Agile Learning Foundations

From ALT_Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Agile learning is an approach that aims to enable people to do or be things they couldn't previously as quickly and easily as possible (and with no presumptions about the availability of formal support). It is bundle of related practices, attitudes, and technologies. Together these form a toolkit of loosely related items with a "family resemblance" to each other. There is no tightly specified agile learning methodology. Neither is there a single theory of agile learning, though there are theories that explain how the approach might work. Arguably agile learning is not itself even an innovation, but merely a naming of set of pre-existing and growing innovations, listed here.

Theories of Learning


As a theory, Connectivism (Wikipedia entry) is itself an amalgam of earlier ideas recast and augmented by an appreciation of network technologies and their affordances. Connectivism understands knowledge space as a vast array of nodes without top or bottom (as in an ordered hierarchy). Learning is a process of making links between these nodes by various means, including the act of navigating and exploring them, and the social awareness that comes from acting on or discussing the knowledge space with others, which makes evident the links and structures they have constructed. Furthermore, in Connectivism, "learning may reside in non-human appliances" [1], of which the World Wide Web -- with its massive clusters of links between related materials -- is the most obvious example.

Connectivism is well suited to describing the plight of the agile learner, who starts out with a question or a problem to solve and from there navigates a learning journey comprising a series of situated actions rather a predetermined plan. She may begin by identifying free resources that might help with her quest, as well as a combination of people who share that quest and possibly some experts in the field. Her next task will be to engage with these people and resources, improvising responses and adapting her path as she goes, to knit together a pattern of connections that combines the received wisdom of those that have gone before her with the specifics of her perspective, situation and challenge. Agile learning in this scenario is heavily weighted to learner "pull" rather than teacher (or provider) "push". However, neither agile learning nor Connectivism deny the role of tuition. For example, Connectivism's leading proponents have also been at the forefront of running Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs, Wikipedia entry), where both participants and course materials are distributed and connected only by the Internet. While the materials and the timetable are set in advance, MOOCs still rely heavily on learners' active engagement and proactive "pull" for their success (and learners are invited to share supplementary related materials via blogs and other social media). They are agile in that they tend to rely mainly on everyday net technologies with which most learners will already be familiar (rather than, say, proprietary or closed platforms), tend to be free or near-free, and -- with the exception of a fixed timetable for synchronous online discussions -- allow learners significant flexibility in how and when they participate in the course.

Heutagogy and emergent learning

Heutagogy (Wikipedia entry) is the study of self-determined learning. It is best understood in terms of a continuum from pedagogy (teacher-led) through andragogy (negotiated between teacher and learners) to heutagogy where learners have sufficient confidence and mastery of their own learning that they can re-frame problems and truly direct their own learning. While the heutagogic end of the spectrum is often thought of as a particularly advanced stage (involving learning-to-learn and metacognition skills, sometimes restricted to postgraduate education), the "Hole in the Wall" studies ([2] and see below) seem to suggest that, in the right conditions, relatively young children can also direct their own learning successfully and effectively without guidance or support. Heutagogy emphasises the roles of improvisation, dealing with the unknown constructively, and designing 'architectures of participation' in learning. These competences are valuable for being an effective and agile learner. The term Emergent Learning has been used to describe how learning may emerge as a "natural" byproduct of social contexts where people self-organise[3]. This is controversial in that some have argued that emergence, strictly defined, involves the spontaneous production of organisation and structure that is of a higher order than the participants are themselves aware[4]. In which case, how can this qualify as learning when the learners themselves are not individually fully aware of it? Meanwhile Mitra defines emergence as the appearance of a property not previously observed as a functional characteristic of the system, and he claims that his experiments with self organised learning environments, including the Hole in the Wall cases, do exhibit emergence in this sense [5].

