New and Old Strategies for Online Learning

Anne-Marie Armstrong, PhDColorado Technical UniversityUnited State of Americaaarmstrong@coloradotech.edu

Author BIO

Anne-Marie Armstrong received her PhD in Instructional Designand Development from the University of South Alabama. She worked on instructional projects for the military, industry and the government. While in Washington, D.C., she received acertificate in Museum Studies from George Washington University and developed museum web sites and Teacher Resources for the Smithsonian. Recently Anne-Mrie worked for Ford Motor Company and in faculty development at Wayne State University where she specialized in mobile learning, multi-media instructional strategies, and moving brick and mortar courses online. Presently she teaches online for the Institute for Advance Studies at Colorado Technical University.

AbstractA matrix for faculty to organize their course goals and projected learning outcomes under different delivery modes was developed so that faculty at a major university could choose appropriate and alternative technology and tools for teaching online. The paper contains that matrix and the faculty feedback from the subsequent survey which asked faculty to choose the different tools and delivery systems according to instructional styles and their experiences. Theusefulness of the matrix for course design and delivery was tested while teaching online for the computer science department of a university in one of the mountain states. Thecase studies of the matrix’s use during two different online courses are described and analyzed. After the discussion of technology support and delivery, this article continues with background information on the use of learning and digital media objects by both faculty and students.

Key words: digital media, online tools, goal integration, learning objectives, delivery systems

New and Old Strategies for Online Learning

Background

In order to teach effectively to a broad and diverse audience, faculty are delivering online instruction using various technologies. They are adjusting their instruction and delivery to meet the needs of their content areas and their students while still meeting the course goals and the institution’s learning objectives. Software tools that aggregate, mix and present instruction allow online faculty to build learning objects, assignments and weekly activities that are flexible, reusable, customizable and scalable. Students use the same or similar software to construct presentations and assignments that are flexible, relevant, insightful and engaging. Communication and interaction between faculty and students is strengthened and extended through the use of audio, video, animations and graphics as well as text. The result is a positive learning environment that is enriching and rewarding for both students and faculty.

There are, however, some challenges to using new technologiesin the design and delivery of instruction (online or face-to-face). The first challenge is that the abundance and varietyof tools and technologies used for instructional design and delivery makes it difficult for faculty to choose those that would be most appropriate and effective for their particular purposes. The second challenge is to apply sound instructional design principles to the instruction and/or learning objects, activities and assignments that are used. Third, faculty need to be confident in their ability to use the tools and technologies while applying instructional strategies and while interacting with their students. And fourth, faculty support needs to be built into the entire process.

A first step in meeting the challenges and being able to communicate instruction effectively, is for faculty to make a

choice among instructional practices, delivery modes and pedagogical issues, and that they are aware of the role changes that are engendered by the different technologies.

Many universities and colleges provide support for faculty teaching through centers, independent offices, or mentoring. This support consists of instructional design assistance, overviews and practice of pedagogical strategies, and workshops in the use of technologies. Theoretically, all three kinds of support are needed. In reality though, and individually speaking, the support that faculty want and willmake the time for is the support that will work for their classes now and can be integrated now.

While running numerous workshops for faculty for moving theircourses online and for using various online teaching tools, Irealized that the support and delivery systems provided must meet the learning goals of the faculty, the learning objectives of the administration, and the students’ needs forsubject matter relevancy to their life and ambitions. I developed a matrix that combined learning, learning outcomes and delivery modes. It provides a typology of the different technological tools and delivery modes that can be applied tothe goals of any learning environment, but it is intended as an aid for faculty who teach online. The matrix allowed faculty to organize their course goals and projected learningoutcomes under different delivery modes. They then could choose appropriate and alternative technology and tools. I distributed the matrix to various faculty members in the formof a survey, the results of which are reported below. I didnot have a chance test the usefulness of the matrix for course design and delivery until recently when I began teaching online for the computer science department of a university located in one of the mountain states.

