TPACK and IPAC a critique in the age of the Flipped Learning Classroom.

Introduction

There are a series of digital learning frameworks such as SAMR, RAT, TPACK that enable people to think about how people interact with technology and learning as suggested by Terrell (2018), see Appendix 1. However there are a number of others including University of Hull’s Professor Kevin Burden and his colleagues from the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia who in 2012 came up with the iPAC conceptual framework that outlines a series of areas that allow for the interaction and delivery of learning via mobile devices (MTTEP, online, 2018) see Appendix 3.?The iPAC and TPACK frameworks are what I would like to critique in this essay in relation to flipped learning networks (Eighty Six, Online, 2014). With a view to seeing if the parameters of the existing iPAC and TPACK frameworks are actually relevant in 2018. The TPACK model as deliberated on by Mishra and Koehler, (2006), see Appendix 2, extends Shulman’s (1982-1997) work on the concept of ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ this idea of his at the time launched a new period of research in regards to teaching and teacher education (Shulman, Online, 2018).?

In 2018 we use the concept of ‘flipped learning’ to define the relationship between teacher and students as something akin to an exploratory research project, it is more ubiquitous than a traditional learning environment.?The teacher and student don’t necessarily attend the classroom in the same respect and the use of ‘break out’ sessions or workshops is more akin to a ‘flipped learning’ environment than a traditional classroom. Rows of seats and students facing the teacher have definitely been outlawed in a ‘flipped learning’ model, in favour of a classroom with no focal point for the teacher anymore and information being pre-sent to students for their attention and them acting on it rather than it being disseminated to them via the teacher in the classroom. In some respects it is a more asynchronous process than a synchronous process due to the students and teachers not all converging on one fixed point to learn and teach (FlippedLearning, Online, 2014). The concept of ‘flipped learning’ was developed by two high school teachers Bergman and Sam’s (2004) in Colorado, USA. At the time Bergman and Sam’s (2004) utilised a bolt on to ‘Microsoft Power Point’ (2004) that allowed the teachers to annotate and embedded notes and audio to their presentations. Bergman and Sam’s (2004) notes could be used to facilitate the learning process to those students who couldn’t attend classes due to distance, or who had become ill during the learning program and needed to catch up. Bergman and Sam’s (2004) coined the phrase, ‘pre-broadcasting’ a way of pre-sending or providing information to learners given their location so that they could still interact with the curriculum. Thus ‘the flipped classroom concept’ started to become another way of delivering learning utilising technology and has in 2018 developed into an industry (Eighty Six, Online, 2014). The basic premise of ‘flipped learning’ is to pre-load learners with the course curriculum and allowing the pedagogy to unfold more in an ‘andragogic’ adult fashion rather than through a more behaviouristic childlike pedagogical approach that rather tells learners where and how to learn. The board of the organisation Flipped Learning Network (FLN), (2014) defined what the ‘flipped learning’ concept was all about as since the advents of its creation it has become a very misunderstood concept and way of learning. They also define the terms, ‘flipped classroom and ‘flipped learning’ as being entirely two different things. For ‘flipped learning’ to actually occur according to the board of this organisation they devised the, Four Pillars of F-L-I-P’. These consisted of (F), A flexible environment.

