Download PDF

Guidance in the pedagogical use of Facebook was hard to find. There has been little time for evolution of Facebook use as the product has only existed since 2004 (Facebook.com, 2010b) Until recently, Facebook was restricted to College students, and its popularity was partly based on that differentiation (Neff 2009). Facebook’s terms exclude children under 13 years (Facebook.com, 2010a). Teachers have been advised by unions to shun Facebook, to protect their professional reputations, even though this cannot prevent students misrepresenting them online (Topsfield, 2010).

However, it is likely to become important. The Facebook population is growing and includes millions of secondary students. Recent developments enabling Facebook to aggregate content from other social networking services could make Facebook the most convenient portal to most online communities, for most people.

Below, I summarise one advisory, and several scenarios in which Facebook could be used in high schools.

How to convey immediacy

Teacher communication research has shown that student motivation to learn is associated with non-verbal “immediacy” (Plax, Kearney, McCroskey, and Richmond, 1986, cited in Cayanus, 2002). Robinson and Whitemarsh (2010) report ten strategies that can be used foster immediacy in classes that have an online component.

1. Use student names in all interactions.
2. Respond to students quickly, and be available frequently.
3. Give thoughtful, personally relevant feedback.
4. Use a variety of communication technology, including some synchronous (such as voice) contact.
5. Include diverse resources and experiences; enrich courses with non-text interactions.
6. “Tell personal stories – online students need self disclosure too”.
7. Have a personally unique, media and information-rich web-space (such as a Facebook profile).
8. Cultivate an informal online voice.
9. Solicit and respond to student feedback and critique.
10. Share and respond on extracurricular matters.

The theoretical base is reputable but was developed in traditional classrooms; the evidence base is anecdotal, but the strategies include adaptation in response to student feedback. The strategies were developed in college hybrid/online courses by two lecturers over three annual cycles. It remains to be tested whether these strategies can be used within current time-allocations in NSW secondary schools.

The following scenarios demonstrate some of the arguments proposed for Facebook use in educational contexts.

1. Life skills

Johnson (2010) makes four arguments for developing children’s Social Networking habits in school:

• Responsible civic behaviour increasingly includes social networking.
• Increasingly, people get ‘first impressions’ via online presence, before a physical meeting.
• “Connected, community based learning is important.”
• “In five years, the filters will be gone whether you like it or not.”

An intention to prepare children to implement and exploit social change is ethical, but could be problematic. Facebook will facilitate bypassing rather than following the lines of accountability currently at work in schools, as it does not privilege any category of user (Facebook, 2010, “Facebook Principles”).

The criticism that this activity teaches children how to use Technology merely to enable them to use Technology, would seem inevitable, but it would miss Johnson’s key point: the task is to teach students how to relate to people, and the technology is the medium in which they will require competence.

2. Discussions

Kitsis (2008) described use of Facebook to sustain class discussions into homework time.

Any Facebook user can post a statement and picture or link on her “wall”. She can restrict visibility to a specific group of friends, or allow unknown friends of her friends to see it. Anyone who can see a post can endorse it with one click (‘Like’), or add a comment and view other comments. No comments are anonymous, and all comments are collected together. Users can choose to have updates emailed to them automatically.

• Select topics that have intrinsic interest and some controversy.
• Model helpful criticism.
• Give feedback on their responses to other students.
• Guide attention to neglected students, as “feeling short-changed in feedback from their peers” can hurt.
• Aim for students to “[take] ownership of their own learning by taking responsibility for that of the people around them.” (Kitsis 2008)

3. Character studies

A group of students can explore their understanding of characters from literature (or history) by creating a Facebook profile for the fictitious character. There is rich stimulus for discussion in consideration of the reduction of a complex literary character to Facebook’s relationship categories, and in speculations about a character’s preference for privacy settings and Friending behaviour.  Students can role-play an interaction with a character and explore alternative directions in which the literature or events might have developed.

