Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Pierce, T. Kostova, K. Dirks (2001)
Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in OrganizationsAcademy of Management Review, 26
Jason Cole (2007)
Using Moodle - teaching with the popular open source course management system
(2007)
My personal work/leisure/learning environment”, The Ed Techie
Niall Sclater, P. Bailey (2015)
Code of practice for learning analytics
(2012)
Who owns your fi les on google drive ? CNET ”
(2008)
Why moodle. in future trends of distributed computing systems
S. Becker, M. Cummins, Ann Davis, A. Freeman, C. Hall, V. Ananthanarayanan (2015)
NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition
G. Attwell (2007)
E-portfolio: the DNa of the Personal Learning Environment?Journal of e-learning and knowledge society, 3
Paula Chan, Kristall Graham-Day, Virginia Ressa, M. Peters, Moira Konrad (2014)
Beyond InvolvementIntervention in School and Clinic, 50
(2007)
Learning networks in practice.pp.1-9, in Emerging Technologies for Learning (David Ley, ed)
R. Kop (2011)
The Challenges to Connectivist Learning on Open Online Networks: Learning Experiences during a Massive Open Online CourseThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12
T. Cooner (2010)
Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students' experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning designBr. J. Educ. Technol., 41
E. Costello (2014)
Participatory Practices in Open Source Educational Software - The Case of the Moodle Bug Tracker Community
Verónica Marín-Díaz, Ana Martínez, K. McMullin (2014)
First Steps Towards a University Social Network on Personal Learning Environments.The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15
(1996)
Self-determination as an educational outcome: why is it important to children, youth and adults with disabilities?
Hannah Green, C. Hannon (2007)
Their Space. Education for a Digital Generation
A. Pardo, George Siemens (2014)
Ethical and privacy principles for learning analyticsBr. J. Educ. Technol., 45
Steve Westbrook (2009)
Composition & copyright : perspectives on teaching, text-making, and fair use
(2014)
Beyond involvement: promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms
Tom Harmelen (2007)
Web 2.0 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
(1996)
Self - determination as an educational outcome : why is it important to children , youth and adults with disabilities ? ” , in
K. Fleming, D. Panizzon (2010)
Facilitating Students' Ownership of Learning in Science by Developing Lifelong Learning SkillsTeaching science, 56
Steffi Engert, I. Hamburg, Anke Petschenka (2008)
Communities of Practice to improve Knowledge Management and eLearning in SMEs
Niall Sclater (2008)
Large scale open source e-Learning systems at the Open University UK
S. Yau (2007)
Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems
S. Schaffert, W. Hilzensauer (2008)
On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects
I. Buchem (2012)
Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning Environments: Do sense of ownership and control really matter?, 1
A. Kukulska-Hulme, A. Carvalho, David Kennedy, J. Pettit, L. Bradley, A. Herrington, Aisha Walker (2011)
Mature Students Using Mobile Devices in Life and LearningInt. J. Mob. Blended Learn., 3
Tom Franklin, Franklin (2007)
Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
(2003)
Moodle: using learning communities to create an open source”, Paper presented at world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications
(2012)
Who owns your files on google drive
PurposeThis paper aims to examine the different ways in which learners may have ownership over technology-enhanced learning by reflecting on technical, legal and psychological ownership.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a variety of examples of technology-enhanced learning ranging from open-source software to cloud storage to discuss the three types of ownership.FindingsIt is suggested that learners do not yet own technology-enhanced learning and that, at present, there are different degrees of learner ownership depending on whether technical, legal or psychological ownership are considered.Originality/valueThe discussion presented here is the first to consider all three types of ownership of technology-enhanced learning and demonstrates the complexity of the issue when this broad view is considered.
Interactive Technology and Smart Education – Emerald Publishing
Published: Mar 12, 2018
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.