wrapper' for LAMS sequences: Supporting the sharing of ideas across professional boundaries and facilitating collaborative design, evaluation and critical reflection. Paper presented at the 2010 European LAMS and Learning Design Conference. Retrieved from http://lams2010.lamsfoundation.org/abstract.htm#a7
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2005). Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Howe, J. (2006, June 2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired.
Latour, B. (1997). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications (working paper). Retrieved from http://www.cours.fse.ulaval.ca/edc-65804/latour-clarifications.pdf
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. Routledge.
Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind's emerging world in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning frameworks, models and theories. JISC e-learning models desk study.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base, Volume III (pp. 385-386). Oxford: RoutledgeFalmer.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Koan Page.
Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siemens, G. (2005a). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London: Springer-Verlag.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of the crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity (Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives). Cambridge University Press.