This paper presents that matrix and the faculty feedback fromthe subsequent survey. The survey asked faculty to choose the different tools and delivery systems according to instructional styles and to their experiences. Following the

report of those results, I relate my own case studies of thematrix’s use during two different online courses.

After the discussion of technology support and delivery, this article continues with background information on the useof learning and digital media objects by both faculty and students.

Learning and Technology Support and DeliveryThe matrix combines common learning outcomes and types with technological support and delivery tools. This matrix was the basis for the survey of faculty regarding their delivery preferences and usage when providing instruction for the different learning outcomes. In the matrix, learning was defined as having three aspects,

A. goals—what the instructor values for learning; B. objectives --What will students be able to do; and, C. needs—What students will value and use.

Instructional delivery was classified as face-to-face, asynchronous (or elearning), collaborative and social.

The learning outcomes i.e., skill development, reflection, active, etc., are composites of types of learning outcomes for adult learners as found in instructional design literature. The actual survey tool is in the appendix.

Matrix of Learning, Outcome Types, and Delivery ChoicesLEARNING Delivery Mode and/or Technological SupportGoals—what instructor values for learning;Objectives—what will students be able to do;Needs—what students will value and do

Face-to-face A. Classroom B. SeminarC. Online synchronous D. Voice Tools

Asynchronous (eLearning)A. Course ManagementSystemB. Web based instruction with email contactC. Podcasts, videos

Collaborative A. MUVEs, B. GamesC. Role playsD. Multi-media Organization/ Presentation tools

Social A. Blogs, wikis, discussionthreadsB. Media rich data bases

Outcome Types Choices for DeliverySkill development and practiceSkill applicationFeedback in real timePassive, knowledge based, proceduralActive, inquiry-basedLearner-centeredConstructivist,

construct meaningCollaboration with instructor and peersScaffolding from and/or toIntegrationInteraction with external resourcesLearning to learnValuing, reflecting

Survey Results for Learning and Choice of Types of Technological, Instructional Delivery:

Lr'g Delivery

f2f

Sem

f2f

lec

f2f

f2f

f2f

medi

a eL

eL w

ebeL

asse

ss

eL

Medi

a Col

game

sCol

role

PlC 0l

ment

orC ol

inte

rnSocB

Soc

Soc

1. Skill Dev & Practice

5 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 2 0 2 1 4 4 1

2. Skill application

2 1 5 3 3 2 0 3 4 3 2 1 3 3 3 0

3. Feedback Realtime

4 6 2 4 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 4 3 1

4. Value Reflect 7 0 0 3 6 1 3 4 0 2 3 2 2 2 8 2

5. Passive, knowledge

2 3 4 0 6 6 2 2 3 0 3 2 3 2 5 2

6. Active, inquiry

6 1 5 7 1 0 1 5 1 2 2 3 3 2 4 1

7. Construct meaning

7 0 3 2 3 3 1 5 3 1 4 0 0 4 5 2

8. Work w/inst/peers

5 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 1

9. Connect prior/new

3 2 3 5 2 2 2 4 0 0 1 2 4 2 6 1

10, Integrate ideas/disc

5 3 0 3 3 1 2 4 4 1 2 4 1 5 3 1

11. Integrate ext/reality

6 0 3 5 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 5 4 2 8 2

12. Learn to learn

6 4 2 3 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 2 5 3 4 4

Totals 58 24 30

41

34 21

20

39 23 19 25 27 28 34

57

18

Table of survey results of faculty listing choices of learning delivery technology for types of learning used.

Overall, considering all types of learning, the two areas of delivery which were chosen most by the faculty surveyed were Face-to-Face Seminar and Group Projects. The areas which were least chosen for delivery were those classified as Social MUVEs and

Collaboration-Games. However, games, internships and MUVEs were ranked higher when the faculty considered “Learning to Learn” to be their goal.

