Archive

Posts Tagged ‘research summary’

Research Summary 3: Teacher PD in ICT

April 5, 2010 1 comment

bash shell

That teacher quality is a major influence on student learning is generally accepted (ACER, 2005; ACT DET, 2009). Beyond pre-service training and previous education, continuing professional development (PD) is one of the major tools available to influence teacher quality. PD is a successful instrument to implement educational reform and importantly, improve student outcomes (CCA, 2008; QLD DET, 2010; Robinson, 2008). The rapid pace of change which typifies the ICT landscape, combined with the huge potential afforded by truly engaging with the technologies makes ICT-related PD a critically important element of curriculum reform.

The broad aim of this review is “to find out why it is that, despite considerable resources being dedicated to developing the use of ICT in schools in recent years, there is a lack of impact on teachers’ everyday practice”(Becta, 2009. p.4). Of particular interest is the shift from away from PD for re-tooling towards a pedagogical focus, and challenges in implementing such change. Where appropriate, I have written with a focus on recent developments in Australia.

Is there a problem?

The issue of ICT teacher PD in Australia is very current due to new education reform policy relating to ICT, the so-called Digital Education Revolution (DER). The recent announcement of $40 million funding for a ‘Digital Strategy for Teachers and School Leaders’ is an indication that PD will be used as an instrument to effect change in teaching practices to support implementation of the DER policy (DEEWR, 2010; Gillard, 2010). The trends in teacher ICT use warrant this action, as according to 2008 survey results only 28% of Australian primary and secondary teachers are making effective use of ICT (Black, 2008; education.au, 2008a,b,c). This disappointing statistic is attributed to “a lack of investment in providing teachers with the techniques and strategies to use computers in their classrooms (Black, 2008)” and as such, Gillard’s announcement is, broadly speaking, an informed response to policy advice.

Challenges in ICT PD

There are numerous challenges in providing teachers with effective PD which are peculiar to ICT and it’s implementation in the classroom. Superficial issues such as lack of time and ease of access to technology are frequently cited, despite the emphasis on access to hardware that has been observed over the past decade (Becta, 2009; Strategic ICT Advisory Service [SICTAS], 2009). Further, due to the fast pace of change in ICT and students’ rapid adoption rates, there is a perception that teachers are being left behind (SICTAS, 2009).

The flurry of activity to address this perceived skills deficit has failed on a number of fronts. Firstly, the typical model for PD through infrequent, one-off courses, is inadequate for mastery of new skills (Becta, 2009; SICTAS, 2009). Secondly, and of fundamental concern, is that a re-tooling approach to ICT PD simply misses the point (Becta, 2009; Prestridge, 2010; SICTAS, 2009): “The separation of how to use the technology in education from why it should be used is a major issue” (SICTAS, 2009, p.21). In the rush to ensure teachers are keeping up with students, administrators have neglected pedagogical concerns despite the fact that is “very evident that a focus on skills is not sufficient to help teachers to develop their pedagogy” (Becta, 2009, p.6). These issues are compounded by negative teacher attitudes towards technology and change (Phelps & Graham, 2008; SICTAS, 2009).

Where do we go?

If our definition of effective use of ICT by teachers is that of transforming practice to engage students in new ways (education.au, 2008a), then surely our model for PD must reflect this. The features of successful or idealised models of ICT PD all centre around a “move from ‘re-tooling’ with infrequent curriculum integration to a model that will enable teachers to see the ‘transforming’ possibilities of ICT” (Prestridge, 2010, p.252), promoting a introspective profession focused on pedagogical concerns.

To achieve this, PD must be continuous, necessitating a rethink of our current short-course approach to PD provision (SICTAS, 2009). The claim that “teachers need to be at the centre of their own learning if they are to change their deep-seated beliefs and habits regarding the use of technology” (Becta, 2009, p.6) forms a common theme (MacDonald, 2008; Prestridge, 2010; SICTAS,2009). MacDonald (2008) notes that 90% of teachers cite colleagues as their primary source of professional learning, in developing his argument for a collaborative, collegial approach to PD; another common theme (Becta, 2009; Prestridge 2010; SICTAS,2009). A range of models have been suggested, including; the Community of Practice (MacDonald, 2008); pre-service/in-service teacher mentoring dyads (Robertshaw, Leary, Walker, Bloxham, & Recker, 2009); students acting as teacher PD mentors (Ingham, 2008); and collaborative groups using ICT (Prestridge, 2010; Robinson, 2008).

