What have we learned? More of that anon, but for now I’m going to cover the the Seels and Glasgow Model in this E-Learning Curve Blog series on a systems approach to instruction design.

Now read on…

In a 2008 article called Can we reinvent e-learning? I asserted that

ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resembles the philosophy and practice to this discipline’s methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.

In my view this is no bad thing: the reality is that Learning & Development is a pragmatic discipline, tasked with facilitating individuals in their endeavors to learn, educators would be poorly served if the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical epistemologies of the domain did not at least tacitly acknowledge the practical challenges associated with implementing learning programs. 

Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow’s Model (see Figure 1) reflect this assertion; they situate their understanding of ISD and their model on the thesis that design occurs in the context of project management (p. 177).

Figure 1. The Seels and Glasgow Model
[Click to enlarge]

Their model is distributed across the three phases of project management:

1. Needs Analysis Management
2. Instructional Design Management
3. Implementation Management

This distribution allows a learning program (or project) to be planned, resourced, and managed much as any other project in an organization is arranged.

In this model, the first phase (Needs Analysis) includes the establishment of the instructional goals, requirements, and context for the courseware. Next, the Instructional Design phase begins when Needs Analysis is completed: this second phase consists of six activities:

1. task analysis
2. instructional analysis
3. objectives and tests
4. formative evaluation
5. materials development
6. instructional strategy and delivery systems

- all of which are linked via feedback and interaction communications channels. In Phase Three of the model (Implementation and Evaluation) the development and production of materials, training delivery, and summative evaluation are undertaken.

As is usual in a systems-based approach to ID, the phases in this model can are typically applied in a linear fashion, but they are often applied iteratively. As Gustafson and Branch highlight, the steps in the instructional design phase are interdependent and concurrent, and multiple iterations of this process may occur during this part of the development lifecycle (2001, p.43).

In this sense – and reflecting on my ADDIE/PM remarks, we can say that this is a product-oriented approach to content development. According to Chen

Developing an instructional project involves skill sets ranging from project management and interface design to sound preparation and programming…Design teams represent various fields of expertise (producers, instructors, editors, etc.).

(2007 pp.2-3)

Managing potentially large teams and and hundreds (if not thousands) of media assets needs substantial resources and commitment, and requires strong project management to stay on time and budget at the appropriate quality of outputs.  To support this objective, Seels and Glasgow focus on the importance of well-designed materials, the need to identify and understand communication patterns within organizations, develop strategies for diffusion of innovations, and the importance of supporting learners.

Interestingly, Seels and Glasgow also include the concept of diffusion of innovations in their model:

The strategies that lead to diffusion are most effective if used during all the phases of a project.

(1998, p. 178)

They consider that when their model is applied ,the phases are generally linear in nature but

it is not necessary to complete a step before proceeding, and the order can be changed so that steps can be performed concurrently.

(1998, p 179)

We can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems philosophy epitomized in ADDIE quite will, while acknowledging the needs and limitations of the practical application of instructional design. Much like 3PD, formative evaluation via a feedback mechanism (multiple iterations rather than recursion) is a distinguishing (but not unique) characteristic of Seels and Glasgow’s approach.

Next time: What have we learned? The implications of Instructional Systems Design for E-Learning
___________

References:

Chen, I. (2007) Instructional Design Methodologies. In: Kidd, T. & Song, H. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology. IGI Global

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional Technology. Columbus OH: Merrill Publishing Co.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions. (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

–

Given the ASSURE Model’s constructivist epistemology and successful implementation in early 21st Century educational contexts, you may be surprised to learn that the ASSURE methodology has it’s roots very firmly located the venerable, behaviorist-influenced (and occasionally criticized) Events of Instruction, devised by Robert M. Gagne.*

Now read on…

According to Kevin Kruse (2006)

Robert Gagne is considered to be the foremost researcher and contributor to the systematic approach to instructional design and training. Gagne and his followers …focus [...] on the outcomes – or behaviors – that result from training.

I would assert that familiarity with Gagne’s work, and educators’ drive to continually investigate the New have perhaps led to a certain disregard (in some quarters) for the substantial contribution Gagne made to our discipline. For example, to characterize Gagne as a Behaviorist is, in my view, to underestimate the sophistication of his theories, the elegance of his models, and the relevance of his work today. Indeed, Walter Wager (2004) states that

Gagne didn’t feel that the behaviorist theories were adequate to explain human learning. Rather, Gagne should be considered one of the early cognitive psychologists.