My new framework P-PATCK (Partnering, Pedagogy and Technological Content Knowledge), reflects the ‘flipped learning’ partnering learning paradigm as developed by Prensky (2010), and this does not requiring the TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy And Content Knowledge), (2009) but it still requires TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) and TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge). This is because TPACK (2009) is not relevant in the ‘flipped learning’ pedagogical learning paradigm as the nature of the pedagogy by design doesn’t require it. TPACK (2009) cannot reside in this new framework due to technology not being able to automatically drive the pedagogy. In a flipped learning scenario technology could be redundant all together, there is a choice. So if Mishra and Koehler developed a program to introduce teachers to technology and pedagogical approaches today they couldn’t use their old framework as it is based entirely around technology as an approach to drive the pedagogy, e.g.: it was a framework to introduce teachers to learn how to deliver their curriculum and embed technology into the process. In a new Prensky (2010) type of partnering pedagogical approach that might not be the case thus P-PATCK reflects this change. Technology is not necessarily removed or redundant in any respect it is just shifted into a position of use that if required can be utilised within the new framework. If we present learners with information in a ‘flipped learning’ scenario we are presenting them with the materials for their learning to occur before they ever meet the teacher in the classroom. This could be in the form of a designed program on a digital learning platform that could be accessed via the internet or in any other form such as via a USB stick or other storage device. We could have for example schemes of work, briefs, and any other related outcomes that we want the learner to look at along with a detailed description of the aims and objectives of the program. This could be in the form of a module handbook and links to all manner of evidence either digitally managed or held within a portfolio that could be accessed via a media device for example. Or we could pre-broadcast information for the ‘flipped learning’ course in a way that again details what is expected from them, this could be in the form of a webinar for example, thus we are essentially allowing learners to assimilate the information so they can put the learning together themselves this is what we term an ‘andragogic’?approach to learning. This concept by its very nature of interaction relies upon the learner to create their own varied pedagogical approach, irrespective of any technological pedagogical approach such as TPACK (2009), making TPACK (2009) redundant in that particular process as technology might not be the main driver of the learning curve for certain learners. We might utilise technology to deliver the learning package to the group of learners but there is nothing that says with a P-PATCK (2018) framework approach that technology should be used by the teacher or the learner from that point onwards. Essentially we don’t know exactly what each learner is going to do so we cannot determine the technological pedagogical approach in relation to the content that is being used by the learner, if it is to be used at all. I am therefore assuming that some of TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) is used but possibly varied due to the learners abilities to design that particular pedagogical route themselves and dependant on their actual technological knowledge. If it is under their own volition, assuming an ‘andragogic’ process then it is a knowledge related to this pedagogy that has been formed to develop their learning concepts and results so therefore equalling TPK?(Technological Pedagogical Knowledge). We can also assume TCK (Technological Content Knowledge) is in play as the learners will need to possess some technological knowledge in relation to the content supplied and also through the content that they also derive from the process of learning autonomously, again if they choose to use it (See, Appendix 4).?This leaves the TPACK (2009) Model pretty much redundant within the ‘flipped learning scenario’ in 2018 as it is a learning paradigm that is not reliant on technological driven content that forms the pedagogical nature of the curriculum. In fact in a ‘flipped classroom’ approach we cannot accurately define the pedagogy or the curriculum due its intrinsic and somewhat personal and erratic nature as directed by the learner and sometimes the teachers. For example in traditional teaching or planning we would devise lesson plans and a scheme of work that is very prescribed but we cannot accurately lesson plan a flipped classroom session, it is impossible because we cannot predict the active differentiation that is going to occur for each learner in their own time and space related to their own pedagogical journey. It is of the learners design not necessarily the teachers. Content and aims and objectives can be designed and presented to the learners of course, and some form of scheme of work can be established. But the parameters are more intransigent with active differentiation being more aligned to the learning process than a traditional ‘didactic’ learning approach that is favoured in most mainstream education establishments in 2018. In a current mainstream learning environment everybody starts the curriculum together and they make the journey together via every lesson that is of course planned and delivered week by week, month by month until completion and then norm referencing occurs via a summative examination or via a criterion based response such as a portfolio that is then assessed. Generally a flipped classroom type approach relies upon the learner creating their own internal lesson plan that uses external ways of approaching their learning as they desire it, of course fully supported by their teacher who should be able to manage the pedagogical process. In some flipped classroom approaches such as the Stillwater Area Public Schools project in the USA, the teachers embarked on what they called a ‘flipped professional’ development project that utilised technology experts and the initial assessment of their learners to determine a more flipped learning approach to their school sessions. Whilst the school ‘flipped’ their classrooms already the ‘flipped professional’ development training helped the school to adjust the teachers to a more appropriate way of planning and delivering, given the use of the flipped classroom method (Stillwater,Online,2013). The learning approach with this kind of education differs greatly from that of a traditional classroom and it could be that the student’s peers possibly even self-assess the learning outputs not the teachers.

What is iPAC?