Information Foraging Theory

Information Foraging Theory does not address learning as such, but is an attempt to model human behaviour when searching for information, particularly online and without tuition, guidance or other support. The model proposes a set of largely tacit instincts and predilections that people exhibit when foraging for information to meet their needs. Central to the model is the concept of "information scent" whereby humans rely on various cues (including social cues, from traces of other users' behaviour online) in the information environment to guide them towards promising "patches" (individual websites or clusters of heavily interlinked sites). The model, which is heavily formalised in mathematical terms, makes predictions about the effect on behaviour of enhanced search, usability and information design. Users make intuitive trade-offs between the ease of leaving a site, when it is offering diminishing returns, and finding better new sites. When users perceive that reliable search engines make sites with lots of information easy to find, they have less incentive to stay in one place. This may lead to more "information snacking", short online visits to get specific answers, and another instances of relying on on-demand "pull" as opposed to provider "push". Clearly such "snacking" is far from a universal solution to all learning challenges. However, it is clearly an agile approach to meeting simple, basic needs. Its growth may lead to a rebalancing of tuition and support to make better use of teachers' and learners' time, where advanced challenges are met by scaffolding on top of flexible foundations.

Learning Practice

Self-organised learning (aka self-determined, self-managed, self-directed)

There is a wide range of practices that are referred to by the terms self-organised learning, self-determined, self-managed, or self-directed learning. While the practitioners have undoubtedly thought carefully in selecting one of these terms, it is hard to discern consistent patterns by which to distinguish between them. Equally, the terms are used across different domains including:

Overlapping terminology in self-organised approaches masks considerable variety in the amount of structure and formality involved. Some approaches are based on learners agreeing personal learning contracts to define aims, outcomes or methods, while others encourage improvisation and reframing of goals on an almost daily basis. Clearly the degree to which learners are tied in to specific commitments has a bearing on how agile their learning can be. Equally the level of self-organisation and the time-frame of changes has to be tailored to context, including the nature of the learners, the domain, the purpose and associated risks.

Minimally Invasive Education/Self Organised Learning Environments

Minimally Invasive Education is the term proposed by Mitra and colleagues to include the learning practices in the "Hole in the Wall" experiment and subsequent studies that developed this approach [2]. They hypothesised "if given appropriate access and connectivity, groups of children can learn to operate and use computers with none or minimal intervention from adults" (Ibid.) Minimally invasive education (MIE) is a pedagogic method, deriving its name partly from the medical term 'minimally invasive surgery' ([12]; [13])... that uses the learning environment to generate an adequate level of motivation to induce learning in groups of children, with none or minimal intervention from a teacher. In MIE, the role of the teacher is limited to providing, or guiding learners to, environments that generate adequate levels of interest. A known example of MIE is the type of learning that takes place when an appropriate puzzle is given to children with little or no input from others. The computer itself is capable of generating such intervention from time to time.

MIE was originally devised for, and demonstrated in, contexts in the developing world where intervention is problematic because of a shortage of competent teachers. However, MIE has also been demonstrated in schools in England and Australia, and Mitra claims that the practice is not solely relevant to the developing world [14].

The concept of the Self Organised Learning Environment (SOLE) is central to MIE practice. The key feature of SOLEs is that a group of four or five children cluster, unsupervised, round a computer screen that all of them can see, as they try to answer carefully-posed questions or challenges. This touches on several aspects on the Agile Learning Definition, including the emphasis on collective contexts, flexibility, improvisation and bootstrapping learning with whatever resources are accessible to the learners.

Peer learning

Peer learning involves learners learning from each other, via instruction, mentoring, discussion, observation and apprenticeship, or some combination of these. It has a long history and a wide range of applications -- for example, workplace learning [15] and higher education. [16]

Peer learning may be encouraged, supported or sanctioned as part of an explicit pedagogic strategy, or it may emerge in a self-organised and organic way triggered and supported only by independent learner actions.

Given the massive variety in ways that peer learning can arise and can be practised, it is hard to generalise about its efficacy. This variety is itself a sign of agility: peer learning can be organised quickly and easily in diverse contexts, and lends itself to flexibility and improvisation. Advocates claim that the act of guiding, supporting or instructing a peer learner is a powerful means of developing competence for the person doing the guiding, supporting or instructing -- as well as for the peer(s) on the receiving end -- because it encourages critical, mindful and higher order reflection about the domain. [17]

Informal learning

Informal learning refers to the knowledge and skills acquired through everyday actions and interactions with others. This may include, for example, trying things out, questioning or apprenticing with more able practitioners (there is some overlap with peer learning), or searching for information and guidance on a just-in-time basis.