Delivery of Instruction Choices

Figure showing summary of instructional delivery choices

Certain types of learning delivery were preferred for specific types of learning outcomes. For example, when given choices for Learning to Learn, the faculty preferred face-to-face seminars but also thought that internships would be good delivery choices. When choosing a delivery system for feedbackin real time, the lecture was chosen by more than any other category followed by blogs and wikis. It is likely that the type of feedback influenced these choices. Lecture is a great way to give factual feedback to the entire class and blogs and wikis can be used to deliver both faculty and peer comments.

Figure shows faculty choices of delivery type for “Learning to Learn” outcome

Figures shows faculty choices of delivery type for “Realtime Feedback”

Discussion of ResultsThe survey data indicates some interesting trends. It is not surprising that face-to-face seminar was an instructional delivery method of choice for many of faculty for most of the types of desired learning outcomes. F2F seminar has the advantages of being very versatile, flexible and engaging for all participants. Seminars can also be held physically in one location or can take place online or in a synchronous or blended environment. However, in many cases, seminars are limited in the number of students who can be enrolled and who can participate. It is then not so surprising that group projects were chosen as being about equally effective for all learning goals as the seminar. Overall, lecture was not chosen as a delivery method for most types of desired learning outcomes with the exception of delivering feedback in real time. This could probably be interpreted as the faculty seeing lecture as an efficient and coherent means for delivering information and feedback on tests and group progress.

Applying the Matrix and Survey Results to the Design of an online Course

Case StudyDuring Spring and Summer Terms, 2010, I was able to test out various technological and instructional support tools and delivery methods while teaching doctoral courses for the Computer Science Department of an online, private university. The university’s program uses a blended approach. Students andfaculty meet face-to-face for a four-day residency at the beginning of the term. All other meetings are online using a course management system for asynchronous instruction and synchronously using Second Life or web conferencing. The discussion of these case studies is not meant to be a strict recipe for teaching and learning online. It does, however, provide examples of the use of the instructional support tools and the kinds of technology used in that support. It also provides some “lessons learned” for both myself and others.

Designing for Online Learning Instructing online require a lot of preparation and planning. Whether or not they are aware of it, online instructors recognize and incorporate all three aspects of learning when designing their course. They include their own values and goals, the administration’s objectives and the students’ valuesand needs. Following are the goals, objectives and needs for the courses in this case study.

Course Goals—What the Instructor Values for LearningFor the Business Strategies Emerging Media course, the instructor valued the new ideas and creative possibilities thatemerging technology tools brought to business organizations andother environments and wanted the students to recognize and appreciate these possibilities. The instructor was also concerned with providing alternative means of both instruction and presentation in the classroom and with exposing the students to ideas from academic areas outside of computer science—displaying how other disciplines adapted technology fortheir own uses. Finally, the instructor felt that since this was an introductory doctoral course, the students needed experience in hypothesis development and testing, academic research, and organizing and structuring writing skills.

For the second course, Usability and Interaction, the instructor valued accessibility and simplicity for interface design and wanted students to expand their experiences to include all users (Universal Design). The instructional approach was to practice the art of design and to test usability following user-centered formats and professional standards.

Course Learning Objectives—What Students will be able to doLearning objectives have a long history in course design. Theyare related to administrative needs and the institute’s accreditation. In the Business Strategies course, students were expected to teach themselves and others about the tools

called emerging technologies and to apply those technologies tobusiness strategies and the goals of various organizations. The students were also expected to:

● Identify and critically evaluate the strategy and tactics needed to leverage social media in the enterprise.

● Apply a problem-based learning approach to exploring social networks as viable business solutions.

● Research the relevant literature in the field and investigate the current best practices in social networks and Web media.

For the second course, Usability and Interaction, the core learning objectives were:

● Qualify and quantify what is commonly meant by “usable”.● Develop usability criteria for a product.● Design a usability experiment for a product.● Analyze data collected from a usability experiment.● Interpret usability data that indicates a potential

problem with a product.