?

iPAC (2012) is a specific framework related to mobile technologies and in particular applications that are utilised on mobile devices that allow learners to interact with learning based upon these applications. iPAC (2012)is actually a mobile tool-kit for teachers and like PCK by Shulman (1987) it was introduced as a vehicle for teachers and educators to work with to further define the use of mobile technology within their own pedagogical frameworks, allowing them to develop their own unique learning paradigms in the process (iPAC, Online, 2018). The work on iPAC by Burden (2012) and his colleagues from the University of Technology in Sydney, is a lot more up-to-date in its assumptions than TPACK (2009), it is suggesting by its very nature of mobile engagement to be more forward thinking and less dependent on TPACK (2009) because the learner is allowed to be autonomous with the guidance of their teacher. Whilst the teacher might have some idea of what the mobile application can potentially do they cannot fully determine the path the learner will create by using the technology. The actual learning curve is as spontaneous as the learner if they are allowed to interact specifically with the software and what it can achieve. This makes sense as TPACK (2009) as developed by Mishra and Koehler, (2006) was born from Shulman (1982-1997) and PCK, TPACK (2009) was a concept that had to have all the key parameters, ‘Technology,?Pedagogy and Content Knowledge’ combined to make the learning relevant in this particular era. iPAC (2012)however was created through a study of working with schools and classrooms in 2012 onwards and therefore reflects the paradigm shift from TPACK (2009) to a new way of thinking and looking at learning curricula and pedagogy based around mobile devices and software applications. I don’t think the move away from TPACK (2009) was necessarily considered in the development of the iPAC (2012) framework as such but it is interesting to see how the iPAC (2012) framework has evolved from the TPACK (2009)model due to the technology considerations it placed as important to the learners at the time of its conception. The key concepts of the iPAC (2012) framework, ‘Authenticity, Collaboration and Personalisation’ all arranged in a Maslow (1943) type pyramid design that can be dissected into three components rather than the Maslow trade mark hierarchical layers. This design is indicative of the authors need to show the interactive elements between the disciplines of interaction related to the subsequent areas of engagement with software and the related narrative created by these software application driven processes. But how does iPAC (2012) as a pedagogical framework relate to Bergman and Sams (2004) exposition with their PowerPoint add on?

iPAC – How has the Maslow triangle changed?

?

Analysis of the different sections of the iPAC (2012) framework, e.g.: Authenticity, Collaboration and Personalisation, does get closer to the ‘flipped learning’ pedagogical paradigm. iPAC (2012) heralded the ‘authentic mobile learning pedagogy’ method very much centred exclusively on learning with any mobile device, such as an iPhone, iPad etc. There is also a reporting tool that allows all concerned to review the use of learners technology and also their learning experiences using mobile technology (iPac, Online, 2018). iPAC (2012) authors refer to Authenticity, Collaboration and Personalisation as, ‘Signature Pedagogies’, they then break them down into various other sub-constructs. So it’s a mobile pedagogy, and if you analyse the sub constructs it does fit into the ‘andragogic’ (1980) learning paradigm, this being an autonomous world of interaction that is technology based.

Furthermore, ‘the learning experience can be customised for the individual learner’ (iPac, Online, 2018). This iPAC (2012) statement fits into the Bergman and Sams (2004) concept as that is exactly what they designed through PowerPoint and over distance it was a customised learning experience utilising technology. iPAC (2012) has a lot to do with the ‘andragogic’ principles as pedagogy necessarily cannot be established by a child, if it could then there would be no need for the child to go anywhere to learn they could just sit there and work everything out for themselves. Pappas (2015) in his exploration of the concepts of ‘pedagogy’ and ‘andragogy’ clearly defines ‘pedagogy’ as relating to children and ‘andragogy’ as relating to adults (Pappas, Online, 2015). If you gave a child a mobile device to play with for any length of time it could possibly learn something useful, but in practice the potential for an adult to interact with the device and learn anything valid from the experience is much higher.?And given that the child for socio-economic reasons hasn’t been introduced to any technology at an early age then the concept of interacting with this type of mobile technology and learning is completely redundant to that particular child based upon those particular socio-economic boundaries. Helm (2013) suggested in his article on schools charging parents for technology for their children that on average they had to pay ￡200-￡300 outright or else around ￡12 to ￡30 pound a month to hire the technology for the classroom (Guardian, Online, 2013). Given that a parent was on a particularly modest income then not being able to afford to pay for a piece of technology for your child could have a detrimental impact on their progress given that better off children are supported by their parents.?The first iPAC (2012), ‘Signature Pedagogy’ is ‘Personalisation’ if we look at it in relation to a flipped learning environment, there are around seven methods that could possibly tie in with a flipped learning paradigm.