The public domain in which Facebook identities exist introduces the possibility of interactions with ‘real’ people. One (college) class were shocked when their character (14, female, it’s complicated, suggestive profile pic – based on Nabokov’s Lolita) received Friend requests from an older, married man. The question of reporting a possible predator, despite the fictitious nature of the interaction, was fraught. (Skerrett, 2010).

The creation of fictitious People will breach Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. (Different, less restrictive, policies apply to Pages.)

The use of identifiable material, perhaps even as little as a character name, from literature could be stopped by a trademark or copyright claim.

As a result, although the learning opportunity seems profound, schools cannot select Facebook for this purpose.

4. Dissemination

Many of the affordances of a blog and a discussion forum are provided by Facebook (O’Brien 2009). A Group eases the task of finding other learners with similar tasks and concerns, facilitating collaborative learning and democratising the selection of material that is shared in the group. Mislove et al reported that online social networks tend to self-organise around “high degree nodes” – people with many links – who are able to rapidly distribute information. Personal credibility is rapidly corrected by loss of connections if someone distributes unwelcome material (cited in Maranto & Barton 2010).

Facebook should not be considered a ‘reliable’ delivery medium. Students may ignore status updates due to the sheer volume that Facebook generates (Neff, 2009).

The opportunity this creates for teachers, recognising that some students already collaborate through Facebook, is to endorse and assist distribution and feedback through students who are most active in responding to course content. However, I found no research into the efficacy of this strategy in a real high-school.

5. Mentoring

Traditional concepts of mentoring favoured closed, long meetings and projects between two people, but substantial effect has been reported from brief mentoring episodes. Future professional-level mentoring may be based on brief contacts utilising social media, and extended to bring students into contact with potential future employers (Brummelhuis, 2009; Hendry, 2009).

Some academic advisors at college level have found Facebook allows them to

• model responsible online behaviour
• deliver information, appointments, invitations
• connect to students, build trust, and test relevance
• intervene discretely (private message) in social or ethical conflicts (Espoito, 2007).

It is easy to imagine a place for Facebook in each part of Bloom’s academic advisor role. ((Bloom 2008, p. 11, quoted in Pou, 2010)

6. Affective effects

Affective learning is enhanced by teacher disclosure, and experiment indicates that some students are predisposed favourably to teachers with more ‘human’ profiles on Facebook. In a 2007 study, college students were asked to form an impression of a teacher by looking at her Facebook post. Attitudes varied, generally being more favourable when the teacher’s profile disclosed more of a social and emotional life, although subsequent interviews uncovered some reservations.

“Teachers decide what information they want to reveal to their students in an effort to create a comfortable classroom environment that fosters student learning.” Nevertheless, teachers appropriately conceal information which would compromise the learning process (Mazer et al, 2007). For example, communities may expect, and some schools stipulate, that students should not discover teachers espousing extreme political or social views, disparaging the school, using drugs, or naked (Marshall, 2005).

Questions

General guidelines for technology introduction are available (Jones, 2009) but I was unable to discover a published plan or advice specific to social networking.

When I started looking for pedagogical Best Practice regarding high-school use of Facebook, I expected to find certain ethical and technical guidelines, even if evidence for curriculum-alignment was weak.

Considering other discussion methods, I expected to see ethical recommendations like:

Considering other internet activities, I expected teachers to announce:

I expect that prudent technical preparation would include:

Perhaps these considerations will only be documented when social networking is more widely trialed in secondary schools.