Course Learning Needs—What Students will value and doStudents in online doctoral programs are generally older and working full-time. The students’ needs and desires, for the most part, are to extend their current career or to change careers. Some students also value learning for the sake of learning and want to contribute to their professions. Frequently the students want to integrate the course material and assignments into their work life and then move on to the next course or job.

Syllabus Usage and Pod CastsA tried and true axiom of the instructional process is that if you want something retained that you must test for it. If you want students to read the syllabus or listen to your pod casts,they need to see the its relevance or in the alternative, test them on its content. The syllabus is the contract for the course. It contains information that hopefully makes both the instructor’s and the students’ lives easier. The organization’s administrators require that certain policies be stated in these documents. Articles on syllabi development

recommend the inclusion of other information. The appendix contains a template for developing a syllabus for an online course. Without testing for the material contained in the two syllabi used for the courses being discussed, I can only say that the students were at best only slightly aware of the information that was contained in the syllabi. There are two reasons that could account for this. First syllabi for this institution are somewhat cookie cutter. Certain policies on grading, attendance, late assignments, and plagiarism are dictated for the institution and the students have already beenexposed to them in other courses. Secondly, the information that is most useful to the students is either contained in the course management system’s outline or is requested during residency and repeated during the synchronous sessions. Because of the contractual aspects of syllabi, the text versionis still quite important. I think of it much like the softwareagreements that everyone has to Check Off when in order to download the product.

I created welcoming pod casts for both courses. My intention was to motivate the students to begin their reading assignmentsbefore residency because it did not occur until the second weekof the term. The pod cast for the Emerging Media course also modeled a delivery type. Pod casting was an option for some of the assignments. Its effects were not measured, but for me, itwas a fun project and an experience in clarifying my own learning goals for the students. The pod cast for the second course outlined the learning objectives for that course. The pod casts were universally viewed. CS820 Welcome, Introduction, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoz1H4a46E EM820 Welcome, Introduction, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnaKY5YePAY

Other pod casts that were available under creative commons licenses were used as assignments. These pod casts had introductory explanations, accompanying questions and were graded. Needless to say, all participants watched these pod casts. Two pod casts were closely associated with authors of

the assigned text books and provided an alternative means to absorb their ideas.

Matching Goals, Outcomes and Objectives to DeliveryExample One Part of the instructor’s goals for the Emerging Media course included the students would recognize and appreciate the new ideas and creative possibilities that emerging technology tools brought to business organizations and other environment. The learning objective that closely matched this goal was Identify and critically evaluate the strategy and tactics needed to leverage social media in the enterprise. The delivery methods that were successfully chosen and used were the discussion forums and theestablishment of personal blogs. All forums and blogs had startdates but no ending dates. Their use was constant (the forums more so than the blogs). A rubrik for assessment was provided for guidance. When forums stopped appearing as part of the weekly activities, the students objected and new forums were added. Both of these technological delivery systems are asynchronous. Ideas, comments, support material were added to and discussed on the forums and blogs in the students own time frames, including additions and responses weeks after the original forums were started. While the forum became a group participatory medium, the blogs were available for individualized work. During the final synchronous class session in Second Life the students listed the forums as the part of the course that was most helpful and suggested that they be used to actually develop a group product.

During the second course an assignment included posting part oftheir usability testing project to the forum and eliciting feedback from their peers. The maximum grading points dependedon getting some feedback from peers. This little extra incentive is needed for some students for whom peer feedback has not been valued in the past. Additionally, as partial fulfillment of the administrative goals for the course, all students submitted a request to the Institutional Review Board prior to beginiing usability testing on their class project.

