Pedagogic transformation, student-directed design and computational thinking

References

• Alwis, W. A. M., & O’Grady, G. (2002, December). One day-one problem at republic polytechnic. Paper presented at the 4th Asia-Pacific conference on PBL, Hatyai. Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://myrp.sg/ced/research/papers/one_day_one_problem_at_rp.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruicshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Battro, A. M., Fischer, K. W., & Lena, P. J. (2011). The educated brain: Essays in neuroscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, C. (2014). Driving value into learning technology support programmes. Retrieved September 9, 2014, from http://www.coralesce.com/research-reports/
   Google Scholar
• Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85. doi:10.1111/bjet.2010.41.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, W. H. (1996). The road ahead (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1993). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hase, S. (2011). Learner defined curriculum: Heutagogy and action learning in vocational training. Southern Institute of Technology Journal of Applied Research, Special Edition: Action research and action learning in vocational education and training. Retrieved August 16, 2014, from http://sitjar.sit.ac.nz/SITJAR/Special/
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routeledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, S., ZhiMin, X., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technology_on_Learning_-_Executive_Summary_(2012).pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1998). Learning WITH technology: A constructivist perspective. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Jukes, I., McCain, T., & Crockett, L. (2010). Understanding the digital generation: Teaching and learning in the new digital landscape. Kelowna, BC: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, C-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1–2), 75–94. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merrill, M. D. (2008). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 33–50.
   Google Scholar
• NAACE. (2014). Computing in the national curriculum. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/cas_secondary.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Oblinger, D. G., (Ed.). (2012). Game changers: Education and information technologies. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved June 9, 2014, from http://www.educause.edu/research-publications/books/game-changers-education-and-information-technologies/
   Google Scholar
• Owen, A., Farsaii, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2006). Teaching in the 1-to-1 classroom: It’s not about laptops, it’s about empowerment! Learning and Leading with Technology, 33(4), 12–16.
   Google Scholar
• Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Sarason, S. (2004). And what do you mean by learning? New York, NY: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, C., & Barr, V. (2011). Defining computational thinking for K–12. Voice, 7(2), 3–5.
   Google Scholar
• Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Towndrow, P. A., & Vallance, M. (2013). Making the right decisions: Leadership in 1-to-1 computing in education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(3), 260–272.
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, M. (2012). Design and robots for learning in virtual worlds. In B. Khan (Ed.), User interface design for virtual environments: Challenges and advances (pp. 268–284). Hershey, PA: McWeadon Education.
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, M., & Martin, S. (2012). Assessment and learning in the virtual world: Tasks, taxonomies and teaching for real. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(2). doi:10.4101/jvwr.v5i2.6283
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, M., Martin, S., & Naamani, C. (2015). A situation that we had never imagined: Post-Fukushima virtual collaborations for determining robot task metrics. International Journal of Learning Technology, 10(1), 30–49. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2015.069453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallance, M., Naamani, C., Thomas, M., & Thomas, J. (2013). Applied information science research in a virtual world simulation to support robot mediated interaction following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering (CISME), 3(5), 222–232.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the world. New York, NY: Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251–266. doi:10.1023/A:1012976702296
   Google Scholar
• Weston, C. (2014). What ETAG should say. Ed Tech Now: Challenging orthodox thinking about education technology [web log]. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://edtechnow.net/2014/05/09/etag/
   Google Scholar
• Wing, J. M. (2006, March 2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33. doi:10.1145/1118178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winne, P. J., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Wolterstorff, N. P., Stronks, G. G., & Joldersma, C. (2002). Task and invitation. In N. P. Wolterstorff, G. G. Stronks, & C. Joldersma (Eds.), Educating for life (pp. 253–264). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
   Google Scholar