References

• Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., & He, Y. (2008) The appreciative advising revolution. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
• Brummelhuis, Simone (2009) Mentory: Mass mentoring through Facebook, Twitter and Social Media. The Next Women, June 2, 2009, http://thenextwomen.com/2009/06/02/mentory-mass-mentoring-through-facebook-twitter-and-social-media/
• Cayanus, J.L., (2002) The Relationships Between Teacher Self-Disclosure, Student Motives, Student Affect, Relational Certainty, and Student Participation. Master of Arts. Morgantown, West Virginia: West Virginia University. Available at: http://etd.wvu.edu/templates/showETD.cfm?recnum=2428 [Accessed April 10, 2010].
• Esposito, Art (2007) Saving Saving Face(book): Engage Through Facebook and Retain Relevance. Academic Advising Today. September 2007. 30(3), http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/AAT/NW30_3.htm#8
• Facebook.com (2010a) Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
• Facebook.com (2010b) Timeline. Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?timeline
• Hendry, E. (2009) IBM Plans to connect students with mentors through Facebook. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, http://chronicle.com/blogPost/IBM-Plans-to-Connect-Students/7535/
• Johnson, S., (2010) Making the Case for Social Media in Education. Edutopia. Available at: http://www.edutopia.org/social-media-case-education-edchat-steve-johnson [Accessed April 10, 2010].
• Jones, B. (2009) ICT Integration Guidebook, ICTPD.NET, http://ictpd.net/techplan/ [Accessed April 9, 2010]
• Kitsis, S.. (2008). The Facebook Generation: Homework as Social Networking. English Journal, 98(2), 30-36.
• Maranto, G. & Barton, M., 2010. Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 36-47.
• Marshall, J., 2005. When Teachers Go Naked. Ethics Scoreboard. Available at: http://ethicsscoreboard.com/list/hoover.html [Accessed April 9, 2010].
• Mayes, Terry, & Fowler, Chris. (2006). Learners, learning literacy and the pedagogy of e-learning. In Allan Martin and Dan Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning, (pp. xx). London: Facet Publishing.
• Mislove, Alan; Marcon, Massimiliano; Grammadi, Krishna P.; Druschel, Peter; & Battacharjee, Bobby. (2007). Measurement and analysis of online social networks. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/USENIX Internet Measurement Conference, IMC’07, October 24-26, 2007, San Diego, California, USA.
• Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R.E., Simonds, C.J., (2009) The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media, & Technology; Jun 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p175-183
• Neff, J., (2009) School’s out: Are students taking a pass on Facebook? Advertising Age, 80(31), 43.
• O’Brien, M., (2009) Focus Group Reveals Why High Schoolers are Leaving Facebook (and where they’re headed next). Education. Available at: http://blog.monicaobrien.com/why-high-schoolers-leave-facebook/[Accessed April 9, 2010]
• Petronio, S. (2002) Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. (cited in Mazer et al)
• Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication Education, 35, 43-56.
• Pou, James W. (2010) How Academic Advisers Can Use Facebook to Apply Appreciative Advising. The Mentor, March 10, 2010. http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/100310jp.htm [Accessed April 9, 2010]
• Robinson, R. & Whitemarsh, D. (2009). From Conventional  Spaces to Virtual  Places: Enhancing  Teacher-Student Communication  in the Hybrid/Online Course. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1299-1306). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Skerritt, A. (2010) Lolita, Facebook, and the Third Space of Literacy Teacher Education. Educational Studies, 46, 67-84. [Accessed April 9, 2010]
• Topsfield, J., (2010) Students smear teachers on Facebook. The Age. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/students-smear-teachers-on-facebook-20100402-rjup.html [Accessed April 10, 2010].

Zhong and Shen reflect on growing endorsement of multimedia EFL Teaching, and compare typical language lessons at Year 9 level in one selective school and one private school. Despite the (expensive) use of Authorware-built interactive learning packages and one-to-one computer ratios at the private school, the authors discerned an essentially common lesson plan and pattern of transactions. They describe this as a “technologized traditional classroom” (p.46), not suited to the development of communicative strategies and thinking skills. For the institution, “the general goal of foreign language teaching is …. more importantly, to pass different kinds of exams.” (p.48)

Epistemology and pedagogy are rooted in entrenched Confucian doctrine, which esteems time-proven knowledge and an authoritative, sagacious teacher. A student should not correct or contradict a teacher, and redesign of instructional methods to promote communication skills will conflict with that value. The authors hope for technology integration to seed a conceptual understanding of interactive pedagogy, as a small step towards a learner-centred approach.

