Meaningful dialogue in digitally mediated learning for in-service teacher development

References

• Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur, C. (2006, July 20). What is the 1% rule? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2
   Google Scholar
• Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops – Linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1–18). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Baggaley, J. (2012). Thesis and antithesis. Distance Education, 33, 117–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34, 429–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference. In P. Tryfonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 110–136). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Clegg, S., & Rowland, S. (2010). Kindness in pedagogical practice and academic life. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 719–735.
   Google Scholar
• Cramp, A., Lamond, C., Coleyshaw, E., & Beck, S. (2012). Empowering or disabling? Emotional reactions to assessment amongst part-time adult students. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 509–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Facer, K. (2009). Educational, social and technological futures (Report from the Beyond Current Horizons Programme).
   Google Scholar
• Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology, and social change. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreday, D., Hodgson, V., & Jones, C. (2006). Dialogue, language and identity: Critical issues for networked management learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28, 223–239.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23, 93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
   Google Scholar
• Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 131–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8–26.
   Google Scholar
• Haythornthwaite, C., & Andrews, R. (2011). E-learning theory and practice. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 567–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewson, L., & Hughes, C. (2005). Social processes and pedagogy in online learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 13, 99–125.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, B., & Hramiak, A. (2010). A discourse analysis of trainee teacher identity in online discussion forums. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19, 361–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järveläs, S., & Häkkinnen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jochems, W., & Kreijns, K. (2006). Measuring social aspects of distributed learning groups. European Educational Research Journal, 5, 4–11.
   Google Scholar
• Joyes, G. (2008). An Activity Theory approach to researching tutors’ perceptions of effective online pedagogy. Educational Media International, 45, 231–243.
   Google Scholar
• Joyes, G., Hall, C., & Thang, S. M. (2008). The eEducator module: A new approach to the training of online tutors. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4, 130–147.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 23, 203–214.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 139–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with social information spaces. Computer supported cooperative work. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Raschke, C. A., (2003). The digital revolution and the coming of the postmodern university. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, G. (2002). Etivities. The key to active learning online. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49, 396–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe, R., & Oliver, M. (2007). Supporting practitioners’ design for learning. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 41–51). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
   Google Scholar
• Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class & gender: Becoming respectable. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 200–219.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., & Flowers, P. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research: Understanding method and application. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, J. (2009). Monologue or dialogue? Stepping away from the abyss in higher education. London Review of Education, 7, 271–281.
   Google Scholar
• Tawney, R. H. (1966). The radical tradition. Twelve essays on politics, education and literature. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent spaces: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. (2006). Rethinking critically reflective research practice: Beyond Popper’s critical rationalism. Journal of Research Practice, 2. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/64/63
   Google Scholar
• University of Wolverhampton. (2012). Strategic Plan 2012–2017. Retrieved from https://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=11707
   Google Scholar
• Unwin, A. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), a conceptual framework for an increasingly technology driven Higher Education? Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education, 1, 231–247.
   Google Scholar
• Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2003). The nature of technology-mediated interaction in globalised distance education. International Journal of Training and Development, 7, 271–286.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, E., Jones, A., Barker, P., & Van Schaik, P. (2004). Using e-learning dialogues in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 93–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, A., Padmanabhan, P., & Duffy, T. (2009). Connecting online learners with diverse local practices: The design of effective common reference points for conversation. Distance Learning, 30, 317–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin, C. (2012). A critique of the community of inquiry framework. The Journal of Distance Education, 26. http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/issue/view/65
   Google Scholar
• Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29, 71–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zembylas, M., & McGlynn, C. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies: Emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 41–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., Lei, J., & Frank, K. A. (2006). The social life of technology: An ecological analysis of technology diffusion in schools. Pedagogies, 1, 135–149.
   Google Scholar