Within reason all these flipped learning methods stated in the table could be applied to a flipped learning pedagogical approach. Some of the remaining methods such as, ownership customization, immediate customised feedback and self assessment cannot be reliably attributed to the flipped learning paradigm due to their intrinsic nature that would put them outside that particular learning pedagogy. For the iPAC (2012), Collaboration ‘Signature Pedagogy’, again I have attributed seven methods from this section that could be aligned to a ‘flipped learning pedagogical approach’ mainly due to the fact that the others tend to be repeated related concepts. Whilst all are potentially relevant to autonomous self directed learning the key methods that would be related to a flipped learning environment are stated below.

These above methods form the interactive aspects of the flipped learning pedagogy, Burden et al (2012) and could be attributed well to social media tools and interactions that would allow the learner to work peer-to-peer and assimilate their learning in this fashion. (iPAC, Online,2018). For example at ‘2’ Learning from experts, this could presume video learning and knowledge transfer from various sources that could inform the learner. This would be very similar to the Khan (2018) Online Academy model (Khan, Online, 2018).?In fact most of the flipped learning environment for the learner would consist of ‘Social interactivity’ as a way of being creative and exchanging thoughts and ideas, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be in a mobile learning environment this could equally be experienced at a fixed point internet location with a non mobile machine.?Again with the iPAC (2012) ‘Authenticity’, ‘Signature Pedagogy’, seven methods from that section, again could be applicable to a flipped learning environment.

The methods 1-7 in the table relating to ‘flipped learning’ are clearly aligned to a flipped method of delivery and the most interesting is ‘6’ community,?either a ‘community of practice’ Wenger-Trayner (2015), (See Appendix 8). Or a ‘community of enquiry’ Kennedy (2012), (See Appendix 9) approach that would allow the exploration of the learning concept via some form of collaboration and in a real world context. However these methods do not necessarily have to be mobile methods to fit into the ‘flipped learning’ paradigm as again a fixed point of learning could affect the same thing, especially via the internet on a fixed machine. Whilst the iPAC (2012) mobile framework could be in some respects relevant to a ‘flipped learning’ paradigm, I have highlighted 21 key areas from each iPAC (2012)signature pedagogy that I think are applicable, see Appendix 5, and the table below;?

What the iPAC (2012) framework does show us clearly is the potentiality of the iPAC (2012) ‘mobile signatures’ that could be used to augment some of the processes into a flipped learning environment. This in turn could help the teacher manage the technology so as to achieve the same result as Bergman and Sams did in 2004. What we cannot except from a ‘flipped learning’ classroom of today is to expect the learning to occur by young learners unaided solely reliant on technology as a tool. Prensky (2010) suggests that there is another curricula dimension to any pedagogical framework and that is the ‘Partnering Pedagogy’ this pedagogy is ultimately based on what learners want and using ‘21st Century technology’ this can augment the process of learning as directed by the teacher as a partner in the process (Prensky, 2010:3). If we revisit TPACK (2009) as a framework possibly this ‘partnering pedagogy’ could be aligned with the framework , so how would that look? At Appendix 6, I have made an addition to the TPACK (2009) framework by adding Prenskys (2010), PP (Partnering Pedagogy) to the framework thus creating P-PATCK (Partnering Pedagogy and Technological Content Knowledge).