Evaluation

A leading official translator recently called for elimination of all English words from Chinese conversation (Huang, quoted in Moore 2010). A serious attempt to enforce this would have an incalculable impact on the teaching of English in China.

The authors do not need to spell out that pupil:teacher and child:parent relationship are analogies in Confucian thought for the relationship of citizen and state. A school which erodes pupils’ deference is failing to prepare them for harmonious citizenship.

It is very probable that many of the students in the study are now acquaintances on RenRen, the world’s fastest growing social networking system (Lukoff, 2010), where 180 million people interact directly both in Chinese and English. Teachers contemplating use of public networks for peer feedback must be aware of the possibility of stringent official sanction for inappropriate comment. RenRen was initially (under the name Xiaonei) restricted to college students and alumni. Facebook opened up to public in 2008, and critics lamented the entry of asinine teenagers to a previously select membership. When RenRen did the same in August 2009, the move was criticised as a clandestine government manoeuvre to dilute criticism from college students and expand the sounding of opinion from ‘common people’ (anonymous 2009)!

Technology is sometimes seen as a vehicle of globalisation and loss of cultural independence and character.
Themes of community concern are perhaps better expressed by local products. For example, RenRen notably implemented invitations to contribute to disaster-relief more prominently and more socially than Facebook has (CC, 2010). Different technologies protect different aspects of privacy, reflecting different cultural sensitivities (ibid). Late in 2009, many microblogging and social networking services in China closed or changed their terms of service, in response to new requirements of the China Internet Network Information Centre, that all bloggers use their real names and prove their identity (Xie 2009). The right for USA government agencies to identify anonymous bloggers is still in contention in USA.

I guess an obvious warning for teachers attempting to flatten the classroom hierarchy is that deregulation will permit students to engage foreign nationals in ways that may be illegal, antisocial or discomforting.

References

anonymous (2009) Government tightens campus Internet. The Website Journal, August 5, 2009. http://blog.thewebsitejournal.com/2009/08/government-tightens-campus-internet.html [Accessed April 10, 2010].

CC (2010) Why Renren is better than Facebook. China Hush, April 5th. http://www.chinahush.com/2010/04/05/why-renren-is-better-than-facebook/ [Accessed April 10, 2010].

Lukoff, K. (2010) China’s top four social networks: RenRen, Kaixin001, Qzone, and 51.com. DigitalBeat, April 7.  http://digital.venturebeat.com/2010/04/07/china%E2%80%99s-top-4-social-networks-renren-kaixin001-qzone-and-51-com/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter-publisher-main&utm_campaign=twitter [Accessed April 10, 2010].

Moore, M. (2010) Chinese language ‘damaged by invasion of English words’. Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7441934/Chinese-language-damaged-by-invasion-of-English-words.html [Accessed April 10, 2010].

Xie, S. (2009) Microblogs & Nuclear explosions; censorship is harder than you’d think. Littleredbook Blog, 27/08/2009. http://www.littleredbook.cn/2009/08/27/microblogs-censorship/ [Accessed April 10, 2010].

Zhong, Y.X. & Shen, H.Z., (2002). Where is the technology-induced pedagogy? Snapshots from two multimedia EFL classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 39-52.

Baggaley & Hoon (2005) give an overview of a range of distance education initiatives in eleven Asian countries. They note several dimensions of difference from North American institutions, and conclude that technical innovations driven by necessity in the developing world will address less keenly felt needs in the first world.

The driving force for employment of technology can be a shortage of teachers to meet a country’s national development agenda, the scale of service needed in massive urban centres, the distance between schools and centres of higher learning, or the need to learn skills alien to the local context.

The expectation must be high to overcome skepticism and suspicion. “In each of these countries, public opposition to the very notion of [Distance Education] is voluble, and sometimes extends to high ministerial levels” (p.8).

