Disruptive conduct: the impact of disruptive technologies on social relations in higher education

References

• Bennett, L. (2010). Activity theory: What does it offer elearning research? Retrieved April 4, 2013, from University of Huddersfield repository, http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10631/
   Google Scholar
• Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50, 475–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britain, S., & Liber, O. (2004). A framework for the pedagogical evaluation of eLearning Environments, JISC. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/V.L.E.%20Full%20Report%2006.doc
   Google Scholar
• Cann, A. J., & Badge, J. L. (2011). Reflective social portfolios for feedback and peer mentoring. Leicester: School of Biological Sciences, University of Leicester. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from http://hdl.handle.net/2381/9704
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50, 511–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lickyer, L. (2010, May). Digital natives: Everyday life versus academic study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. deLaat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 643–650). Lancaster: Aalborg University.
   Google Scholar
• Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14, 23–39.10.1080/10749030701307689
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24.10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry, N., & Love, N. (2011). Business lecturers perceptions and interactions with the virtual learning environment. International Journal of Management Education, 9, 51–56.10.3794/ijme
   Google Scholar
• Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education, 23(4), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 344–356.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junco, R., Heilberger, G., & Lokent, E. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56, 429–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 430–439.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00153.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 83–94.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00204.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharples, M. (2003). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12, 504–520.
   Google Scholar
• Universities & Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA). (2012). 2012 Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1927/1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In Internalization of higher psychological functions.M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society – The development of higher psychological processes. (pp. 52–57)Oxford: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. (2001). Contextualising a new approach to learning: Some comments on Yrgo Engestrom’s theory of expansive learning. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 157–161.
   Google Scholar