Uptake and use of technology: bridging design for teaching and learning

References

• Beardsley, L., Cogan-Drew, D., & Olivero, F. (2007). VideoPaper: Bridging research and practice for pre-service and experienced teachers. In B. Barron, S. Derry, R. Goldman, & R. Pea (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 479–493). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørndal, B., & Lieberg, S. (1978). Nye veier i didaktikken [New didactical approaches]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, M. (2009). The perils of translation: A first step in reconsidering Vygotsky’s theory of development in relation to formal education [Editorial]. Mind, Culture and Activity, 16, 291–295.10.1080/10749030902795568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: Research challenges and issues for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 85–105.10.1111/jcal.2013.29.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity management system (LAMS). In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker, & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, integrate, impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 7–10). Adelaide. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/593.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dalziel, J. (2007). Building communities of designers. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 193–206). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010). Activity theory in practice. Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work. The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CCOL0521831040
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hauge, T. E., & Dolonen, J. (2012). Towards an activity-driven design method for online learning resources. In A. Olofsson & J. O. Lindberg (Eds.), Informed design of educational technologies in higher education (pp. 101–117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Hauge, T. E., Lund, A., & Vestøl, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Undervisning i endring: IKT, aktivitet, design [Teaching in transformation: ICT, activity, design]. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O. (2009). Changing teamwork practices: VideoPaper as a mediating means for teacher professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18, 279–297.10.1080/14759390903255551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O. (2010). VideoPaper as a bridging tool in teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 209–228). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 47, 61–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 129–149.10.1080/17439884.2011.553621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology. Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D., Oliver, M., Wasson, B., & Hoppe, U. (2009). Implementing technology-enhanced learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 289–306). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7
   Google Scholar
• Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts. Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, A., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Designs for teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 258–272.
   Google Scholar
• Lyngsnes, K., & Rismark, M. (2007). Didaktisk arbeid [Didactical work]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, E. J., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., & Scherzer, R. (2011). Electronic portfolios in the classroom: Factors impacting teachers’ integration of new technologies and new pedagogies. Journal of Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20, 191–207.10.1080/1475939X.2011.588415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, J. O., Fransson, G., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Uptake and use of digital technologies in primary and secondary schools – A thematic review of research. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6, 208–226.
   Google Scholar
• Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: Change fatigue and knowledge insecurity influence practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20, 427–439. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.88164410.1080/13540602.2014.881644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petterson, F., & A.D Olofsson. (2013). Implementing distance teaching at a large scale in medical education: A struggle between dominant and non-dominant teaching activities. Education and Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-013-9289-1. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-013-9289-1
   Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sannino, A. (2008). Sustaining a non-dominant activity in school: Only a utopia? Journal of Educational Change, 9, 329–338.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. (2009). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 65–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sipilä, K. (2013). Educational use of information and communication technology: Teachers’ perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23, 225–241. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2013.813407
   Google Scholar
• Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., et al. (2004). Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413–425.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00104.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland, R., Lindström, B., & Lahn, L. (2009). Sociocultural perspectives on technology-enhanced learning and knowing. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 39–53). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7
   Google Scholar
• Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers and Education, 51, 212–223.10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 4–14.10.1111/jcal.2013.29.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179–225.10.3102/0091732X09349791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, M. E., & Cox, M. J. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communication technology. Journal of Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 235–286.
   Google Scholar