Even more so than peer learning, informal learning is found in all walks of life from improving business performance [18] to playing a musical instrument [19]. It takes place within formal institutions and contexts (often in the margins and downtime) and outside them "in the wild" of everyday life. Informal learning is the main way we develop core skills at all ages, from learning to talk through to social and online behaviour in different settings. It can be self-directed -- as when asking for help or searching for guidance on how to solve a computer glitch or use a new application -- or it can be incidental and involuntary -- as when picking up the etiquette and key relationships in a new group through participating in group activities.

Clearly the loosely structured or unstructured activities that lead to informal learning have considerable flexibility, and the focus on acquiring skills socially and by "going with the flow" means that informal learning is almost always agile.

Learner Competences and Literacies

There is a large and expanding literature on learner competences [20][21] and digital literacies[22][23][24] for the 21st century. As examples, Guy Claxton identifies the broad characteristics of a confident explorer/researcher as follows:[25]

  • Curiosity, inquisitiveness, attentiveness (to a quirky result, or faint pattern)
  • Ability to be a good source-tester; dose of scepticism: what's your warrant for that?
  • Determined and observant, maintain focus; the pleasure of being rapt
  • Patience: ability to tolerate confusion and hang out in the fog, don't rush to closure
  • Knowing how to be experimental, including tinkering, creating drafts and hands-on construction
  • Imaginative, good relationship with own intuition
  • Collaborative and independent
  • Degree of self-awareness and reflectiveness

Howard Rheingold's focus is more applied, concerned with the literacies associated with constructive use of social media, but arrives at roughly similar traits [26]:

  • Attention: knowing how to focus and how to divide your attention without losing focus
  • Critical consumption (crap detection)
  • Participation, particularly the more constructive modes of participation that are useful to others
  • Collaboration: being ready to organise together, and enable a collective response to emerge
  • Network awareness: the hybrid connection of reputation, social capital, presentation of self and other sensitivity to individual positioning within the collective

One line of argument from this work is that the kind of self-organised learning described above is only really accessible to learners who already demonstrate these traits and literacies. So those learners that don't would have to acquire these literacies, presumably via traditional pedagogy, before they could become agile learners. Some go so far as to say that heutagogy depends on the kind of metacognition that students only develop when they do research degrees [citation needed!]. While it is undoubtedly the case that some learners are more agile than others, cases such as the Hole in the Wall experiments [2] suggest that young and untutored children can "bootstrap" their own learning skills in Self Organised Learning Environments. In fact, Mitra claims that nine-year-olds learn good search and analysis in about a year, and by this point are as competent as Masters students (while teenagers demonstrate lower levels of the traits above, whether for social identity, developmental or environmental reasons) [5].

Learning is not agile if it requires learners to be pre-configured to a common entry level before they can participate. It is agile if learners can choose among a range of approaches and resources that suit their purposes and promise to satisfy their curiosity -- even if that promise is not kept, and their purposes remain more elusive than they would wish. To the extent that learners' purposes and the direction of their curiosity cannot be taken for granted, agile learning is not well suited to meeting externally imposed learning objectives.


The Internet and Web 2.0

The Internet itself has been recognised as an environment to support lifelong learning since at least the 1990s (when John O'Hara and colleagues established the Cyberskills programme at South Bristol Learning Network to help unemployed people bootstrap their skills into paid work [27]). Prior to that many informal and peer learning groups had emerged, using Usenet newsgroups and dial-in bulletin boards to manage asynchronous discussions. The growing sophistication of search engines combined with the explosive growth of World Wide Web sites encouraged many to see the web as a vast virtual library where information could be retrieved to answer queries on a just-in-time basis. The Internet became a kind of agile knowledge bank.

With the emergence of Web 2.0 (Wikipedia entry) the emphasis shifted back again from formal publishing and retrieval to more informal dialogue and annotation. The rise of first blogging and then of social bookmarking and social networks added a layer of commentary and reflection to the knowledge bank. Learners now had powerful tools which enabled them both to store, manage and comment on the online resources that they found helpful, and also to share their assessments with others. Aggregation of these ratings on a massive scale made it easier, in turn, to identify the most useful and popular among a vast range of resources. The internet became a mass of infinitely variegated dialogues and social filters, which learners could drop into and participate in quickly, easily and flexibly.

