Category: EDCI 339

For my showcase blog post, I decided to update my post on topic #2: History and Context of Distributed and Open Learning.

Upon reading chapter 4 of Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice by Claire Howell Major (2015), I thought back on my educational experience through the 5 variable lens that Major discusses: enrollment, amount, timing, platform, and pathway. Throughout my K-12 educational career, I would say that most classes followed this traditional face-to-face structure:

• Enrollment: Closed
• Amount: Web Assisted/Blended
• Timing: Synchronous
• Platform: Face-To-Face / Provider-Offered (LMS)
• Pathway: Centralized

Near the end of my high school journey, I took several online classes from North Island Distance Education School (N.I.D.E.S), a partnered online education institution. The structure of their grade 10-12 classes looked like this:

• Enrollment: Closed (Sign up with student email and administration approval required – Free)
• Amount: Online
• Timing: Asynchronous
• Platform: Provider-Offered (LMS – D2L)
• Pathway: Centralized (Recorded lecture videos, concrete assignments, limited student interactions)

Pre-pandemic, my main exposure to online classes was through the above method and I disliked this combination! It turned me off of online learning for quite some time. I think what I disliked most about the structure at N.I.D.E.S was the lack of student engagement. Typically, the courses were organized into modules/units on a learning management system (D2L) which consisted of a blurb describing learning outcomes, a couple of prerecorded lectures, assignments, plus a midterm and a final. In my experience, there wasn’t much of an opportunity to collaborate with other students in the class or build a sense of community, let alone a community of inquiry where we could communicate and grow our thoughts and ideas. My opinion on online (asynchronous classes more specifically) changed once I started taking classes at UVIC. The flexibility and openness to individual interpretations of these courses felt very freeing and I was able to produce work that I was more satisfied with. In contrast to my experience at N.I.D.E.S, online UVIC classes put a lot of emphasis on discussion forums as well as group collaboration, much like this course does (EDCI 339)! The most notable variable that changed was the pathways – centralized vs. decentralized. I think that decentralized and distributed learning models are breaking down the traditional norms of the current education structure and perhaps it’s time for this change!

I commented on Maegan’s post about how the COVID-19 pandemic totally changed the way educational institutions looked at teaching online. Another interesting facet that entered the limelight was the issue of accessibility and the opportunities that online learning (either distributed or open) affords to differently-abled communities. One example of this is Spring 2022 when the Society for Students with a Disability organized a walkout to protest the lack of retention of hybrid options once we returned to face-to-face classes. Quite obviously the pandemic isn’t over and health risks are still quite high for those who are immunocompromised or living with an immunocompromised person, in addition to other issues. Many students felt that their voices were not heard and that their health was being put at risk, plus there were disagreements about whether or not the university was prioritizing its finances over student safety during the return to campus. I think that online learning/hybrid options should be the norm nowadays, especially given the current health climate! In a situation like this, a divide is created between onsite education and those who are privileged enough to attend and online options. In many cases, those with certain health ailments have felt they needed to stay home and received sub-par online access or risk their health to come to class to get the full experience. In 2022, equitable access for all via online and distributed pathways should be integrated into course designs as we have all the tools necessary to run classes in dual formats for most programs. I think the pandemic was really a breakthrough for some to realize how we need to make education flexible and adapt it to individuals’ needs + unforeseen circumstances.

I tend to focus on asynchronous learning because it’s flexible and works well with my schedule but I certainly see cases where synchronous is more effective! Synchronous classes are good for the younger/elementary crowd, those who prefer structure, or perhaps those who struggle with time management. In addition to this, there is also the benefit of real-time engagement in synchronous lectures i.e., seeing faces/hearing voices, retention of material, and peer reactions – for the teacher’s sake. Learning is highly individualized and different formats work best for different students, so while I like asynchronous, another student could prefer synchronous. Therefore, a combination of these two formats might be the most accessible/agreeable for the majority. It can also subject dependent, certain topics might best be learned synchronously and other asynchronously. Below is a quote that heavily resonated with me.

