Abstract

The Web is a non-linear environment which opens up potential for new approaches to learning and teaching, approaches which in many ways more closely approximate naturalistic and authentic approaches to learning. Yet a large proportion of online courses which have been developed in higher education represent conversions of print-based resources into Web-based delivery formats, the majority of which have replicated traditional linear and directive pedagogy. Such development represents something of a ‘miss-match’, not only to the online teaching environment but to the emergent learning approaches of a younger generation who are ‘at home’ with the online environment. This paper discusses the benefits of maintaining complexity and non-linearity in online learning with reference to the development of one tertiary course in computer education for pre-service teachers. The theory of complexity is briefly explored and its relevance to online teaching and learning is highlighted. An action research undertaking conducted over a four year period is drawn upon to illustrate the importance of future teachers understanding and experiencing non-linear and complexity-based online learning, and the metacognitive processes that can support adult learners to adapt to such an environment.

Introduction

Readers of this paper will be more than familiar with the many issues emerging in Web-based educational development where face-to-face pedagogy or print-based distance education materials are simply ‘replicated’ in the online medium. Such practices seem not only to be persisting but, if anything, increasing, as online teaching becomes more widely adopted. It is interesting to consider Lee’s (2001) observations that a rapidly growing group of young people from across the globe, the ‘net generation’, are adopting remarkably similar learning approaches, characterised as chaotic, constructivist, integrated and multi-faceted, and where ‘play’ is central. These young, Lee claim, chart their own learning pathways, set their own goals, ‘learning’ is incidental and a sense of ‘fun’ is paramount. Amid such seeming chaos, these young people develop skills, beliefs and attitudes that many educators have been trying to foster in the school system for years; namely independent and self-directed learning. The irony identified by Lee is that the two learning systems and cultures, that of school and of the Web, are fundamentally different; one has a basis in control and structure, and the other is seemingly unstructured and chaotic. Educators, particularly those of the young, would ignore such observations at their peril. As Lee states, “most teachers, parents, education bureaucrats and politicians will not sit easily with an education they don’t control – and in many senses do not understand” (p.169).

The School of Education at Southern Cross University, NSW Australia (http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/edu/), like most teacher education departments in Australia, offers a core course (the term ‘unit’ is utilised in Australia) in ICT in its primary and secondary education programs, meeting requirements set by government departments for computer competency of all graduating teachers. This course is offered both internally and externally and exists as a fully online resource, enabling students to study independently, in their own time and at their own pace. Optional and non-compulsory tutorials are provided for internal students and personal one-on-one support is available to external students. As explored in this paper, the course is perceived by the author and developer as encompassing a far wider range of learning outcomes than just computer skills and knowledge. Rather, the course is seen as providing an important opportunity to provide future teachers with first-hand experience in Web-based non-linear learning. In a society where young people do much of their ‘informal’ learning in a Web-based, non-linear medium, such understandings by teachers are vital. As will be explored in this paper, this teacher education course utilises a metacognitive approach, such that students’ reflection on their reactions to online learning and the strategies that they utilise to learn in such an environment, is as much a part of the learning experience as engaging with the content itself.

While other aspects of this research, in particular the metacognitive approach, have been reported elsewhere (Phelps, 2001; Phelps & Ellis, 2002a; Phelps & Ellis, 2002b; Phelps & Ellis, 2002c; Phelps, Ellis & Hase, 2001) the development of the course toward a complex, non-linear learning environment is the focus of this paper. A particular emphasis is placed on the relevance of complexity theories to the aims of the research, and to Web-based learning and teaching more broadly. The paper will describe how complexity informed the structure of the course and how the metacognitive approach was used to provided explicit support for adult learners adapting to non-linear learning.

Background to the Course and the Research

The course which formed the basis of this research had initially been developed in 1998 as a large online resource of more than 880 Web pages divided into 26 topics. Navigation through the course materials was linear, each page leading to the following page and each topic leading to the following topic. This meant that students were prompted to travel through each of at least 600-700 pages, although a site-map provided an alternative navigation structure. Topics covered by the course included the World Wide Web, e-mail, mailing lists and newsgroups, synchronous communications, file transferring and Web publishing, together with the application of IT in learning and teaching, including Internet based educational activities, educational software and ethical and legal issues. A change in staff responsible for the course’s delivery occurred in 1999 and provided an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-develop the course from a new pedagogical perspective and within a research-based framework.