The reason the Internet and the web lend themselves to learning, and particularly to agile learning, is that they were built for the purpose of information sharing in a gift economy (Wikipedia entry) and with an architecture that encourages peer-to-peer exchanges (Wikipedia entry), rather than, say, centralised broadcast transactions. These features support each of the elements of the Agile Learning Definition: openness, ubiquity, collective experience, flexibility and flow.

Virtual Learning Environments

As the scope for learning online became clear, many sought to find ways to deliver courses via this medium. Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs, Wikipedia entry) were developed to meet this need and added a set of features and affordances normally associated with formal educational settings (e.g. syllabus, materials and resources, assessments, managed discussion spaces) -- see also Wikipedia's history of VLEs, Moodle's online learning history.

In taking a "walled garden" approach Wikipedia definition ensured a curated experience for learners, pruned of the wilder, unfiltered elements on the open web. This design decision represents a trade-off, in that VLEs tend to reproduce some of the constraints and rigidity found in education institutions.

Some learners and educators, in some contexts, felt that a more open experience was preferable, and recent generations of VLEs represent a partial response to that preference. For example, Moodle (official site) is an open source VLE with a modular and extensible architecture such that it can be deployed in different ways to suit different needs. Pearson's OpenClass VLE (official site), launched in 2011, promises a more open approach, integrating with other free tools such as Google Apps for Education. Both these examples are free of licensing fees, which are often substantial for more traditional VLEs.

Personal Learning Environments and Personal Learning Networks

The concept of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE, Wikipedia entry) developed as a kind of self-managed version of a VLE, enabled by Web 2.0 tools and services (e.g. RSS feeds and readers, social networks, social bookmarking). These allow independent learners to construct their own feeds, filters and connections so as to curate semi-automatically the resources and conversations on the open web that are likely to be relevant to their interests [28], [29].

Personal Learning Networks (PLNs, Wikipedia entry) are a related field, focusing on the people and actors that a learner interacts with and derives knowledge from in a PLE. PLNs were first described in the context of Connectivism (see above), where emphasis is placed on the network of connections between nodes which, in some readings, may be human or non-human actors, including resources and computers themselves. In practice, however, many people refer to their PLN as the people they follow, and interact with, on social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus. The activity streams in these networks become de facto shared learning spaces.

As can be seen from their self-organised, open and emergent ethos, PLEs and PLNs are align them closely with the Agile Learning Definition. The focus on autonomous learners conversing and collaborating in areas of shared interest, evolving in a fluid manner with no overall control, is a further point of close overlap.

Mobile technology

The growing power and connectivity of small mobile devices -- particularly smartphones and tablet computers -- introduces another dimension of agility. A broader repertoire of learning activities becomes possible in times and places where previously only reading might have been possible. For example, people can continue to participate in complex, multi-layered online conversations while on the move or in short spells of 'downtime' between appointments. As computing and connectivity come down in price, they also become more genuinely accessible and ubiquitous. They come closer within reach of learners in developing economies, as demonstrated by both top-down initiatives such as One Laptop Per Child (Wikipedia entry) and bottom up market diffusion which now sees the majority of Africa having access to mobile telephony [30]. [Need more on issues and implications here?]

The Open Movement and Learning Commons

Agility and flexibility depend on there being a bit of redundancy and 'give' available, to enable quick and easy changes of direction. However, redundancy is costly, people understandably resist paying for things they may not use, and so many organisations aim to cut anything that looks potentially redundant from their operations. One solution to this tension is found in the Open Movement, which exploits the low transaction costs of the Internet to share resources, licensed for many uses free of charge, in a virtual commons. In this way, individual people and organisations can use a wide range of resources without having to plan, or pay the full costs of, their development. The marginal costs of each use of a resource may be very low indeed.