I see great value in the Communities of Practice (CoP) model discussed by MacDonald (2008), arguing for the development of “persistent, sustained social network[s] of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, [and] values” (MacDonald, 2008, p.430). This model ticks all the boxes; it is by definition collaborative; focused on teacher needs; and ongoing.  CoP encourages teacher reflection, a vital component of engaging with pedagogical (not just skill-based) concerns. MacDonald also highlights the benefits of a synergistic relationship between education researchers and teachers working together in a CoP. This model promotes the idea that PD facilitators (or education researchers) form a vital part of a CoP, with heightened importance at the inception, asking probing questions to give direction, yet not taking ownership of learning. This model is that of a quality teacher in a constructivist classroom, broadly steering a course, yet allowing enquiry to be the engine of group learning. It is quite remarkable that education administrations which promote this model for learning in schools, are yet to embrace it for professional learning.

Prestridge’s (2010) contribution to the literature is also valuable, not only through an evaluation of using ICT to facilitate a CoP, but further, elucidating the dual role of discussion in this model. She attributes the development of a community to collegial discussion, a vital yet uncomfortable co-requisite to critical discussion, the element of a CoP which can effect change in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Prestridge acknowledges the natural tension between collegiality and critique in a CoP, but highlights the necessity for both in transforming attitudes to technology and pedagoigcal beliefs.

Further challenges.

In Australia, there is a move to impose national teacher ICT proficiency standards (DEEWR, 2010; DEST, 2002; SICTAS, 2009) as an instrument to effect policy change:

The slow progress in the uptake of ICT in education requires additional strategies and more accountability. National teacher standards are needed to match the new national curriculum and ensure that we achieve a critical mass in the incorporation of ICT in education. (SICTAS, 2009).

Such a top-down, accountability approach is at odds with a learner-centred, bottom-up approach to teacher PD. This conflict between the constructivist approach to curriculum and teacher PD (Prestridge & Watson, 2002) based on accountability to low-level competencies is absurd. Similarly, the simultaneous desire for small-scale, collaborative, Communities of Practice engaging in professional learning based on teacher needs; and a set of national proficiency standards, is untenable. Perhaps, the ability to measure teacher ICT skills is too tempting for administrators, yet the effect on encouraging meaningful, pedagogical professional development, is quite destructive.

Conclusions

That it is necessary to shift away from ICT-skills centred PD, towards reflective, pedagogically focused learning, is clear. Unless we, as teachers, can justify using ICT and make pedagogical changes to enhance student outcomes, then efforts to ‘teach’ ICT will be superficial. Embracing a Communities of Practice model for ICT PD incorporates the ubiquitous recommendations; that ICT PD should be collaborative; ongoing; focused on teacher needs;and facilitate critical discussion amongst colleagues. Further, it embraces a learner-centred, constructivist approach consistent with our best-practice models for schooling.  Yet, such bottom-up approaches are jeopardised by the desire of administrators to use standards-based accountability systems to ensure a consistent implementation of education policy. This desire to wield this stick is disappointing and surprising given that the carrot (increased student engagement and outcomes) is so juicy.


Is there a problem?

The issue of ICT teacher PD in Australia is very current due to new policy relating to ICT in education, such as the Digital Education Revolution (DER). The recent announcement of $40 million funding for a ‘Digital Strategy for Teachers and School Leaders’ is an indication that PD will be used as an instrument to effect change in teaching practices to support implementation of the DER policy (DEEWR, 2010; Gillard, 2010). The trends in teacher ICT use warrant this action, as according to 2008 survey results only 28% of Australian primary and secondary teachers are making effective use of ICT (Black, 2008; education.au, 2008a,b,c). This disappointing statistic is attributed to “a lack of investment in providing teachers with the techniques and strategies to use computers in their classrooms (Black, 2008)” and as such, Gillard’s announcement is an informed response to policy advice.

Challenges in ICT PD

There are numerous challenges in providing teachers with effective PD which are peculiar to ICT and it’s implementation in the classroom. Superficial issues such as lack of time and ease of access to technology are frequently cited, despite the emphasis on access to hardware that has been observed over the past decade (Becta, 2009; Strategic ICT Advisory Service [SICTAS], 2009). Further,due to the fast pace of change in ICT, and rapid adoption rate by students, there is a perception that teachers are being left behind (SICTAS, 2009).