Based on observed student need, engagement with the literature and personally held educational beliefs, it was thought to be appropriate to focus as much on learning processes as on content. Underpinning this was a belief that effective computer education for teachers requires more than skills training. It involves challenging attitudes, values and beliefs and assisting teachers to learn to adapt to change. It was perceived as important that teachers reflect upon what it means to learn with and from technology, as well as how their students utilise, learn and engage with technology. A research initiative was instigated to investigate what teaching and learning processes could be employed to foster the development of ‘capable’ computer users (Phelps, 2001).

Action research was deemed to be an appropriate methodology to pursue both change (action) and understanding (research) (Dick, 2000). With a strong theoretical and practical connection to educational research and teacher professional development (Carr & Kemmis, 1990) action research focuses on practitioners making sense of, and improving, their practices (Hughes, Denley & Whitehead, 1998). Action research is participatory research, ‘directed towards and directed by those who are actually taking the journey’ (Grundy, 1995, p.9). As such it provided an opportunity to elicit a greater understanding of students’ reaction to online learning and a valid approach to founding the course’s development in the experiences of both students and teaching staff. The research consisted of three distinct research cycles over the period of 1999-2001, each consisting of phases of planning, acting, observing and reflecting and each progressing understanding of the learning experiences of students. Data was collected in each cycle using multi-method approaches including survey instruments, observations and qualitative data drawn from reflective journals maintained by teachers and students over each teaching period.

This paper reports on just one aspect of the research, the theoretical and practical aspects of the course development process which progressively led the course from a conceptualisation as directive and linear, toward a pedagogy founded on complex non-linear and non-directive learning.

A Brief Overview of Complexity Theories

The literature surrounding complexity is comparatively recent, owing much of its development to a group of eminent cross-disciplinary researchers, several of them Nobel laureates, working at the Santa Fe Institute in the USA. Complexity theory is concerned with open, non-linear systems and is essentially a formal attempt to question how coherent and purposive wholes emerge from the interactions of simple and sometimes non-purposive components (Lissack, 1999). At its most humble, it attempts to explain the ‘big consequences of little things’. Complexity theory is founded upon alternative conceptions of causality, acknowledging that uncertainty of prediction is inevitable (Eve, Horsfall & Lee, 1997) and that processes are critically dependent on their initial conditions, conditions that may be unrecoverable or unknowable. This is the essential notion behind the well known ‘butterfly effect’ (Waldrop, 1992). Complexity represents a recognition that the world is irreducibly complex, not determinist and predictable, and that the task before us is no longer to identify the simple elements of reality underlying complex appearances, but to work out how to study complexity in its own right (Gare, 2000).

Complexity provides a perspective on learning based on non-linearity of thought and on variation as a source and outcome of thinking (Bloom, 1998; 2000). Such a view leads to an emphasis on meaning rather than decontextalised content, an emphasis on creativity, a sense of connection to learners’ worlds and the development of a sense of ownership over what is learned (Bloom, 2000). Complexity views student thinking and learning as an emergent process where ideas and concepts arise from specific contexts in inherently non-linear and unpredictable ways: ‘Although we may be able to predict that certain types of events or ideas may arise, we cannot predict the specific content or outcome’ (Bloom, 2001, p.23).

Complexity-based educationalists (for example, Doll, 1989a; 1989b; Iannone, 1995; Sawada & Caley, 1985) see the contemporary focus on objectives and learning outcomes as representative of an obsession with domination, control and reductionism and an undermining of emergent learning. Complexity’s perspective is that teachers need to accept students’ ability to organise, construct and structure learning, combining supportive and challenging behaviour; equilibrium with disequilibrium. ‘Curriculum becomes a process of development rather than a body of knowledge to be covered or learned, ends become beacons guiding this process, and the course itself transforms the indeterminate into the determinate’ (Doll, 1989a, p.250). Complexity thus challenges current educational practices which see teaching as a simplistic cause-effect system and where provision or ‘delivery’ of content and a structure for students to engaged with this content is perceived as a central part of teaching.

Why Non-Linear Complexity-based Learning?

Returning to the ideas presented by Lee (2001) we can see that many young people, provided with access to the Web, adopt learning approaches consistent with complexity theory. Their learning is ‘naturally’ non-linear. For adults, such approaches do not necessarily come ‘naturally’. An explicit intention of the course described in this paper was to encourage these future teachers to become life-long computer learners and users – to assist them to develop computer learning attitudes, skills and learning strategies required to adapt to change. Melczarek (2000) emphasises the importance of self-directed computer learning and contrasts often adopted directive teaching approaches with proficient computer users’ naturalistic learning approaches. In the research context described in this paper, however, it became clear that many of the less proficient computer using teachers were not confident with exploratory or ‘playful’ approaches to computer learning.