The Open Movement has many facets -- including Open Source (Wikipedia entry), Open Data (Wikipedia entry), Open Content (Wikipedia entry), and Open Access publishing (Wikipedia entry -- and it would be beyond the scope of this entry to address all of them in any detail. Most immediately relevant here are Open Educational Resources (OERs, Wikipedia entry), which are defined as

teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge[31].

Not all OERs explicitly identify themselves by this term. Within UK Higher Education, JISC has been running its OER Programme since 2009. High profile examples of OERs include MIT's OpenCourseWare initiative, Open University's OpenLearn and Khan Academy's video tutorials. The definition "any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge" is appropriately very broad, reflecting the vast range of resources that people can learn from.

Many sites and specialised repositories provide curated collections of OERs. Examples include OER commons, JORUM, YouTube EDU and Apple's iTunes U. UNESCO has a list of repositories.

Aside from access to knowledge and learning, the ethos of the Open Movement also supports agile learning in other ways.

  • Creating a vast open 'library' of materials in the commons increases the possibility of serendipitous discovery and unanticipated, improvised uses of those materials. The more scope learners have for improvisation and quick changes of direction to meet their interests and needs, the more agile their learning practice can be.
  • The open ethos encourages authors of resources to make visible their data, sources and workings. This enables readers and learners to interrogate those sources and workings, and in the process to deepen their learning and build their learning 'muscles'.


Clearly agile learning is not the solution to every problem, since some learning contexts, such as regulatory compliance, prize other attributes (standardisation, verifiability) over agility.

Certain enabling conditions -- principally the availability of broadband internet and devices to access it -- may assist the growth of agile approaches to learning. However, while such conditions may be necessary, they are often not sufficient. More often what drives the development of agile approaches is learners' frustrations at not being able to learn what they want to learn. There are many factors that may stand in the way between learners and their goals, motivating them to 'hack together' their own solutions.

  • Non-availability of traditional education infrastructure, including schools and teachers -- This is a clear driver in poor, disadvantaged and disaster-recovery areas of the world, as in the Hole in the Wall experiments [32] and University of the People's interventions in earthquake-hit Haiti [33].
  • Ever-increasing costs -- This is a more common barrier in the West at all levels of education, but especially higher education where students in the UK and US, for example, are expected to take on vastly greater levels of debt than was the case a generation ago. In the US, Kamenetz has charted both the rising financial pressures and the emerging responses to them, in the form of DIY approaches to higher education, using combinations of OERs, PLNs and providers of low-cost accreditation-only services [34]. In some other fields, traditional institutions have made a marketing feature of their high costs, using it as a filtering device to ensure exclusivity and support premium add-ons to the basic learning experience. As a result, in the management education area, employees of non-blue-chip organisations may feel priced out of much MBA provision and start to seek more agile alternatives.
  • Dissatisfaction with existing provision -- In areas where education is heavily standardised, or oligopoly-controlled, or run according to prevailing cultural norms that alienate minorities, learners may be driven to explore possible alternatives. In the case of state secondary education in the UK, for example, current growth in home education could see numbers double in a decade [35], with reasons given including ncreasing concern about bullying, religious considerations (e.g. Islam and the veil at school) and increased desire on the part of parents to avoid having their children conform. The same study also highlights as an important factor the "Proliferation of interactive learning technologies, online curricula and the availability of broadband internet which greatly increases the learning resources available at home."
  • Niche interests that are not provided for -- People with highly specialised interests are used to the fact that there is little or no education provision in their field. They use social networks and other free collaboration tools, combined with the scale of the Internet, to connect with others who share their interests, and build communities powered by self-organising and peer-learning.

Aside from these drivers, agile learning grows in the micro-behaviours that contribute to everyday learning. People with 21st century net access and tools realise the opportunity to learn in convenient ways that were not previously available. The most obvious (but possibly also most superficial) example of this would be web searching to explore new areas and discover new facts. Over time such micro-behaviours grow and become knitted together into more extensive and powerful learning 'routines'. This growth has been largely invisible in the terms of formal education because it merges so seamlessly with the everyday, but as the emerging practice -- a technologically amplified version of informal learning -- develops, its growing sophistication may include methods to accredit what has been learnt [citation needed?!].