“Asynchronous courses allow students to have a longer period in which to form their thoughts and compose comments and responses before having to contribute them to the class, while synchronous classes can favour quick thinkers and fast typists”

– Claire Howell Major (2015)

If I were to organize EDCI 339 under Major’s categories, it would be the following:

• Enrollment: Closed. Registration for EDCI 339 is limited to current students at UVIC. That being said, my WordPress blog and the EDCI site are open to the web. Some features are hidden/posted on private LMS (Brightspace – Syllabus, Readings, FIPPA Quiz).
• Amount – Fully Online. There are no face-to-face components and our main methods of communication are through Brightspace (transitioned away from), Mattermost, Email, and the EDCI website/personal WordPress blog posts.
• Timing – Asynchronous. There are no scheduled meeting times for the course but there are deadlines for when tasks should be completed.
• Platform – Originally started on LMS – Brightspace then transitioned to a more DIY platform using user-created WordPress blogs.
• Pathway – Decentralized – Emphasis on group work/interactions (accomplished through learning pods).

I think that this reading provided me with a better understanding of what online and distributed learning are, how they operate, and why different combinations of the 5 variables may be used. Online learning is becoming quite common, even expected in a variety of educational contexts, therefore, I think it is very beneficial to understand the intricate details and start thinking about how I may apply them in my own practice (elementary education). Depending on the grade level/subject material, I like the idea of a closed, online, synchronous/asynchronous, provider-offered LMS, and decentralized structure. I say closed/provider-offered LMS because of children’s ages and privacy rights but I could see other types going well with older students, or classes of different contexts. I think I would structure the class to have both synchronous and asynchronous components. The asynchronous parts may be challenging for some students but, if done correctly, this can teach them valuable skills in time management as well as personal responsibility/accountability for their own learning. In this way, this type of learning can break down the ‘transaction model’ of education wherein the teacher is the sole distributor of knowledge, leading to a more student-centred dynamic. A decentralized course, with an emphasis on groups, can help to build a sense of community, this also allows students to gain new perspectives from their peers as well as reflect on their own. The leeway provided by this structure also allows for inquiry and discovery of topics through students’ personal interests. As a learner and future teacher, I like the authentic feel, flexibility and freedom afforded by distributed learning pathways but dislike the lack of structure. Therefore, I would prefer to use more decentralized methods with (semi) asynchronous bases. Although, distributed learning could be excellent for electives for younger students or in various contexts in older age groups (inquiry projects, for example).

Online learning isn’t a ‘one-size fits all’ scenario, it’s not for everyone, nor is it ideal for every course but at least with the variations in structure that Major outlines, there is a chance of finding a combination that works best for your own learning. I also think that the transition to online during the pandemic made people feel negatively about online learning, as many teachers were maladapted to teach their courses in this way. In my experience, courses that are intended to be delivered online, paired with teachers who enjoy teaching this way, make the experience more enjoyable!

Resources:

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching online: A guide to theory, research, and practice. Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 4. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/reader.action?docID=3318874&ppg=87

Additional Resources:

Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2017). Jordan, K. & Weller, M. (2017) Openness and Education: A beginners’ guide. Global OER Graduate Network. https://go-gn.net/research/openness-and-education-a-beginners-guide/

25 Years of EdTech & 25 years of EdTech Timeline

Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash

Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy by Wiley & Hilton (2018) really cleared up what is considered an open resource and also introduced the possibility that some resources may be ‘open-washing’ i.e., giving off the impression of being ‘open’ when they actually don’t follow the 5R permissions. I thought I understood this concept from the previous reading but I think I conflated it with ‘free’ resources or other materials even though they may not follow this 5R guideline. I agree with Wiley, in that sometimes the varying terms and their difference in usage can be confusing thus I appreciate this approach in talking about OER-enabled pedagogy with a specific scope. Theoretically, if students are not limited by the copyright permissions of a resource then neither are the possibilities of their learning! When talking about student work being openly licensed (‘renewable assignments’), it made me think back to this course (EDCI 339) and how previous student blogs are available as samples (previous pod projects/digital portfolios). In this way, the work created by those students can inspire future learners, often acting as a ‘launchpad’ for further inquiries in differing contexts. 