Many students initially approached the course with a belief that computer learning entailed memorizing steps and computer processes. For many there was an expectation that there would be a defined body of information that they had to learn, and some students’ expressed a belief that the course would provide them with all that they would need to know to utilise computers throughout their teaching career. Such a belief, it is argued, is unrealistic within the context of constant technological change and variation in school and classroom contexts, and was certainly inconsistent with complexity’s recognition that it is impossible to break down learning and teaching into determinist and predictable simple elements of knowledge. Integral to the approach adopted through this research, then, was the desire to draw students away from expectations of directive-style teaching and instead to focus on them establishing self-directed and self-responsible approaches to their learning, including exploratory learning and ‘play’.

The nature of the target group for the course added further rationale for the non-linear, complexity-based approach. These future teachers ranged from those with first degrees in IT to those who had rarely touched a computer before. This great diversity necessitated a course structure which enabled all students to be challenged without any feeling intimidated or overwhelmed. Integral to the process of fostering self-directed and life-long learning was an emphasis on self-directed goal setting, but also on acknowledging and embracing ‘emergent’ learning – ‘you don’t always know what you don’t know’! During the research it was noted that externally imposed objectives often had little real impact on students’ learning and ran the risk of defining minimum standards that impeded lifelong learning approaches. Rather, when capability is the goal, skills and achievements emerge because students are open and embracing of learning opportunities and the process is more fluid than is implied by pre-specified outcomes. These ideas are consistent with those of Simons (1993) who notes that, from a foundation of constructivism, learning cannot and should not be goal-directed all the time. ‘Sometimes one should be satisfied with a global, general learning goal and let the learning environment guide the discoveries’ (p.292). The non-linear online learning environment developed through the research was certainly found to not only guide but prompt such learning ‘discoveries’.

Non-linear learning was perceived to be more ‘authentic’ than linear learning and more consistent with life-long learning. Brookfield (1984, p.60), for instance, spoke of ‘the false dichotomy in which institutionally sponsored learning is seen as purposeful and deliberate and learning occurring in non-institutional contexts is held to be serendipitous, ineffective and wholly experiential’. Learning outside classrooms is non-linear and institutional learning often represents a simplification of natural learning approaches, usually attempting to package learning into pre-designed, highly controlled and linear processes. To draw on the ideas of Doll (2002, 1998), linear and closed instructional design tends to trivialise the goals of education, focusing on very simple, concrete goals.

A further justification for the approach lay in the benefits of complexified, as opposed to simplified, learning and teaching. Bjork (1994), while referring to training contexts generally, discusses the importance of introducing difficulty during learning processes in enhancing longer-term retention. Bjork notes that training which speeds the rate of learning acquisition can fail to support longer-term performance, while contexts that introduce difficulties and active engagement by learners can enhance post-training performance. While rapid and easy progress through linear and defined content may be reassuring to the learner, little learning may actually be taking place. ‘We should probably find the absence, not the presence, of errors, mistakes and difficulties to be distressing – a sign that we are not exposing ourselves to the kinds of conditions that most facilitate our learning, and our self-assessment of that learning’ (Bjork, 1994, p.201). While Bjork is not referring to non-linear and online learning in particular, these ideas were shown to have great relevance in this research.

Honebein, Duffy and Fishman (1993) have also argued that understanding developed in a simplified environment is quite different to the understanding developed in a full stimulus environment and that simplification of complex subject matter is a ‘conspiracy of convenience’. Drawing from constructivism, they argue that providing realistic levels of complexity in the learning environment can actually make learning easier: ‘tasks that are thought to be difficult when attempted in a decontextualized environment become intuitive when situated in a larger framework’ (Honebein, Duffy & Fishman, 1993, p.95). Rather than simplifying the environment, the goal of educators should be to aid the learner to function in rich learning environments. In a similar way, Iannone (1995) argues that education should be process-oriented and students must be actively engaged. Curriculum, he states, should be flexible, open, disruptive, uncertain and unpredictable and should accept tension, anxiety and problem creating as the norm. Such a call would seem consistent with the non-linear approach developed in this course, as well as the metacognitive learning and teaching approach supporting it. The metacognitive approach which was developed through the research emphasises exploratory learning approaches, which in themselves are inherently non-linear.