(p.296)

As I have previously indicated, his work still influences theorists and learning practitioners today. During his career, Gagne primarily concerned himself with understanding "the process of learning" (1972, p.1). In his life, he was central to the development of five instructional theories:

1. the five domains of learning
2. events of instruction
3. conditions of learning
4. role of the media
5. integrated goal theory (Wager, 2004)

Gagne’s text The Conditions of Learning (first published in 1965) attempted to identify and describe the cognitive processes that occur in learning: the eponymous ‘conditions of learning.’ His philosophy was influenced by the concepts of cognitive mapping, as well as the information processing interpretation of the events that occur when (adult) learners are presented with various stimuli. In The Conditions of Learning, Gagne argued that that internal and external conditions of learning must be created to stimulate the desired learning response.

To understand the sequence of activities needed to support learning, Gagne suggested that tasks for

acquiring the intellectual skills needed should be organized according to complexity.

(Hriko, 2008, p.353)

He argued that information underwent a series of internal processes before being stored in long-term memory; he developed a nine-step process called the Events of Instruction to represent the manifestation of the external factors that influenced the acts associated with the process, which "correlate to and address the conditions of learning" (Hriko, 2008 p.353). Table 1 shows these instructional events in the left column and describes the associated mental processes in the right column.

Table 1. Nine Events of Instruction (after Gagne, 2004)

More…

* Yes, his name is Robert Gagné (with an acute aigu ), but English speakers typically don’t enter accents into Google, and I’m nothing if not pragmatic…
___________

References:

Gagne, R. M., (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange 3(1),pp.1-8.

Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. and Keller, J.M. (2004). Principles of Instructional Design (5th.Ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.

Kruse, K. (2006). Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction: An Introduction. E-Learning Guru. Internet: Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art3_3.htm Accessed 12 June 2009

Hriko, M. (2008) Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction. In: Tomei, L.A., Morris, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration. Information Science Reference

Wager, W. (2004) Robert M. Gagne. In: Kovalchick, A., and Dawson, K. (Eds.), Education & Technology: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO

–

The ASSURE Model is a constructivist approach to training design developed by Robert Heinich and Michael Molenda of Indiana University and James D. Russell of Purdue University in the 1990’s.

ASSURE is an acronym derived from the key verb descriptor of the tasks associated with the approach. As such, the model proposes a six-step guide for planning and delivering instruction; while not specifically designed for e-learning, in practice it the methodology seems to align to the requirements of designing courseware for that modality. 

The steps (or tasks) are described in detail in Table 1:

Table 1 ASSURE Model components (after Human Resource Development website)

While the learner’s needs, the instructional goals, and the availability or desirability of particular media are the drivers for the design and development, Gunter and Baumbach (Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia, 2003) state that

The instructional goals should be the focus, not the goal. When integrating technology, it should always be viewed as a tool that assists… the learning needs of the student. The teacher becomes a mentor and colearner, who is actively engaged in enabling students to access, analyze, apply, and create information electronically.

(pp.193-194)

More…

___________

References:

Gunter, G. & Baumbach, D. (2004). Curriculum Integration. In: Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia. (Kovalchick, A. & Dawson, K. Eds). ABC-CLIO; illustrated edition

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2002). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Human Resource Development [Internet] Available from: http://itchybon1.tripod.com/hrd/id15.html Accessed 10th June 2009

–

According to Rod Sims (2008) there are six factors are essential to achieving engaging, interactive and memorable learning experiences (see Figure 1). The 3PD Model supports these factors by establishing the build-enhance-maintain process as core to successful project implementation. 

Figure 1. Six factors influencing e-learning design (after Sims, 2008)
[Click to enlarge]

Sims called this model Proactive Design for Learning (PD4L): the six factors  that enable the design of effective online teaching and learning are:

1. Theory-based, ensuring that decisions are based on contemporary approaches to teaching and learning.
2. Innovative and relevant (incorporating elements of proactive evaluation documented by Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2002).
3. Team-based, with team members having the relevant and appropriate competencies to engage with and complete the design tasks (Sims & Koszlaka, 2008).
4. Emergent, allowing (where appropriate) the interactions between course participants to establish and introduce course content (Irlbeck, Kays, Sims & Jones, 2006).
5. Interactive, enabling participants to actively explore the relevance and application of the course content (Allen, 2003; Sims, 2006).
6. Personalized, such that participants are able to apply their own context and situation to the learning outcomes (Sims & Stork, 2007).

People (and organizations) do not adopt new ideas at the same time. Some adopt ideas when they are first introduced; others wait for varying periods of time; some never adopt an idea. In The Diffusion Process (1957), Bohlen and Beal maintain that

…the time span over which people adopt ideas will vary from practice to practice.

(p.4).