?This makes more sense today compared to the older 2009 ‘TPACK’ framework and for a ‘flipped learning’ environment to work within this new model.?In the same respect in regards to iPAC (2012) the ‘collaboration’ section of the iPAC (2012) framework triangle would accommodate the ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) as this would further enhance this model to include those working with learners in various ways using social media and cloud based learning systems. I don’t think the Prensky, (2010) ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) has been overlooked totally in the iPAC (2012) model but the framework does tend to be biased towards self and peer interactions that do not consider the ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) as a particular method. In fact as a framework iPAC (2012) doesn’t necessarily consider curriculum and pedagogy at all, yet it considers Knowles (1984) ‘andragogic’ concepts that are rather adult in type. Maybe we need to redefine pedagogy as being ‘told’, and andragogy as doing the telling? Yet the original Greek meaning of the word pedagogy was ‘child-leading’ (Pappas, Online, 2013). So we have andragogy, ‘adult- leading approaches’, (Pappas, Ibid) and pedagogy, ‘child-telling approaches’, what then is the difference between the two if applied to the iPAC (2012) framework.?In fact nothing if we look at the framework, both could be carried out by either. Yet we can apply Prenskys ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) easier to the TPACK (2009) framework and evolve it to P-PATCK (2018) easier than if we added it to the iPAC (2012)framework. iPAC (2012) seems to be a very broad framework, rather like a ‘pick and mix’ environment that allows you to define your ‘pedagogical’ approach or indeed ‘andragogical’ approach?by using a variety of mobile tools and methods. But moving TPACK (2009) away from the technological into the partnering paradigm allows technology and pedagogy to work in a way that a flipped learning environment did in Bergman and Sams (2004) original flipped learning scenario offering a technological input to the pedagogy that assisted there learners over distance using an updated tool in PowerPoint (2004). What Bergman and Sams (2004) created for their learners was in fact a ‘P-PATCK’ framework that allowed the student learning to occur based upon Prenskys (2010) ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy)?and succeed further based upon their content knowledge and technological knowledge that assisted the learners. The iPAC (2012) framework as such cannot be that successful as a curriculum model as it doesn’t offer that ‘partnering pedagogy’ or the content knowledge specific to the learner needs. Whilst it can be utilised to create, examine, explore and interact with the basic principles of new media and mobile tools it cannot offer the pedagogical framework for the learners to succeed and for the learning process to be quantified without the additional content knowledge related to the pedagogy that would assist in the learner outcomes being met. In the case of Bergman and Sams (2004) they did just that using a P-PATCK (2018) framework that allowed their learners to still succeed irrespective of their boundaries and to meet the same aims and objectives that their peers did who had access to the normal mainstream route into learning. To conclude this analysis TPACK (2009) as a framework is redundant as a framework in 2018 as it is primarily focused on technology as the main driver of the pedagogy when in fact in 2018 a more ‘partnering pedagogy’ akin to Prenskys (2010) concepts exist that are more valid, reliable and current for today’s technological ‘savvy’ learners. The iPAC (2012) framework is an excellent exploratory framework that offers those involved in peer and self assessment the means and whereabouts to engage with technology in a way that is ultimately collaborative and forward thinking but is impeded by the lack of any ‘partnering pedagogy’ as such that doesn’t allow for the learners to be directed through the learning process to succeed. iPAC (2012) stands for , ‘Personalisation’, ‘Authenticity’ and ‘Collaboration’, if we introduced ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) to the framework we end up with a new framework called ‘P-PAC’ this transformed framework would allow for the ‘PP’ (Partnering Pedagogy) to move forward the collaborative aspects into a model that could be then more related to the needs of a flipped learning environment that would allow for some management and direction of the learners using technology and the interactive collaborative process. Whilst the ‘flipped learning’ paradigm does lend itself to the original ‘iPAC’ (2012) framework it does require a degree of management by those involved with the learners and this is reflected in the new model ‘P-PAC’ that is more interactive and designed to use social media and cloud based applications but that also considers the partnering of learners with teachers, facilitators and other educators involved in the learning process using the associated technology.

Reference List

?

Amazon, (2018). [Internet] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/amazons-giving-away-ai-behind-product-recommendations/ Date accessed: 18.04.18

Archives Jean Piaget, (2018). [Internet] https://archivespiaget.ch/fr/activites-scientifiques/conferences-jean-piaget/index.html Date accessed: 07.03.18

ConceptToClassroom, (2004). [Internet] What is constructivism? https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/ Date accessed: 02.05.18

?

Eighty Six, (2014). [Internet] The origins of Flipped Learning.?https://www.brighthubeducation.com/education-industry/128706-origins-of-flipped-learning/?Date accessed: 07.03.18

FlippedLearning.Org, (2014). [Internet] https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf Date accessed 02.05.18

Fuller, R,B. (1982). Critical Path. Saint Martin's Griffin, U.S.