The Revised Structure of the Course

The re-development of the course content and structure was a gradual process through three cycles over the three years. In the first two cycles the adaptations of the course structure were made in response to students’ learning needs and processes. It was not until the third cycle of the research that the natural progression toward a non-linear and complexity-based learning approach became apparent. By the end of the third cycle the online resources had been transformed from a structure of 26 essentially linear topics to a four-module structure: Thinking, Using, Applying and Creating.

Within these four modules were a number of topics. In the Using and Applying modules in particular the topics were independent of each other and could be completed in any order or concurrently. The Thinking module underpinned the metacognitive learning approach, and thus students were encouraged to commence it at the beginning but to continue to engage with it at least in part concurrently with the other practical modules. Each topic within the Using module, for instance, was re-presented according to five ‘windows’: Facts, Skills, Activities, Use in Schools and Reflection. These windows were accompanied by a bright, inviting and ‘fun’ graphic interface, one which encapsulated an approach of ‘play’ and exploration, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The five window structure to the Using module.

These five windows were designed in response to the recognition that some students required or preferred foundational understandings (facts), or foundational skills, while others were comfortable with experiential learning and needed to be challenged to set and achieve ambitious learning goals, and to ‘test out’ their knowledge (activities). Even within each of these ‘windows’ there was great flexibility in choice of content and activities to engage. Within each Using topic, for instance, students were prompted to set themselves appropriate goals and were then challenged to engage with content most relevant to them, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The flexible, learner-driven structure within one topic page

Students thus had to be more active in ‘picking and choosing’ their learning approaches. They had more choice about what they learnt, but more importantly, how they learnt it. Students would be encouraged to jump from activities to facts or skills as required. Students were encouraged to identify their own goals; goals that were challenging for them personally. All students were required to demonstrate progress, no matter what their initial level of skill and knowledge. While frameworks were embedded in the materials to support them to set these goals, they were prompted to select content and activities which were most appropriate in achieving their goals and to document, through reflection, the resultant, personally significant learning.

Making the Learning Process Explicit

Very few of the often mature aged students had experienced formal online study, nor learning contexts which provided freedom and choice. As the research advanced my understanding of students’ reactions to non-linear learning were such that I could introduce them to the process in a relevant and accessible way. In an attempt to assist learners to understand and adapt to self-directed, flexible and non-linear learning approaches a number of very explicit reflective prompts were added to the unit materials. It was acknowledged ‘up front’ that some students would very much enjoy studying this way while others would find it challenging. Students were encouraged to consider the oft-cited statement that ‘we tend to teach the way we were taught’ and I explicitly stated the belief that it is important for future teachers to have experience in a range of learning and teaching experiences and to reflect on their advantages and disadvantages of each. The consistency between non-linear learning and the environment of the Web was described to students:

…you will realise that the Web is exactly that – a big tangled spider’s web of information. Bits of it lead to other bits and there is no ‘start’ and ‘finish’. There is also so much information available on the Internet that we could never access even a small portion of it. Learning in such an environment can feel uncomfortable at first, particularly if you have been used to learning in a context where the ‘teacher’ told you exactly what you had to learn, and how you should learn it (Course resources, 2003).

The authentic and complex, but highly naturalistic nature of Web-based learning was introduced to students through the analogy of becoming a parent, as follows:

… think about how we learn in contexts other than schools and universities. Lets think about one of the biggest challenges people experience in life – becoming a parent… There is no single course you can do on ‘how to become a good parent’. There is no single set of steps or guidelines or rules to follow. There is no ‘beginning’ or ‘end’, no structure or sequence to things that you need to learn. Yet many, many people parent, and parent well.  They do so because they are motivated to do the best for their child. They don’t know everything there is to know, but when issues or challenges arise they seek out information and advice, and adopt strategies that they feel are appropriate. Generally they reflect on whether their strategies are working or not and will seek other information, or adopt other strategies if they don’t. Sometimes parents turn to friends and family for advice, sometimes they go to courses, sometimes they will consult ‘self-help’ books and other times they will turn to professionals (such as doctors). Most of the time, however, they experiment with different approaches themselves. One further point here is that parents of new-borns will vary rarely read the chapter of the ‘self-help’ book on coping with adolescents, although it doesn’t hurt for them to have the book on the shelf, ready for the coming years!