The authors’ research indicated that complexity of practice is a significant factor in determining the value of a diffused idea or technology in organizations. They defined the following categories of complexity:

• Change in material and equipment
• Improved practice
• Innovation
• Change in enterprise
• Cost

Three-Phase Design and it’s subsequent iterations are representative of educators’ responses to the challenges and opportunities afforded by the introduction, diffusion, and adoption of Web-based technologies in education: traditional approaches to instructional design do not necessarily fit the requirements of online learning. Of particular note in this context is the emergence of Constructivism as a theoretical framework for the development of online learning programs. In the PD4L Model, for example, Sims cites

theories including the social formation of the mind (Vygotsky, 1978), meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968), situated cognition (Clancey, 1997), constructivism (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivism (Siemens, 2004).

(p.9)

He continues:

Together with a pragmatic, interpretivist epistemology, the PD4L model focuses on creating teaching and learning environments where relevant, meaningful knowledge is constructed by the individual.

When compared to the purely Functionalist (in the anthropological sense of the term) methodology of ISD, we can see that models like Sims and Jones’ are attempting to accommodate the power and flexibility afforded by digitally mediated technologies in the context of acquisition of skills, knowledge construction, and a more experiential view of learning, that the traditional systems-based approach.

More…
___________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957). The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Malinowski, B. 1990. A Scientific Theory of Culture. Reissue edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, (5th ed.). Simon & Schuster International.

Sims, R. (2008). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments, In: J. Willis (Ed), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Practical Examples.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-147.

Sims, R. & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

–

Figure 1 Influences on Learning Theories (after Stahl, G. 2003)

The heterogeneous nature of learning theories, with sometimes subtle and occasionally significant divergences in their character usually serves only to confuse an already complex domain: even gathering an understanding of the key terms associated with the subject (see Figure 2) can be an overwhelming task for those new to the discipline of instructional design.

Figure 2 Tag Cloud of Learning Theory Terms

So how do you choose a learning theory for your instructional design?

In their 1993 article Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features, Ertmer and Newby use Dale H. Schunk’s definitive questions as well as two more of their own to enable those engaged in instructional design to distinguish between learning theories at the highest level. Schunk (1991) defines five questions to distinguish learning theories:

1. How does learning occur?
2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer occur?
5. What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Ertmer and Newby include two more questions for instructional designers:

1. What basic assumptions / principles are relevant to instructional design?
2. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Based upon these criteria, we can say that instructional design can be characterized as being effective in the contexts described as below:

__________

References:

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-70.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Macmillan.

Stahl, G. (2003). Building Collaborative Knowing: Elements Of A Social Theory Of CSCL, IN J.W. Strijbos, P.Kirschner & R. Martins (ed.), What we know about CSCL in higher education, Amsterdam: Kluwer.

–

it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two

(McGivney, 1999, p.1).

Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson & Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

More to follow…

__________

References:
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (2002) Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

–

Now read on…

In their 2004 paper Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning (Naismith, Lonsdale,  Sharples &  Vavoula), consider the importance of taking an approach to m-learning that

moves away from the dominant view of mobile learning as an isolated activity to explore mobile learning as a rich, collaborative and conversational experience, whether in classrooms, homes or the streets of a city. …how we might draw on existing theories of learning to help us evaluate the most relevant applications of mobile technologies.

(p.1)

Table 1. Applying Learning Theories to M-Learning (after Naismith et al, 2004)

As yet there is no comprehensive ‘grand theory of mobile learning’ – nor do I expect that there will be any time soon. As I move forward through this series of posts, one of the areas I will consider is integrating pedagogy for the use of mobile devices that in a number of areas. In much the same way as we have many categories of devices, we will discover that there are many ways to integrate learning on mobile devices using a number of instructional designs, developmental approaches and delivery models. I support the view that  one of the great strengths of m-learning (and indeed e-learning) is it’s facility to transcend traditional learning environments like the classroom or training center, and to combine different elements in ways that are appropriate to the learning activities to be supported.

More…

______________________

References:

Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Santelices, R,. Rodríguez, P., Zurita, G., Correa, M. and Cautivo, R. (2004) Teaching science with mobile computer supported collaborative learning (MCSCL). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. JungLi, Taiwan: IEEE Computer Society, 67-74

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. and Sharples, M.  (2004) Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning. NESTA Futurelab Series, Report 11. [Internet] Available from: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm Accessed 15 February 2009.