Example Two

The instructor also had a learning goal of providing alternative means of both instruction and presentation in the classroom and with exposing the students to ideas from academic areas outside of computer science—displaying how other disciplines adapted technology for their own uses. The administrative objective that was integrated with the goal was Research the relevant literature in the field and investigate the current best practices in social networks and Web media. Literature reviews and annotated bibliographies were assigned. The requirements for the Literature Review included posting it on the web as a presentation using a “cloud tool.” The annotated bibliographycould be delivered traditionally as a text document or it couldbe posted to the personal blog. Those produced and posted to ablog would have the advantage of peer input and advice. The grading criteria for blogs was relevancy and number of posts per week. Most students posted their annotated bibliographies to their blogs. The peer review aspect provided both assistance and competition.

An additional assignment related to the same goal and objectiverequired the students to describe a procedure for enhancing media literacy among their colleagues and friends and to present it in the form of a metaphor. This assignment was only 5% of the total grade, but produced poems, haiku, charts, cartoons and videos. It also illustrates a means of meeting the learning needs of the students, themselves.

Learning Needs—What Students Will Value and DoThis aspect of learning is the most ambiguous and the most difficult to identify and measure. In the case studies I attempted to identify students’ needs by providing extra creditassignments. These were busy adult learners and not all students could fit extra credit into their lives. Three students presented proposals for extra credit and two students actually completed extra credit projects. Subjectively they reflected those individual students’ needs. The projects were:

1. Build interactive, virtual museum displays in Second Life2. Compare and evaluate the experience of reading an ebook to

that of reading a bound copy

3. Find an organization that is in need of emerging media services and volunteer your time and talent

These examples of successful implementation of delivery, technology, goals and outcomes can be adapted and adopted in most online courses. The experiences also provided some general “lessons learned” for online instructors. The next section discusses those points and provides suggestions for allonline instructors.

General Lessons LearnedLearn as you go. When there is a valid reason or rationale, change dates and requirements for assignments. Be flexible while adhering to the general principles and goals that you outlined in your syllabus and in your head and heart.

At the same time, be specific as possible on details for assignments. For example not all papers have to be research papers even though to some students that appears to be the case. In the Emerging Media final paper, 80% of the papers were written as research papers even though I originally thought of the assignment as a white paper. Build a repertoire of sample assignments and provide models for things as simple as an annotated bibliography. It will save you time and your students will be less frustrated.

Develop an organization system of your own for dealing with assignments, questions, and responses. Tell students that electronic submissions must have their name (or initials) the assignment name and anything else that will allow you to organize and have version control. If the assignment is withinthe cloud, be sure to either download or bookmark.

Repetition is a form of instruction. It means that sometimes you have to state the same assignments, due dates and requirements in your syllabus, the course calendar, the course management system and during live meetings. Requests for the same information are not necessarily signs of students trying to work the system or of criticizing the course that you workedon so diligently.

Finally, organize, organize, organize and be ready for surprises.

Beyond the specifics of integrating goals, objectives and learning needs, another helpful addition to online instruction is the creation of digital media objects. Because they are flexible and changeable they can reused and updated often. Online environments are natural environments for their use. They can stored, linked, and shared using a variety of softwareand cloud tools. The next section covers some ideas and current research on the use of digital media objects and digital learning objects for both online and “live” classroom instruction.

Digital Media Objects (DMOs)Digital media objects:

● are fluid and changeable ● can be text, graphics, animations, audio, video, or photos● usually exist in more than one form ● are accessible, retrievable and searchable by others ● can be inputted and can be an output

Digital media objects are reusable and self-contained. They can also have other functionality, like a book object or a hyperlink object. Note: Hyperlinks are so common in documents that most people think the DMO is a link and want to functionally use it. For clarity when using a hyperlink as a DMO, the purpose should be apparent once the link is selected For more information on hyperlinks as originators of humanities-based computing see Strain and VanHoosier-Carey (2006). I have tried to maintain that rule in this paper.