Wiley’s four-part test: 

1. Are students asked to create new artifacts (essays, poems,  videos,  songs,  etc) or revise/ remix existing OER?
2. Does the new artifact have value beyond supporting the learning of its author?
3. Are students invited to publicly share their new artifacts or revised/remixed OER? 
4. Are students invited to openly license their new artifacts or revised/remixed OER?

Upon reviewing this test, I think that it’s an efficient way to determine if an assignment meets the guidelines of OER-enabled pedagogy. However, I can see the possibility of issues with privacy rights and minors, a topic we’ve previously discussed in this class. Are there/should there be restrictions related to the age of the student and the types of material that are openly shared/publicly licensed? Is there a way to facilitate anonymity in this endeavour? This might be worth exploring in more detail. 

In terms of my own experience with OER-enabled pedagogy, I’m not sure that any experience from high school would pass all four components. 

1. For the first condition, I’ve both created new artifacts and remixed OERs. 
2. I believe there have been instances where this work would certainly benefit others besides myself. 
3. I have been invited to share my work as ‘reference’ material before. 
4. I don’t think I’ve had a conversation about licensing work with an instructor.  

I participate as a note-taker for the accessible learning centre every semester but I’m not certain if this counts as the notes were not distributed widely or released into the open. My notes, summaries, and further explanations from desired courses have been anonymously provided to students with certain specialized needs that I am able to cater to. I suppose this has the opportunity to be openly licensed, assuming that the course(s) allow for this. I’ve also participated in activities similar to the examples from the reading – like creating test questions that were implemented into future exams for a course, creating new artifacts that have been used for future student reference, etc. 

I am planning on becoming a teacher so I am curious about how I could implement this test into my future course planning, although, I would be concerned with minor privacy, as I would be a teacher in the elementary division. That aside, I would like to implement as much OER-enabled pedagogy as possible because I believe that it enhances learning for current and future students. It gives them autonomy, in a sense, as their work is not ‘disposable’ and it contributed to learning on a greater scale. As for further considerations, I think that Wiley is correct about the mutually fueled benefit of OERs and OER-enabled pedagogy and how they will support one another in their adaptation and implementation as well as in the progression of their quality/availability.

Resources:

Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601

Photo by Martin Adams on Unsplash

Access to and equality in education is certainly embedded in the framework that is open pedagogy and the use of OERs. Something new that I wasn’t previously aware of was the 5 Rs mentioned in the article (reused, retained, redistributed, revised, and remixed). For me, this quote really stood out: 

“More than developing digital literacy and learning how to synthesize, articulate, and share information, students engage with and understand the politics of editing, including how “truth” is negotiated by those who have access to the tools that shape it.”

It made me think a lot about colonialism and dominant narratives that were often present in my early education (i.e., subjects taught through a euro-centric lens). Those in authoritative positions have access to and thus control over what is being said and how it is being said. In this way, certain voices and truths can be marginalized or rewritten. In a previous course this summer (GEOG 306) we explored the open resource Challenge Racist B.C wherein the emphasis on minority communities’ struggles is shifted from the classic scenario of the helpless victims who were ‘dominated’ into a narrative of strength and resilience, highlighting the many acts of resistance and fights for their rights. I think that there is a power dynamic at play in education systems and open pedagogy is one facet in which to address this. 

The use of OERs is one such way, as free educational resources lower the financial barriers present in the higher education world. This CBC article highlights the exorbitant amount that university students pay per term on textbooks at universities in British Columbia and this Maclean’s article gives an average breakdown per university and per program. I empathize greatly with the cited statistics that 54% of British Columbian university students cannot afford at least one of the texts needed for their courses. I’ve been in this situation before and it directly impacted my ability to do my best in the course! Although this is changing, there is a trend toward more professors using and adapting their courses to include OERs. For example, I took HSTR 230A last year and we used this textbook, an OER from B.C Campus Open Ed Textbooks. I’ve also had various readings assigned from this textbook, although that was in addition to purchasing several books for the course. 