The flurry of activity to address this perceived skills deficit has failed on a number of fronts. Firstly, the typical model for PD through infrequent, one-off courses has proven to be inadequate to master new skills (Becta, 2009; SICTAS, 2009). Secondly, and of greater concern, is that a re-tooling approach to ICT PD simply misses the point (Becta, 2009; Prestridge, 2010; SICTAS, 2009): “The separation of how to use the technology in education from why it should be used is a major issue”(SICTAS, 2009, p.21). In the rush to ensure teachers are keeping up with students, administrators have neglected pedagogical concerns despite the fact that is “very evident that a focus on skills is not sufficient to help teachers to develop their pedagogy” (Becta, 2009, p.6). These issues are compounded by negative attitudes towards technology and change (Phelps & Graham, 2008; SICTAS, 2009).

Where do we go?

If our definition of effective use of ICT by teachers is that of transforming practice to engage students in new ways (education.au, 2008a), then surely our model for PD must reflect this. The features of successful or idealised models of ICT PD all centre around a “move from ‘re-tooling’ with infrequent curriculum integration to a model that will enable teachers to see the ‘transforming’ possibilities of ICT” (Prestridge, 2010,p.252), promoting a introspective profession focused on peadgogical concerns.

To achieve this PD must be continuous, necessitating a rethink of our current short-course approach (SICTAS, 2009). The claim that “teachers need to be at the centre of their own learning if they are to change their deep-seated beliefs and habits regarding the use of technology” (Becta, 2009, p.6) forms a common theme (Becta, 2009; MacDonald, 2008; Prestridge, 2010; SICTAS,2009). MacDonald (2008) notes that 90% of teachers cite colleagues as their primary source of professional learning in developing his argument for a collaborative, collegial approach to PD; another common theme (Becta, 2009; Prestridge 2010; Robertshaw et al. 2009; SICTAS,2009).

I see great value in the Communities of Practice model discussed by MacDonald (2008).

Advertisements

Research Summary 2: Social Network Services

March 28, 2010 Leave a comment

social network graph


The ubiquity of social network service (SNS) usage amongst adolescent students is changing the way in which teens communicate, socialise and construct their social identity. Further, the new forms that social spaces have taken have changed the set of skills that teens develop in the course of their daily lives. This has enormous implications for educators at many levels, as students and curricula demands are both changing.

In this essay I will provide a brief overview of research into teen use of social network services.  I have also identified two areas of particular interest,  namely; the role of SNS in teen social identity formation; and informal learning opportunities through SNS.

Overview of teen SNS use in Australia

An outline of recent Australian research into teen usage of SNS is appropriate as it sets the scene for the following analysis. Further, the understanding of teen SNS use patterns portrayed in the media, web and some research is often based on perceptions and sweeping generalisations rather than solid data. The Australian Communication and Media Authority’s report (ACMA, 2009) provides a snapshot of SNS use based on survey data from 819 Australian students aged between eight and seventeen years old, and their parents. Survey data were collected during November 2008 adding timeliness to the other strengths of the research; wide scope; rigor and relevance.

The generalisation, that all teens are using SNS is defensible, as nine out of ten teens (12-17 y.o.) reporting usage. By late teens, the phenomenon is near ubiquitous with 97% of 16-17 year olds using at least one service. In this same age bracket, total site usage (a measure which incorporates both participation levels and the number of profiles per student) is 266%, indicative that teen usage is pervasive and extensive (ACMA, 2009), a statistic which demands attention from educators (and clearly, social researchers).

The motivations for teen (12-17 y.o.) SNS usage found by ACMA (2009), are revealing. Teens cite their principal reason for using social network services to be to socialising with friends they already know (85% cite reasons explicitly mentioning known friends). A small fraction of teens (4%) report that ‘making new friends’ is their primary motivation (with a further 13% citing this as a secondary or tertiary motive)(ACMA, 2009). This finding is clear yet runs against the common perception of SNS, particular the emotive ‘stranger danger’ fear-mongering employed by certain media outlets. This is a misconception of SNS. As Danah Boyd put it, SNS is about

“marking and relating to the people you already knew. They weren’t about social network-ing, (and that’s actually where I think the media’s confused a lot of things). They are social network sites. They are a place where you actually build and model your social network, not where you engage in  network-ing. The goal isn’t meeting people: The goal is socialising.” (punctuation and italics added to reflect emphasis in oral delivery) (Boyd, 2007a)

A further result of note is the rate of uptake of privacy settings amongst teens (12-17y.o.).  A majority (69%) of teens make use of private settings on social network services, leaving 24% who do not and 7% who are unsure (ACMA, 2009). Whether this warrants the 77% of parents (ACMA, 2009) who claim to worry about their children’s information being in the public domain is a question for parents, yet the disparity between these statistics is interesting and perhaps indicative of a lack of clear communication and guidance on these issues (though this is merely speculation, the report offers no explanation).