  1. Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. accessed 2012-01-20
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R.S., and Kapur, P. (2005) Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the "hole in the wall". Australasian Journal of Educational Technology., accessed 2012-01-20
  3. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (2011) Special Issue: Emergent Learning, Connections, Design for Learning. accessed 2012-01-19
  4. Feldstein, M. (2004) "Emergent Learning" Is an Oxymoron. eLiterate blog. accessed 2012-01-19
  5. 5.0 5.1 Mitra, S. (2010) The hole in the wall: self organising systems in education (ALT-C Keynote lecture). Association for Learning Technology,, accessed 2012-01-19
  6. Harri-Augstein, S., Webb, I.M. (1995) Learning To Change. A Resource for Trainers, Managers and Learners Based on Self-Organised Learning. McGraw-Hill.
  7. Malik, S. and Shabbir, S.M. (2008) Perception of University Students on Self-Directed Learning through Learning Technology. European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.24 No.4 (2008), pp.567-574, accessed 2012-01-31
  8. Lenz, B.K. (1992) Self-managed learning strategy systems for children and youth. School Psychology Review, Vol 21(2), pp 211-228.
  9. Knowles, M. (1975) Self-Directed Learning. Cambridge Adult Education
  10. Caffarella, R.S. (1993) Self-directed learning. In New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol 1993, Issue 57, pages 25–35
  11. Candy, P., Harri-Augstein, S., and Thomas, L. (1985) “Reflection and the Self-Organized Learner: A Model of Learning Conversations.” in Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. eds. David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. Kogan Page.
  12. Mitra, S. & Rana, V. (2001). Children and the Internet: Experiments with minimally invasive education in India. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 221-232., accessed 2012-02-02
  13. Mitra, S. (2003). Minimally Invasive Education: A progress report on the "Hole-in-the-wall" experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 367-371.
  14. Ridley, M. (2010) Turning Kids from India's Slums into Autodidacts. Wall Street Journal., accessed 2012-02-03
  15. Styhre, A. (2006). Peer learning in construction work: Virtuality and time in workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(2), 93-105. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from, accessed 2012-02-29
  16. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001) Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other. Routledge.
  17. Clark, D (2011) 7 compelling arguments for peer learning. Donald Clark Plan B blog. Accessed 2012-02-29 (Archived by WebCite® at
  18. Cross, J. (2006) Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance (Essential Knowledge Resource) Jossey Bass.
  19. Green, L. (2008). Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy (Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series). Ashgate.
  20. Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online students: Scaffolding for success. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(1), accessed 2012-03-01
  21. Birch, P. D. (2002). E-learner competencies. Learning Circuits, 3(7). accessed 2012-03-01
  22. Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006) Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly, 29(2), 8. EDUCAUSE. accessed 2012-03-01
  23. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (editors) (2008) Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies) Peter Lang Publishing.
  24. Carrington, V., & Robinson, M. (2009). Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices. Sage Publications Ltd.
  25. Claxton, G. (2008). What's the Point of School?: Rediscovering the Heart of Education. Oneworld Publications.
  26. Rheingold, H. (2009). 21st Century Literacies. London, UK. Retrieved from accessed 2012-03-01
  27. Linking up the Info Highway, New Straits Times, 28th November 1994. accessed 2012-03-02.
  28. Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. International Conference on Advanced Learning. accessed 2012-03-05
  29. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers (Vol. 2, p. 8).
  30. Heeks, R. (2008) ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international development. Computer, 41(6), 26-33. IEEE. accessed 2012-03-05
  31. Atkins, D.E., Seely Brown, J., & Hammond, A.L. (2007) A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. p. 4. accessed 2012-04-17.
  32. Mitra, S. (2012) Beyond the Hole in the Wall: Discover the Power of Self-Organized Learning. TED Books
  33. Lewin, T. (2011) Open Courses, Nearly Free. New York Times, p. A20. accessed 2012-04-17
  34. Kamenetz, A. (2010) DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
  35. Outsights-Ipsos MORI Partnership (2011) Home is Where the Head is: A Rise in Home-Education? Government Office for Science. accessed 2012-04-17
Personal tools