The article also mentions that students should be more involved in the choices of course content and I couldn’t agree more! So far, I’ve only had one course that really fits this model and it was an upper-level English elective about utopian fiction. Our prof had a few selected readings to start the course off (all available online for free) and then we pick texts from a list or proposed an alternative that we thought would fit the course’s theme. In this way, I feel like we were all more engaged with the materials because we were the ones who chose them and the discussions were absolutely more diverse and thoughtful. I think student-centred learning, paired with open resources, and ‘wiggle-room’ within course content produce much more fruitful and sincere engagements. 

Reading these articles also spurred a random thought about student learning hubs… Where do sites like Chegg or Course Hero fit in? From my understanding, they kind of seem like paywall sites that people use to cheat? I do think this is different from the intended meaning but it got me wondering…  Do ‘student hubs’ have the possibility to promote academic dishonesty? In a lighter sense, I like to use Quizlet, a digital flashcard program, as a student hub and as a way to study and prepare for tests/exams.  

The Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy reading connect back to our Topic 1 content (Regan & Jessie 2019, UVIC’s Acceptable Use Policy, B.C FIPPA) in that we are addressing privacy, tracking, and restriction via digital tools. I’ve heard about the history of redlining but never thought to apply it to the digital world. I think that this is another way that limits the further education of already marginalized communities. As mentioned in the article, if certain information is blocked from you in your educational institution and you don’t have adequate access outside of that establishment, how else are you to learn about it? This information might as well not exist – at least not for you…  I think that there are many excellent questions being raised about these issues and how they are quite intertwined with things like race, gender, and class/status but further action/follow-up is needed, and soon!  

I thought the reading Design Principles For Indigenous Learning Spaces was very informative and very useful for my future teaching. In my early educational experience, Indigenous topics were either misrepresented or skipped over altogether. These lessons were either tacked on at the end of the lecture as somewhat of an afterthought or treated as a chore rather than genuine information or as an important way of learning. When searching for resources for my pod project, I found the First People’s Principles of Learning linked from an Open-Ed WordPress blog and I find this structure to be quite similar.

On another interesting note, it was also recently introduced that a certain amount of Indigenous-focused education will be required for all high school graduates, and I find this to be an excellent step forward, so long as it’s done in an appropriate way that fosters true understanding and is genuine in an effort towards reconciliation… not just a ‘box to check’ in order to graduate.   

Resources:

Gilliard, C., & Culik, H. (2016, May 24). Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy.
Common Sense Education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/digital-redlining-access-and-privacy

Kral, I. & Schwab, R.G. (2012). Chapter 4: Design Principles for Indigenous Learning Spaces. Safe Learning Spaces. Youth, Literacy and New Media in Remote Indigenous Australia. ANU Press. http://doi.org/10.22459/LS.08.2012 

Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students. Rebus
Community. Chapter 1.

Photo by Anas Alshanti on Unsplash

https://pod2project.opened.ca/

Photo by Adam Kovacs on Unsplash

Upon reading chapter 4 of Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice by Claire Howell Major (2015), I thought back on my educational experience through the 5 variable lens that Major discusses: enrollment, amount, timing, platform, and pathway. Throughout my K-12 educational career, I would say that most classes followed this traditional face-to-face structure:

• Enrollment: Closed

• Amount: Web Assisted/Blended 

• Timing: Synchronous

• Platform: Face-To-Face / Provider-Offered (LMS) 

• Pathway: Centralized   

Although, I did take several online classes from North Island Distance Education School (N.I.D.E.S), a partnered institution. The structure of their grade 10-12 classes looked like this: 

• Enrollment: Closed (Sign up with student email and administration approval required – Free)  

• Amount: Online 

• Timing: Asynchronous

• Platform: Provider-Offered (LMS – D2L)  

• Pathway: Centralized (Recorded lecture videos, concrete assignments, limited student interactions)   

Pre-pandemic, my main exposure to online classes was through the above method and I disliked this combination! It turned me off of online learning for quite some time. However, after taking more diverse courses through UVIC, I fell in love with online-asynchronous classes! I find the flexibility and openness to individual interpretations of these courses to be very freeing! I feel as though I’m able to produce work that I’m more satisfied with.  