Social Identity Construction

So why is hanging out with friends (that you already see at school all day) so important? Danah Boyd is a key researcher in the field and I (along with many other researchers) will follow her lead on this issue. Boyd’s argument centres on the development of social skills, clearly a hugely important domain of learning, yet one that is not always prominent in curricula.

“Helping children develop social skills is viewed as a reasonable educational endeavor in elementary school, but by high school, educators switch to more “serious” subjects. Yet, youth aren’t done learning about the social world.” (Boyd, 2009).

Further, argues Boyd, the level of structure imposed on modern teen life precludes any unstructured socialising and this has seen the death of public spaces where teens can simply ‘hang-out’. Teens are using social network services to provide an important public social space where much informal learning is done. As such, SNS are hugely important, providing an environment where teens can experiement, make social mistakes and learn from those of others; ultimately playing an importnat role in teen social identity formation.

Social researchers (such as Boyd) and those in advertising (eg. Gangadharbatla, 2008) have realised the importance of SNS in teen identity formation. Advertisers use this knowledge when marketing to teens, as they will readily uptake products if they can help teens work out who they are and proclaim their identity (MacPhearson, 2007). Educators could learn valuable lessons when attempting a foray into SNS for formal learning. Tasks should be designed to align with existing teen SNS usage such that they encourage self expression, social collaboration and strengthening self identity, motivating students to engage with the task.

A brief aside. It was a comment in a recent Australian report on ICT access for marginalised youth (Blanchard, Metcalf, & Burns, 2007) that first got me interested in this topic (whilst researching for my previous summary – see relevant post). Whilst SNS is important in social identity formation for the majority of teens, those without access at home (an thus subject to filtered internet access at school) are further marginalised and do not have this opportunity: Yet another manifestation of the digital divide. Perhaps schools should reconsider their motives for filtering internet content.

Informal learning and pedagogical implications of SNS

Teens develop valuable skills through their online experiences (just as with those offline), an example of informal learning. That these skills are valuable and highly relevant to contemporary society is indubitable. Skills that digital natives bring to school include collaborative problem solving, collaborative research and authoring, advanced communication skills and teamwork skills. These skills are brought to school, yet they may not be used within the confines of a traditional classroom or curriculum.

In her recent monograph, Kathryn Moyle (2010) states that;

“the ubiquity of several technologies, and the robustness of young people’s abilities to communicate and collaborate, presents challenges for educators and stakeholders about how they conceive of schools. Indeed, it is time to reconsider what is a school and in what ways it can best fulfil its roles.” (p.39)

Moyle argues that the challenge for educators is to design formal learning tasks such that students can further develop and apply web-learnt skills in new settings. This is no small feat, yet the problem is not entirely new. The presence of general, interdisciplinary skills in modern curricula such as the ACT’s Every Chance to Learn curriculum framework (ACT Government, 2007), require teachers to design tasks and content to facilitate the transfer of general capabilities across discipline boundaries (Moyle, 2010). How, for example, can we expect students to apply their informal learning of collaborative, project-based problem solving skills learned from playing MMOG in the classroom? Boyd (2007b) suggest that a bi-directional approach to learning is required in this context and that teachers should not be afraid to learn from students such that we can better support them.

In my opinion, this problem demands a democratic approach to curriculum implementation such that students have input into how and what they learn. This must be coupled with an increased focus on meta-cognition, affording a reflective insight into the skills teens are using in their infromal, online learning. The rich task model (Education Queensland, 2001) could be used in this context to engage students to extend their interdisciplinary skills, whilst meeting disciplinary requirements.

Conclusions

Australian teens are heavy users of social network services. Through their online interactions, teens are not only learning in ways they currently do not at school but further, shaping their identities. To dismiss SNS as trivial or a passing fad would be both ignorant and a missed opportunity of enormous proportions. As educators, we must at the very least, give this media the respect and thought it deserves: At best, this is an opportunity to learn from our students, to rethink curriculum, and launch into a new pedagogy which re-engages our youth.


References

(ACMA, 2009)

Research summary 1 : Open source textbooks

March 11, 2010 5 comments

book shelf

Open source textbooks.