Some Benefits of and Reasons for Using Digital Media ObjectsThe benefits of using digital media objects for instruction aremany and varied. A few are listed below:● Universal Instructional Design (UID) principles include

providing instruction that is equitable for diverse abilities and presentation formats for both instructor and student work that are available in alternative formats,

e.g., audio, video, graphical representations (Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, UConn, 2001, Nelson,1996, Bowe, F.G., 2000).

● The encoding and decoding steps in information processing models are clarified by using more than one communication channel with a greater chance that the purpose of the message is delivered. Additionally, providing more than onecommunication channel, i.e., audio, visual, textual, graphical, can expand the meaning constructed between information sources and information receivers. (Shannon-Weaver model, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver_model)

● Visual data or graphical representations can convey linear or hierarchal relationships and much more. They can comparedata, offer alternative viewpoints, display evidence, and are more open to interpretation than plain text. They allowviewers to ”contextualize, compare, narrate and recast evidence” (Tufte, 2006, p. ).

● Visual displays can provide detail, “reveal data patterns … evoke automatically specific mathematical operations . . . can attract and hold people’s attention. . . improving the communication of risk and understanding. (Lipkus & Hollands1999, p. )

● Increasingly companies and businesses are using visual displays and other types of media to communicate complex ideas and processes to a global audience for whom English isa second language (Flaim, 2008). In the same way, online education programs need to be able to communicate their ideas and concepts with culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

● Views on learning that emphasize pattern seeking, multiple perspectives, parallel processing and the assembling of pastexperience, situation specific knowledge and new concepts and/or novel uses lend themselves to the use of media as objects. For example, digital media objects would work well

with cognitive flexibility theory that encourages the representation of knowledge in various ways and for a variety of purposes and the ability to construct concepts from different perspectives (Boger-Mehall, http://www.kdassem.dk/didaktik/l4-16.htm ).

● The provision of DMOs empowers students to construct and relate their story and not someone else’s story. A story about African women who were raped filmed by an outsider does not deliver as true a story as one that was filmed by the woman actually victimized. (Conely, 2008)

Note: These usages and benefits will only be realized and expanded as the processes for the storage and retrieval of digital media objects mature. Learning objects, in the digital era are searchable and contain metatags (Hill, Hannafin, &Recesso, 2007). It is equally important that DMOs be searchable, retrievable and taggable. The methods used to storeand retrieve learning objects and DMOs will impact their usage and utility for different types of learning and instructions. For this reason, the system used for storing and retrieving DMOs for instruction must be designed to facilitate usage by both faculty and students. Bannan-Ritland, et al. (2002) suggest that:

Learners could not only create and tag their own objects but also view, adapt, and manipulate objects created by others (where permitted) in the process of constructing knowledge. Guided mechanisms or frameworks that prompt a metacognitive or process-based approach . . . could be created by instructors and also housed as learning objects. (p. 82, Bannan-Ritland. etal.)

Digital Learning ObjectsDigital Learning Object(s) (DLOs) are units that can be fitted together any number of ways to produce customized learning experiences. According to Rachel Smith (2004) it is the “Grouping of material in a meaningful way that is tied toan educational objective.”. DLOs can be documents, pictures, simulations, movies, sounds, and so on. If digital can be delivered or accessed over the internet or across a network and usually they are flexible, cost-effective, reusable and customizable. The benefits of DLOs include:

● Better understanding of more abstract and complex conceptsby describing and characterizing relationships and evidence of cause and effect (Tufte 1997)

● Supporting instruction and multi-modal learning● Promoting proficiency and improved learning and retention

of content● Scaffolding with other objects possible● Application in cross-disciplinary studies● Customization of content to meet individual learner needs.

Digital Learning Objects consist of:

Content Interface MetaData*Documents, pictures,simulations, movies,sounds, etc.

Medium through which users interact with object. Can provide alternativeformats (i.e., audio, visual) and learner control of start, stop, and pace.