“Asynchronous courses allow students to have a longer period in which to form their thoughts and compose comments and responses before having to contribute them to the class, while synchronous classes can favour quick thinkers and fast typists” 

–  Claire Howell Major (2015) 

I think that EDCI 339 would be categorized in the following ways: 

• Enrollment: Closed. Registration for EDCI 339 is limited to current students at UVIC. That being said, my WordPress blog and the EDCI site are open to the web. Some features are hidden/posted on private LMS (Brightspace – Syllabus, Readings, FIPPA Quiz).
• Amount – Fully Online. There are no face-to-face components and our main methods of communication are through Brightspac (now limited), Mattermost, Email, and the EDCI website/personal WordPress blog posts. 
• Timing – Asynchronous. There are no scheduled meeting times for the course but there are deadlines for when tasks should be completed. In addition to this, introduction to topics have scheduled release times (i.e., Ryan’s blog post introducing topic 2 was released yesterday).
• Platform – Originally started on LMS – Desire2Learn (D2L) aka Brightspace, then transitioned to a more DIY platform using user-created WordPress blogs.  
• Pathway –  Decentralized – Emphasis on group work/interactions (accomplished through learning pods).

As mentioned in previous posts, I want to become a teacher after graduation. And I think that this reading provided me with a better understanding of what online and distributed learning are, how they operate, and why different combinations of the 5 variables may be used. I think that online learning is becoming quite normal, even expected in a variety of educational contexts, therefore, I think it is very beneficial to understand the intricate details and start thinking about how I may apply them in my own practice (elementary education). Depending on the grade level/subject material, I like the idea of a closed, online, asynchronous, provider-offered LMS, and decentralized structure. I say closed/provider-offered LMS because of children’s ages and privacy rights but I could see other types going well with older students, or classes of different contexts. I think asynchronous may be challenging for some students but, if done correctly, can teach them valuable skills in time management as well as personal responsibility/accountability for their own learning. In this way, this type of learning can break down the ‘transaction model’ of education as I talked about in my previous post. A decentralized course, with an emphasis on groups, can help to build a sense of community, while also gaining new perspectives from fellow peers. The leeway provided by this structure also allows for inquiry and discovery of topics through students’ personal interests. As a learner and future teacher, I like the flexibility and freedom afforded by distributed learning pathways but dislike the lack of structure. Therefore, I would prefer to use more decentralized methods with asynchronous bases. Although, distributed learning could be excellent for electives for younger students or in various contexts in older age groups. 

I also like the idea of integrating various resources into an online course, that is, having a mix of textposts, lecture videos, voice clips, and links to supporting/additional material like videos on Youtube, Khan Academy, or TedEd Talks. I know that I  often need to interact with material through several mediums to really reinforce my learning and I suspect that my future students will be similar. My personal favourite way to learn is by watching educational videos after I’ve completed a reading on the same topic, then summarizing and discussing the subject matter in my own words.

Resources:

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching online: A guide to theory, research, and practice. Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 4. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/reader.action?docID=3318874&ppg=87

Additional Resources: 

Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2017). Jordan, K. & Weller, M. (2017) Openness and Education: A beginners’ guide. Global OER Graduate Network. https://go-gn.net/research/openness-and-education-a-beginners-guide/

25 Years of EdTech & 25 years of EdTech Timeline

 