Pask, AGS (1976) Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Zurita, G, Nussbaum, M and Sharples, M. (2003) Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of hand-held computers in the classroom. Proceedings of Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, Italy: Springer-Verlag, 193-208

Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M (2004) Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected hand-held computers. Computers & Education, 42(3): 289-314

–

1. Providing complex learning environments that incorporate authentic activity. Constructivists argue that learners should learn to solve the types of complex problem they will face in real life. Learning how to do this is difficult unless complex and authentic learning environments are available to the learners.
2. Providing for social negotiation as an integral part of learning. Bruner (1986) explains that learning is a cultural interchange between group members. Collaboration creates an opportunity for learners to share their understandings with others and to have others do the same with them. This provides multiple perspectives to each learner, and this negotiation process between peers should lead to enhanced understanding.
3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. Because learning skills, behaviors and knowledge can be diverse and complex, constructivists believe that to achieve complete understanding the learner must examine the material from multiple perspectives. If they are not supported in this endeavor, the learner will achieve only a partial understanding of the material. Multiple modes of representation allow the learner to view the same content through different sensory modes.
4. Nurture reflexivity. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) characterize reflexivity as “the ability of students to be aware of their own role in the knowledge construction process.” (p.172). It could also be described as the learner taking ownership of their own thinking and learning processes. Driscoll (1994) assets that reflexivity and by extension critical thinking are central attributes in the constructivist methodology, as it enables learners to understand how and why cognition creates meaning. This enables learners to attain goals such as reasoning, understanding multiple perspectives, and expressing and defending their own beliefs.
5. The last condition Driscoll describes is to “emphasize student-centred instruction.” Bruner (1966) calls this “discovery learning”. By obtaining knowledge by themselves, learners select and transform information, construct knowledge, and make decisions in the context of a cognitive structure that provides meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”. Students are actively engaged in determining what and how they will study or gain understanding.

These principles and conditions position the constructivist approach to learning as an appropriate orientation for learning sans frontiers; using technologies like the Internet, websites and virtual learning environments, applying collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based mechanisms, making Open Source Software and Course- and Content Management Systems accessible to learners, and using e-learning applications like online conferencing and collaboration tools could be the foundation for these multiple constructivist conditions for learning. (Duffy & Cunningham 1996, Driscoll 1994, Schank 1994)

These characteristics provide an appropriate framework for knowledge workers to learn (and for the learning intervention), given that their ongoing development is based in the context of already-established cognitive schemata (from the learners’ perspective), the knowledge and skills are applied to solve real-world problems, and their expertise (behaviors) are typically used in collaboration with their peers to enhance the performance of organizations.

___________

References:

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen D. H. (Ed) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Schank, R. (1994) Active Learning Through Multimedia, IEEE Multimedia, 1(1), pp.69-78.

–

Any company that aspires to succeed in the tougher business environment …must first resolve a basic dilemma: success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning, yet most people don’t know how to learn. What’s more, those members of the organization that many assume to be the best at learning are, in fact, not very good at it.

(Argyris, C. 1991)

Over the next couple of weeks (taking digressions where appropriate) I will examine the significance of his work (focusing in particular on single-loop and double-loop learning) on organizational learning systems.

Today however, I will begin by reminding you of the basis for Chris Argyris’ work: Constructivism.

In her comprehensive reference text Psychology of learning for instruction, Marcy Driscoll describes constructivism as having

…multiple roots in psychology and philosophy, among which are the cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interactional and cultural emphases of Vygotsky and Bruner, the contextual nature of learning, the active learning of Dewey, the epistemological discussions of von Glasersfeld and the paradigm and scientific revolutions of Thomas Kuhn.

(1994, p.375)

Constructivism is an approach to learning based on the premise that cognition, or learning, is the result of mental construction: it is an active process in which learners construct new ideas, skills and behaviors based upon their prior and current knowledge, behavior and skill assets. The learner transforms information, constructs knowledge, and makes decisions based upon extant cognitive structures or mental models. These cognitive structures – what Roger Schank calls “scripts” in his Dynamic Memory Model (1982) – provide meaning and organization to experiences and allow the individual to go “beyond the information given” (Bruner, 1974). Even though there are numerous interpretations of constructivism, several central concepts inhabit all constructivist theories. Cunningham and Duffy (1996) identified two major similarities that are the foundation of all constructivist thought. They are that “learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge” and “instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather that communicating knowledge” (1996, p.172).

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this series of posts.

…and I will do this tomorrow.

____________________

References:

Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review Reflections 4(2). [Internet]. Available from: http://www.velinperformance.com/downloads/chris_argyris_learning.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2008]

Bruner, J. S. (1974) Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

Cunningham, D. J. & Duffy, T. M. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen. D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Schank, R. (1982) Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

–

Table 1 Michael Eraut’s typology of non-formal learning (2000, p.129)

References:

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

–