Information about the object itself (author, creator, general subject area, copyright)

*This is useful but not mandatory for learning objects

Another important attribute of digital learning objects that differentiates them from traditional, static learning objects is that they are more under the control of the learner with thepotential for individual interpretation and constructed meaning.

Where there are several characteristics of digital learning objects that make them unique from traditional, analog learning objects (slides, worksheets, diagrams, forexample), contemporary digital learning objects fundamentally differ from the analog in that for the most part they are designed to be subject to individual student/user control and therefore subject to independent exploration. (Meskill & Anthony, 2007)

This potential can be carried further when we start using digital media objects for understanding and expressing complex learning.

SummaryFaculty embrace online instruction for some of same reasons that the students have for using enrolling in it. There is choice of content and programs. There is flexibility of time. It is seen as preparation for work in this global economy and it can provide almost limitless perspectives. Also, some institutions require it. Most institutions found that students, even those thought to me media literate were not totally prepared to learn online and as a result provide pre-course instruction in the use of technological tools. Faculty need even more support in tool usage and need to be able to implement the right tools and to integrate them with their own learning goals, the administration’s learning objectives and the students’ needs.

ReferencesBannan-Ritland, B, Dabbagh, N & Murphy, K. (2002), Learning object systems as constructivist learning environments: Related assumptions, theories and applications. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, Association for Educational communications & Technology. Chart of the Week http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/cow3/about.htm#Related Cohen, D.J. (2006). From Babel to knowledge: Data mining large digital collections, D-Lib Magazine, 12(3) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march06/cohen/03cohen.html Conely, K. (MAY 2008). Digital Media Object as Evidence: Nonlinear Editing as an Operational Research Tool for Enhanced Historical Narrative Analysis Unpublished dissertation, An Eyewitness Account: The Nazi’s Ascension to Power as documented in Charlotte Salomon’s Painted Epic, Life? Or Theatre? Flaim, K.B., (2008) The napkin sketch, Fast Company, Issue 124, April, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-napkin-sketch.html

Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College PublishersLipkus, I.M. & Hollands, J.G. (1999). The visual communicationof risk, Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, N. 25, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Merrill, M. David, (2002). Knowledge objects and mental models. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Bloomington, IN: Agency for Instructional Technology, Association for Educational communications & Technology. Meskill, C. & Anthony, N. (2007), The language of teaching wellwith learning objects, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(1), www.jolt. merlot .org/ Norman, D.A. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.Olgren, C. & Ploetz, P. (2007). Developing and using learning objects: Implications for course content strategies. In P. Northrup (Ed.) Learning Objects for Instruction, Hershey, PA : IGI Global, Pollock, G. (ed). 2007. Conceptual Odysseys: Passages to Cultural Analysis. London: I. B. Taurus, Rafferty, P. and Hidderley, R., (2005). Indexing Multimedia and Creative Works: The Problems of Meaning and Interpretation, Burlington, VT : Ashgate. Silveira, R.A.. Gomes, E.R. & Vicari, R., 2006. Century-impactof ICT and digital resources. In D.Kumar & J. Turner (Eds.) International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 210, Education for the 21", eds. D. Kumar, and Turner J., (Boston: Springer), pp. 411-415,Smith, Rachel S., 2004, Guidelines for Authors of Learning Objects, NMC: the New Media Consortium,Strain, E. & VanHoosier-Carey, G. (2003). Eloquent interfaces:Humanities-based analysis in the age of hypermedia. In Mary E. Hocks &Michelle R. Kendrick, (Eds.) Eloquent Images: Word and Image in the Age of New Media, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Tufte, Edward R., (2005) Visual and Statistical Thinking: Displays of Evidence for Making Decisions, Cheshire, Conn: Graphics Press LLC.

Tufte, Edward R., (2006) The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within, Cheshire, Conn : Graphics Press LLC.Tufte, Edward R., (1997). Visual Explanations. Cheshire, Conn: Graphics Press LLC.