The picture I am attempting to paint here is that learning in ‘real life’ isn’t generally very ordered or structured. Learning is usually motivated by an activity which needs to be performed or a problem which has been encountered. Individuals seek and select information from all kinds of sources to meet their own personal needs and interests and there is always further learning which they can continue to pursue as their activities and practice develop and they reflect on their new goals (Course resources, 2003).

In this way the metacognitive process itself assisted students to reflect upon their expectations of teaching and learning and to challenge these in relation to the type of every-day non-institutional learning that they were used to doing in their everyday life.

It is this type of ‘authentic’ and ‘problem based’ learning that is often what computer-based and online learning is about. As you begin to work through the materials in this Unit you will soon discover that there is no real ‘start’ and ‘finish’. There is no single core body of information that everyone has to work through identically. There is good reason for this, namely that everyone will have different interests, different existing knowledge and skills and therefore different needs.  There are lots of choices about what you read, what you learn and the activities you do. Sometimes you may choose to approach the ‘facts’ first, to read the background information. Other times you may want to try out some activities or ‘problems’ first, and turn back to the ‘information’ to inform your responses (Course resources, 2003).

Students were thus encouraged throughout their study to reflect on their interactions with the ‘flexible’ Web-based environment, and their reactions to ‘choice’ in their learning.

Other notions which students were encouraged to reflect upon included ‘cognitive playfulness’ (Martocchio, 1992; Webster, 1995) and exploratory learning, aspects of the course explored in other papers (Phelps & Ellis, 2002a; Phelps & Ellis, 2002b; Phelps & Ellis, submitted 2003; Phelps, Ellis & Hase, 2001).  These theoretical inclusions can also be seen to be consistent with non-linear, complexity-based learning approaches. Gare (2000), for instance, describes play as the ‘archetypal chaotic and unpredictable behaviour from which new order emerges’. Complexity thus provided a fresh perspective from which to understand the centrality of play in computer learning.

Progressively, over the three cycles each group of students’ reflections indicated increased appreciation and understanding of the teaching approach, with consequential increase in students’ independence. Whereas, in the first cycle, only a minority seemed to thrive in the independent and flexible learning context, by the third cycle of the research students seemed to accept and even embrace such learning. The non-linear approach, which moved away from pushing all students through the same content, produced a learning environment which was relevant and challenging for all students. By the latter cycles, students were more likely to be touched by a sense of ‘fun’ and ‘excitement’ in their computer use.

It is valuable to recall two students’ remarks regarding self-directed exploratory learning and their learning retention. One student, for instance, noted that ‘maybe it is the act of discovery that places the information in long term memory’ and another observed that ‘I find that if I can stumble and fumble my way around and discover something I remember it for the future more easily’. It is this exploratory learning which was promoted through the non-linear learning environment.

Conclusion

The progression of the course from a linear and directive approach toward a non-linear and complexity-based based approach to learning and teaching thus represented a transition toward a more authentic learning approach.  It was an opportunity to stimulate these future teachers to reflect on the ‘tensions’ between institutional and non-institutional learning and to better understand the nature of online learning as well as their own learning approaches. It challenged students, through a metacognitive approach to move from expectations of being told ‘what to learn and when to learn it’ to a more complex learning environment which encouraged them to ‘go with the flow’ of authentic and day-to-day learning approaches. The implications for this group of future teachers are considerable. Such an approach provides them with first-hand experience to better understand the non-linear and chaotic nature of their own students’ online learning. Such realizations are well depicted in the concluding words from one of the student participants.

From my reading this semester I know that there is a massive push towards empowering all students to be self-directed learners... I feel that learners need to know how to own their own learning, but that this does not come automatically, and teachers themselves need a lot of help in altering how they teach to achieve this aim. That is, if teachers like me teach how they were taught then this aim will not be realised. However for me, Units [courses’ such as this one are influencing my philosophy of teaching markedly, and I know that already my teaching will be different than it would have been if I had... not done this Unit.

While the ideas developed in this study and described in this paper are particularly relevant to teacher education, they also have significant implications to other disciplinary areas. Young people will continue to enter higher education with experiences and expectations regarding appropriate and preferred learning. While complexity theories will continue to challenge the orthodox of educational practice at a theoretical level, our students are likely to continue to be challenging us at a very practical level. As Web-based developers and deliverers, we need to acknowledge the authenticity of such learning approaches, challenge our own acculturated practices and learn to ‘go with the flow’.

References

Bjork, R. 1994, 'Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings', in Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing, ed. J. Metcalfe, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 185-205.