The problems in the textbook industry are manifold and well documented (Rube 2005, Harley et al. 2010). Aggressive pricing strategies, and short edition cycles are keeping an industry afloat using an old world business model. Enabled by advances in ICT, the concept of open source textbooks has arisen (or so it may appear on surface value) as a response to the financial pressure on students and their communities (eg. The student PIRGS, n.d.; California Open Source Textbook Project, 2002).

The term ‘open source’, refers to the way in which content can be legally used. The advent of legal structures such as the Creative Commons licence allow users to legally reproduce, alter, remix and redistribute content at no cost (Baraniuk 2006, Creative Commons Australia, n.d.), however the benefits of open source extend beyond that of price. Open source refers to free content, where the free is;

a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer” (Free Software Foundation, 2010).

In terms of open source textbooks, this liberty (to copy, modify and redistribute) has the potential to make huge impacts not just on costs, but on how we teach and how students are given access to knowledge.

Open textbooks take many forms, from simple digital replications of traditional textbook formats, to highly modular, flexible and interactive repositories of knowledge (Baraniuk 2006, Frith 2009). Connexions, a market leader (Frith 2009) features content from respected, commissioned authors, presented in modular ‘chunks’, allowing users to create custom made textbooks to support their own courses (Baraniuk 2006).

Quality assurance.

One of the greatest concerns about open source textbooks amongst teachers, administrators and the greater community is the the issue of quality control (Harley et al. 2010, De Koenigsberg 2010). Truly opening access to authorship leads to the situation where ‘anyone can contribute anything’ (Baraniuk 2006). Though this has huge potential, it also raises the issue of quality assurance. In my opinion, how well this issue is dealt with will ultimately define the success of the movement, and whether the move to open source is viewed as a economic imperative, or a truly pedagogical imperative.

Various platforms use different quality assurance mechanisms (Frith 2009) usually limited to the following (or some combination thereof) ; reputation and endorsement; centralised peer review; and user review (Hylén 2006). The most successful platforms such as Connexions use a combination of approaches which assure high quality resources without compromising the open ideology (Connexions 2007, Frith 2009).

Further to their role as quality assurance mechanisms, aspects such as authorial attribution and user feedback have positve effects in other realms. Authorial attribution acts as a strong motivation for creating content (Stewart 2009, Seidel 2009) perhaps to offset the diminished financial gain from publication. I believe that user feedback has the potential to become much more than a QA measure as teachers are able to share ideas on how they used a resource effectively. In this sense, such a system would provide another powerful community based tool for knowledge sharing (in this case, pedagogical).

Digital divide

A common perception of the open source movement, is that it will lead to the reduction, or removal, of price-barriers to knowledge and may close the knowledge divide (Kurshan 2007), gaps between access to quality education of different groups in society. Despite the successes in closing the traditional digital divide (access to computer hardware), a new digital divide is opening for a small minority, in terms of their ability to access knowledge (Green & Hannon 2007) . With respect to open textbooks, the issue of access to computers and high-speed Internet in the home are crucial when considering a truer picture of access to knowledge. In California, where an open textbook project is currently being rolled out, there are real fears that poor students will be at a disadvantage (Lewin 2009) in the move to open textbooks.

This problem can be alleviated to some extent as the move towards one-to-one computing is actualised. In Australia for example, the federal government has committed to having a one-to-one student-to-computer ratio by the end of 2011 (Gillard 2008, Rudd 2009). In my opinion, Australia would provide near-ideal conditions for trialling open source texts as students should not be limited by access to hardware (though others have made the link between one-to-one computing and open source textbooks (Platoni 2009)). Further, the realisation of the national curriculum will bring about a necessity for publishers to revise existing textbooks, and has created a genuine opportunity for change in current curriculum implementation and pedagogy.

Other issues in relation to the digital divide go beyond that of our western perspective. The ability of open textbooks to provide quality content to the developing world has been lauded (Foster 2008). Open licensing allows texts to be freely translated, or for examples to be edited to include culturally relevant material (Baraniuk 2006). Though this appears to be a great solution, it is difficult to gauge the impact, and scale of this movement. The appearance and growth of a number of open text platforms specifically for the developing world (for example, Free High School Science Texts n.d.) is simultaneously encouraging and disturbing. Access to knowledge in the developing world is increasing, however the existence of specific platforms to serve only the developing world may create a two-tier system, perpetuating inequity in access to knowledge.