The authors assert that the large Open Universities in Asia “are relatively new to using the Internet for course delivery and they harbour relatively few prejudices about different DLTs, as long  as  they  are  cost-effective.” (p.7) Delivery technologies employed include:

• PDAs – cheaper than computers and less dependent on permanent infrastructure
• SMS – text messages are much cheaper in many countries than in Australia or USA, and the mobile phone infrastructure is relatively reliable in some places that have no broadband service
• Broadcast television and radio – for mass audiences
• Satellite-based audio/video-conferencing
• Audiotapes and Videotapes – for far-distant learners
• CB radio – for truck drivers
• Open Source software or home-grown software to allow localisation and to minimise costs, and avoid entanglement with major American commercial providers.
• Yahoo Messenger – where it is ubiquitous, because it requires little bandwidth
• Ready-packed server as portable software on a CD and flash-drive
• Web-casting
• Learning-object repositories
• Educational train (and vans) – a travelling collection of exhibits and activities to visit outlying regions

Baggaley and Hoon make some forward projections:

• First-world institutions which assume high-reliability broadband will be unable to attract many developing-world students. (p.10)
• Growth of spam may render email useless, forcing educators to use other media.
• Telephone-based applications can lower cost.
• m-Teaching methods are needed to support m-Learning
• Local problems cannot be understood without local experience.

“The evidence shows that distance educators of the developing world have now surpassed their first-world counterparts and, with thrift, ingenuity and determination, are dictating the next developmental phase of learning, media and technology internationally.” (p.13)

Evaluation

This article gives a very rapid overview of diverse projects. The selection of projects seemed to be dependent on community and government excitement, and solutions were shaped by cost-effects, including existing infrastructure, culture and institutions).

I was disappointed in two respects. First, the authors describe cutting-edge programs under extraordinary circumstances and seem to contrast those to the commonest forms of distance education in Western universities. This probably gives a falsely optimistic colour to their picture of Asian development.

Second, the driving motivations and their interaction with pedagogy were barely touched. National and international political consequences of bulk improvement in literacy in India, or of propagation of programming expertise in China, for example, probably shape elementary curriculum in those countries.

Reference

Baggaley, J. & Hoon, M.N.L., 2005. PANdora’s box: distance learning technologies in Asia. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(1): 5-14

Authors: Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Reifsneider, D.

Published: 2009

Publisher: Cisco Systems Inc.

Reviewed by Russell Waldron.  PDF Download

Over the past decade, Cisco has collated, published and sometimes sponsored educational research into the educational impact of ICT (Leask & Meadows, 2000), and recently updated their survey of educational research findings (Lemke et al, 2009).  The current situation is that “the real potential of technology for improving learning remains largely untapped in schools today” (ibid, p.5). Their findings about specific technologies are summarised at the California Technology Assistance Project (Chandler, 2010) and will not be repeated here.

What is Innovative?

Rogers definition of innovation notably emphasises an individual’s perception of newness (Rogers 2003, p. 11). The subjective qualifier, ‘innovative’, is applicable only within a specific context or community. For example, some Australian schools were still describing Interactive Whiteboards as innovations in 2008, which were thoroughly evaluated in UK schools around 2001 (BECTA 2003).

An individual considering something new proceeds through phases of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Adoption depends on the individual’s perception of relative advantage, compatibility, (lack of perceived) complexity, trialability, and visibility. (Rogers, 2003, p.16)

Underestimating barriers

Inadequate documentation

Statutory requirements and National Assessment results should not be assumed to provide an adequate baseline for evaluation of educational impact. The empirical approach favoured by Lemke et al requires that potential impacts be identified prospectively, in order to devise instruments for measuring the experimental effect.

Hasty conclusion.

Participatory culture.

In NSW government schools, a shift to more collaborative project work with greater independent communication between students is expected to result in improved engagement with school and schoolwork. NSW DET predicts a culture which they characterise as more “learner-centered”, “assessment-centered”, “community-centered”, and “knowledge-centered”. Collaboration is predicted to yield higher test scores in English and Mathematics. (Curriculum K-12 Directorate, 2009).

Scope of  change.