Bloom, J. W. 1998, 'The implications of evolutionary patterns on learning: Issues of variation, non-linearity and non-progressivism', Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, [Electronic Version]. Available: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu~jwb2/research/Complexity/Evol&Lrng.html

Bloom, J. W. 2000, 'Patterns that connect: Rethinking our approach to learning and teaching', Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, [Electronic Version].

Bloom, J. W. 2001, 'Chaotic and complex systems in children's thinking and learning', Paper presented to Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington. Available: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jwb2/research/Complexity/chaosinthinkingpaper.html

Brookfield, S. 1984, 'Self-directed adult learning: A critical paradigm', Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 59-71.

Doll, W. E. 1989a, 'Foundations for a post-modern curriculum', Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 243-253.

Doll, W. E. 1989b, A Post-modern Perspective on Curriculum, New York, Teachers College.

Doll, W. E. 2002, Critical emergence and Piaget: A reinterpretation assimilation and accommodation. [Unpublished Paper]

Doll, W. E. & Alcazar, A. 1998, 'Curriculum and concepts of control', in Curriculum: Toward New Identities, ed. W. F. Pinar, New York, Garland, pp. 295-323.

Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S. & Lee, M. F. 1997, 'Preface', in Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: Myths, Models and Theories, eds R. A. Eve, S. Horsfall & M. F. Lee, Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp. xxviii-xxxii.

Gare, A. 2000, 'Systems theory and complexity theory', Democracy and Nature, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 327-340.

Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M. & Fishman, B. J. 1993, 'Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning', in Designing environments for constructive learning, eds T. Duffy, J. Laowyck & D. H. Jonassen, New York, Springer Verlag, pp. 88-108.

Iannone, R. 1995, 'Chaos theory and its implications for curriculum and teaching', Education, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 541-546. [Electronic Version]

Lee, M. 2001, 'Chaotic learning: The Learning Style of the Net Generation?' Paper presented to New Millennium, New Horizons: Information Services in Schools 2000 Online Conference Proceedings, Wagga Wagga, eds L. Hay, K. Hanson & J. K. Henri, J., Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.

Lissack, M. 1999, Complexity: The Science, its Vocabulary and its Relation to Organizations. Available: http://emergence.org/Complexity1.htm [Accessed: 2nd December 2000].

Phelps, R. 2001, 'Capability versus competency in information technology education: Challenging the learning context for lifelong technological literacy', Paper presented to Eighth International Literacy & Education Research Network Conference on Learning, Spetses, Greece. Available: http://www.theLearner.com

Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. 2002a, 'Helping students to help themselves: Case studies from a metacognitive approach to computer learning and teaching', Paper presented to International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2002), Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1035-1036. Available: http://icce2002.massey.ac.nz/

Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. 2002b, 'A metacognitive approach to computer education for teachers: Combining theory and practice for computer capability', Paper presented to Linking Learners: Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC2002), Hobart, Tasmania. Available: http://www.pa.ash.org.au/acec2002/

Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. 2002c, 'Overcoming computer anxiety through reflection on attribution', Paper presented to Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning: Charting the Course of Digital Education: Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) 2002, Auckland, NZ, eds A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear, UNITEC Institute of Technology, pp. 515-524. Available: http://www.unitec.ac.nz/ascilite/

Phelps, R. & Ellis, A. submitted 2003, 'From page turning to deep learning: A case history of four years of continual development of an ICT course', Paper presented to E-Learn 2003: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education, Phoenix, Arizona, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available: http://www.aace.org/conf/elearn/

Phelps, R., Ellis, A. & Hase, S. 2001, 'The role of metacognitive and reflective learning processes in developing capable computer users', Paper presented to Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Melbourne, eds G. Kennedy, C. McNaught, M. Keppell & T. Petrovic, University of Melbourne, pp. 481-490. Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/phelpsr.pdf

Reason, P. & Goodwin, B. 1999, 'Toward a science of qualities in organizations: Lessons from complexity theory and postmodern biology', Concepts and Transformations, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 281-317. [Electronic Version] Available: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mnspwr/Papers/sciencequalities.htm

Sawada, D. & Caley, M. T. 1985, 'Dissipative structures: New metaphors for becoming in education', Educational Researcher, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 13-19.

Simons, P. R. 1993, 'Constructive learning: The role of the learner', in Designing environments for constructive learning, eds T. Duffy, J. Laowyck & D. H. Jonassen, New York, Springer Verlag, pp. 291-313.

Waldrop, M. 1992, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, London, Penguin.