Photo by Dmitry Chernyshov on Unsplash

As an aspiring teacher myself, I found these readings extremely useful, as I was previously unaware of many of the ethical drawbacks/blindspots that are arising with EdTech companies/data collection and how this relates to online education. It seems I was previous disproportionately exposed to the positive outlooks that are associated with certain integrations of technology/software. After reading Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking, I was shocked! I think I knew, at least on some subconscious level, that student privacy could be at risk and tracking could occur but I hadn’t thought too much about it. Student tracking is not a new concept, but in the face of an ever-evolving teaching landscape, I think we need to have the foresight and critical thinking skills to address the embedded discriminatory nature of certain ‘personalized learning’ structures. In a more traditional sense, many of these ‘ability groupings’ were present even in my elementary education, the most memorable being placed into certain reading groups, based on a previous arbitrary reading performance test with our teacher. This practice was extremely odd in that we were assigned a number on our library passes and were not able to check out books above that graded number!! In no time flat bullying and infighting arose between these different groups and, needless to say, this practice didn’t last long. The ‘invisibility’ of tracking via EdTech and the lack of understanding and vagueness in terminology being used is a part of the greater issue at hand. All of this is not to denounce the idea of individual learning needs and the integration of online learning technologies, but rather to emphasize the problematic and frankly unpredictable nature of these systems as we currently understand and operate them. There are many ways in which EdTech companies and their programs are being used safely and effectively – like this course, for example.

I think it is clear, now more than ever, that there is an increasing gap between the more ‘traditional’ education methods and those that are currently unfolding. Prior to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic/lockdowns, the University of Victoria hosted only a handful of online/blended courses, whereas now, the integration of both face-to-face and online components is more common. Authors Morris and Stommel (2018), as well as Vaughan et al. (2013), speak to the importance of community engagement fueled learning as opposed to the more traditional lecture structure, that is, instructor-based formats. In my opinion, we are accomplishing this community engagement/student-based learning by way of these discussion forms/blog posts within this course. The Morris and Stommel (2018) reading really cemented this notion for me as well as provided some nice insight into the future of pedagogy. I think to some extent that Morris and Stommel’s work is seeking to answer the questions raised in Regan & Jesse’s paper. It’s important to be aware of the effects and repercussions that are associated with new forms of technology and changing classroom dynamics, thus, finding a way to progress safely and inclusively is paramount. One of the more memorable sections from this reading that I would like to explore in more detail is the analogy from the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” wherein ‘traditional’ education is described as a transactional, one-sided model and how this is changing.   

As previously mentioned, the integration of various types of technological tools and software has proven useful and engaging in classroom settings but they aren’t without issues. As mentioned in the article by ​​Regan & Jesse (2019), there are unforeseen issues relating to ‘privacy’ and student data usage. Privacy, as the authors note, is a loaded word that is often used in an all-encompassing fashion, leading to the misunderstanding and minimization of the responsibility on behalf of EdTech companies. The problem here is not being able to critically address upcoming issues from these systems, as they are veiled through wordy bureaucracy. To reiterate what I stated above, we must review these processes in order to prevent the implementation of systems that allow and encourage division – often resulting from factors such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status, rather than intelligence (in its various forms). The first step in this process is to ensure that we are as clear as possible with our terminology and Regan & Jesse (2019) break down the term ‘privacy’ into 6 clearly defined concerns: information privacy; anonymity; surveillance; autonomy; non-discrimination; and ownership of information.

Taking all of these readings into account, I think I’m left with more questions than answers! I know a few of us are aspiring teachers, so I’d love to hear your thoughts on these readings. How did you feel about the broad use of the term privacy? What are your feelings about EdTech companies and ‘personalized learning’? Thoughts on a community of inquiry  (COI)?  I’d love to hear from those in other disciplines as well, how does this week’s reading material relate to your field? Are there any interesting conclusions you came to, and how are they similar/different to those in the education faculty? Do you like the format of discussions for community engagement (brightspace, packback, wordpress, blogs, etc)? How do you feel about the changing dynamics of ‘traditional’ classrooms and the transition to ‘teaching’ roles as opposed to teacher-student / lecture-based learning? Did anyone else get a dystopian algorithm ‘vibe’ from the readings, that is, were you prompted to question ‘how hard is too far’? We already have certain aspects of predictive policing algorithms in place, and these are deeply flawed and soaked in racist overtones… Do you think full-fledged biased education will return as a result of what we’ve read about this week? Or is there something we can do to prevent this – without swearing off technology altogether?   

Resources:

Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy. [Chapter 1: Praxis]

Regan, P., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167-179. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2    

Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press. [Chapter 1: Conceptual Framework]

Photo by Chuttersnap on Unsplash