Helm,T. (2013). [Internet] Schools ask parents to stump up ￡200 for iPads. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/28/ipad-tablet-computer-school-parents Date accessed: 08.05.18

?

iPAC, (2018). [Internet] https://www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/ Date accessed: 08.03.18

?

Kemp, S. (2017). [Internet] https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-in-2017-global-overview Date accessed: 19.04.18

?

Kennedy, David. (2012). ?"Lipman, Dewey, and the Community of Philosophical Inquiry."?Education and Culture, vol. 28 no. 2, pp. 36-53.?Project MUSE,?doi:10.1353/eac.2012.0009

Khan Academy, (2018). [Internet] https://www.khanacademy.org/ Date accessed: 27.04.18

Koehler, M. J. (2012). [Internet] TPACK Explained. https://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/ Date accessed: 25.04.18

Kolb, D,A. (2014) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press. Date accessed: 26.04.18.

Lage, M,J,. Platt,G,J,. & Treglia,M. (2000). [Journal] [Internet] Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment https://www.jstor.org/stable/1183338?se The Journal of Economic Education Vol. 31, No. 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 30-43 Date accessed: 25.04.18

?

Lane, M. (2012). [Internet] https://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/data-its-how-stores-know-youre-pregnant/ Date accessed: 28.04.18

McKinsey (2017). [Internet] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/drivers-of-student-performance-insights-from-europe Date accessed: 28.04.18

O’Brian, C. (2018). [Internet] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/technology-can-hurt-students-learning-research-shows-1.3385864 Date accessed: 28.04.18

Internet World Stats, (2018). [Internet] https://internetworldstats.com/stats.htm Date accessed: 19.04.18

?

Mazur,E,. Hilborn,R,C,. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Physics Today, 1997 - New York, USA.

?

Mishra,P., & Koehler,M.J. (2006). [Internet] What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?

https://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge/ Date accessed: 25.04.18,02.05.18.

?

Mishra,P., & Koehler,M.J. (2009). [Internet] Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.523.3855&rep=rep1&type=pdf?Michigan State University. Date accessed: 25.04.18,02.05.18.

?

MTTEP, (2018). [Internet] https://www.mttep.eu/ Date accessed: 06.03.18

Pappas, C. (2013). [Internet] The adult learning theory andragogy of Malcolm Knowles. https://elearningindustry.com/the-adult-learning-theory-andragogy-of-malcolm-knowles Date accessed: 08.03.18

Pappas, C. (2015). [Internet] Pedagogy Vs Andragogy In eLearning: Can You Tell The Difference?

https://elearningindustry.com/pedagogy-vs-andragogy-in-elearning-can-you-tell-the-difference Date accessed: 03.05.18

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives, Partnering for Real Learning. Sage:USA.

Schilling, D,R. (2013). [Internet] https://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-doubling-every-12-months-soon-to-be-every-12-hours/3950 Date accessed: 29.04.18

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. (2018) [Internet] https://www.leeshulman.net/biography/ Date accessed: 07.03.18

Stillwater Area Public Schools. (2013). [Internet] Flipping Professional Development: No teacher bored in the background. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox4i9yVQUUI ?Date accessed: 26.04.18

Terrell, S. (2018)?[Internet] 7 Digital Learning Theories. https://teacherrebootcamp.com/2018/03/01/digitallearningtheoriesmodels/?Date accessed: 06.03.18

TPACK, (2018)?[Internet] https://tpack.org/ Date accessed: 06.03.18

Vygotsky, L,S. (1978). Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Harvard University Press, Date accessed: 26.04.18

?

Vygotsky, L. (2011) [Internet] Zone of Proximal Development. [Internet] https://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/development/zone-of-proximal-development.html Date accessed: 07.03.18

Venn, J. (1880). [Internet] VENN Diagrams. https://www.cut-the-knot.org/LewisCarroll/dunham.shtml?Date accessed: 07.03.18

Wenger-Trayner, Etienne and Beverley. (2015) [Internet] Introduction to Communities of Practice. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ Date accessed: 08.05.18

?

?

?

TPACK and IPAC a critique in the age of the Flipped Learning Classroom.