Omissions

There is a notable absence of evidence for the collaboration potential of several technologies which appear well suited to social, participatory learning: modelling tools, augmented reality, virtual worlds, mobile devices, visualisation tools, and computer-aided instruction. This gap resulted from selection of research which addressed traditional outcomes. These families of technology do support participatory learning (as the ‘descriptive’ research shows). However, each listed ‘experimental’ study compared achievement with existing practices, and social outcomes were not measured.

In some cases, Lemke et al found conflicting results. This may be the result of proliferation of research motivated by potentially high implementation costs. For example, one-to-one laptop programs have been extensively trialled, with both vendors and school systems anticipating huge expenditure if the outcomes were positive. [citation]

Further, Lemke et al were confined by their stance that an experimental design is the ‘Gold Standard’ of evidence amongst empirical research methods. Their definitions appear in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of the Categories of Research Used as Evidence (Lemke et al 2009, p.7)

This stance is poorly suited to discovering transformative change, and does not reflect operational priorities that might reasonably be expected to govern decision-making in schools: learning, teaching and managing.

Learning: An experiment conducted in a distinctive sample has questionable validity for students with differences of culture and preferred learning styles. To compensate, the student sample should be representative, or at least large and diverse. There are many theories of Multiple Intelligence or Learning Styles (Coffield et al 2004), and it may be difficult to detect the paradigmatic assumptions that would affect application of the research findings. Instructional Events (Gagne 1985) are relatively clear targets for experimental research, less subjective than qualities emphasised in social learning theories.

Teaching: Individual teachers must react to and interpret their observations in ‘real-time’, without the benefit of experimental time-scale. Descriptive studies have value in providing a model for teachers examine in the light of their own practice. Self-reflection is a key process because each teacher is not only applying a new technology, they are reshaping their professional role and identity. Vacirca (2008) describes an example of this process.

Managing: Correlations discovered in multi-campus studies are needed to inform funding and administrative policy. Principals are responsible for overall outcomes from the interaction of all school policies and practices, which could easily subvert the benefits predicted by well-controlled experiments.

These considerations warrant a revision of the model Research Questions.
Table 2. Three categories of educational research reconsidered.

Educators considering new technology would do well to address Keengwe’s summary of time-honoured recommendations regarding teacher practices, student opportunities, curriculum orientation, and professional development (Keenge et al, 2008). Teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training in NSW can access resources and services provided for early adopters through the Centre for Learning Innovation (CLI 2009).

References

BECTA (2003) What the research says about interactive whiteboards. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), Coventry.

CLI (2009) Overview of the Centre for Learning Innovation. CLI [http://www.cli.nsw.edu.au/about_us/overview.htm]

COAG (2008). National Education Agreement Factsheet, Council of Australian Governments, 29 November 2008, [http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/Data_Standards_Manual_2010-SEC2-NAP_Measuring_and_Rep.pdf]

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Cradler, J. (2010). Technology in Schools: What the Research Says: A 2009 Update, CTAP, 19 January 2010, [http://www.myctap.org/index.php/administrators-and-data/edtech-research-reviews/191-technology-in-schools-what-the-research-says]

Curriculum K-12 Directorate, 2009. One-to-one computing: literature review. NSW DET.

Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, cited in

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G. & Wachira, P., 2008. Computer Technology Integration and Student Learning: Barriers and Promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560-565.

Leask, M., and Meadows, J., eds (2000). Teaching and learning with ICT in the primary school. Routledge/Falmer, London

Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Reifsneider, D. (2009). Technology in schools: what the research says. A 2009 Update. Cisco Systems Inc.

Newhouse, P. (1999). Examining how teachers adjust to the availability of portable computers. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 148-166.

Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. Free Press, Glencoe.

Vacirca, E. 2008, How do  teachers develop  their  technological pedagogical content knowledge  in  the  context  of  system-wide  pedagogical  and curriculum reform? AARE Conference Brisbane Nov 30 – December 4, 2008.

Zucker, A.A. (2009). Transforming Schools with Technology, Independent School Magazine, Winter 2009.