Implications for educators

Beyond the social dimension, there are some huge implications for educators. Moving to open textbooks whilst maintaining the dominant teacher-centric model will have little effect on digital literacy, and represents a missed opportunity (Geser 2007). Arguably the greatest value in the open textbook movement is that it signals a move away from traditional textbooks, creating an opportunity for highly interactive and customisable education resources which promote a collaborative and creative approach to learning (Geser 2007, Kenney 2009, Frith 2009). Further, the complete open access to authorship in some platforms allow for a constructivist approach to learning (Frith 2009) and a democratic approach to curriculum as students can engage in course design and the construction and editing of textbook materials.

Yet, to realise this opportunity to step away from the limitations of traditional textbooks requires structural change. In his decade-old paper on the use of computers in education, Robert Tinker comments on the nature of technological revolutions.

Every revolutionary technology starts with a whimper. Its full revolutionary bang is realized only later after fundamental structural changes are made to accommodate the new technology. (Tinker 2000)

and specifically with reference to computers in education

We are, nevertheless, overdue for a surge in education performance driven by the technology, as soon as we are willing to make the necessary structural changes. This will profoundly improve education.(Tinker 2000)

These comments are still highly relevant today, especially with reference to the open source movement. In my mind, the changes which are required to fully embrace open source texts, not just as a cheap alternative, but as the basis of a revolution in how teaching and learning resources are constructed, shared and used, are yet to come but will radically change the education landscape.

What I have described in this brief report is Tinker’s ‘whimper’. I look forward to the ‘bang’.

References

  • Baraniuk, R. (2006). Richard Baraniuk on open-source learning [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRymi-lFHpE
  • California Open Source Textbook Project. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.opensourcetext.org/
  • Connexions. (2007). Introducing Content Reviewing with Lenses. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/news/LensesIntroduced
  • Creative Commons Australia. (n.d.). Creative Commons Licences, Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org.au/licences
  • De Koenigsberg, G. (2010). Open source textbooks a “threat” to Texas education? opensource.com, Retrieved from http://opensource.com/education/10/1/open-source-textbooks-threat-texas-education
  • Foster, A.L. (2008). Providing Online Textbooks to the Developing World Education Digest, vol. 73, no. 7, pp 14-16
  • Free High School Science Texts. (n.d.). Welcome to the FHSST Workspace, Retrieved from http://www.fhsst.org/
  • Free Software Foundation. (2010). The GNU operating system, Retrieved from http://www.gnu.org/
  • Frith, J. (2009). The Open Revolution: An Environmental Scan of the Open Textbook Landscape. Commisioned by North Carolina State University, NSCU Libraries Digital Scholarship & Publishing Center, Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/dspc/opentextbookswhitepaper.pdf
  • Geser, G. (Ed.). (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources: The OLCOS Roadmap 2012 Salzburg Research, EduMedia Group. Salzburg
  • Gillard, J. (2008, March 5) National Secondary School Computer Fund: Round One, Media Release, Canberra, Australia
  • Green, H. and Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a Digital Generation, Commissioned by Demos, London
  • Harley, D., Lawrence, S., Acord, S.K. and Dixson, J. (2010). ‘Affordable and Open Textbooks: An Exploratory Study of Faculty Attitudes’, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley
  • Hylén, J. (2006). Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges. Commissioned by OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation,Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/37351085.pdf
  • Kenney, B. (2009, September). As Goes California: A flawed initiative could become a fabulous opportunity, School Library Journal
  • Kurshan, B. (2007). How Open-Source Curricula Could Bridge the Education Divide, Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, Winter ed.
  • Lewin,T. (2009, August 8 ). In a Digital Future, Textbooks Are History, NY Times
  • Platoni, K. (2009, Dec/Jan). California Embraces Open Source Digital Textbooks, Edutopia, Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/california-open-source-digital-textbooks
  • Rube, K. (2005). Ripoff 101: How the Publishing Industry’s Practices Needlessly Drive Up Textbook Costs – A National Survey of Textbook Prices (2nd ed.), State Public Interest Research Groups
  • Rudd, K. (2009). Digital Education Revolution National Partnership, Canberra, Australia
  • Seidel, K. (2009). Online Textbooks Deliver Timely, Real-World Content, EDUCAUSE Reviw, vol 44., no.1
  • Stewart, R. (2009). Some Thoughts on Free Textbooks, EDUCAUSE Reviw, vol 44., no.1
  • The Student PIRGs (Public Research Interest Groups). (n.d.). Make Textbooks Affordable, Retrieved from http://www.studentpirgs.org/textbooks
  • Tinker, R. (2000). Ice Machines, Steamboats, and Education: Structural Change and Educational Technologies. In proceedings: The Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, Alexandria, VA