Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622

INTE 2014

Explanation of instruments and procedures used by the recipients of

education in order to build their own learning network, based on the
generic model cognitive process
Milan Klement a, Miroslav Chráska b, Sylvie Klementovác
a,b,c
Faculty of Education, Palacký University Olomouc, Žižkovo nám. č. 5, Olomouc 771 40, Czech Republic

Abstract

The natural use of ICT, including modern social networks and open information sources by today's generation of pupils and
students is a generally recognized fact, which stimulated the development of a new concept of learning theory based on the
potential of modern information and communication technologies. It was designated as connectivism.
The key aspect of teaching thus conceived is the creation and the maintenance of interconnection on the network, expanding the
knowledge base of the individual beyond his or her own capacity. That is why constructivist methods, involving the process of
active social learning have been gradually applied recently in order to build a proper learning network and to internalize basic
knowledge structures, including further deepening of the knowledge gained, by the educatee.
Within this context, a wide scale of questions arise as to how and to what extend the pupil`s and student`s cognitive process is
influenced by modern information and communication technologies and tools, conversely, how these technologies are used by
pupils and students to build their own learning networks and to internalize their knowledge structure. To be able to, at least
partially, answer some of those questions, we carried out a survey research aimed at the explanation of the procedures and tools
which pupils and students use in order to build their own learning networks and to internalize their knowledge structures based
on a generic model of knowledge construction. Subsequently, a classification of pupils and students shall be carried out based on
the said explanation. The submitted paper presents some of the partial results of the aforementioned survey.

©©22014015 TThehe AAuthors.uthors. PuPublishedblished by EbylseElseviervier Ltd.Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(Peer-reviewhttp://creativeundercommoresponsibilityns.org/licensesof/bythe-nc-Sakaryand/4.0/). University.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 00-000-000-0000

E-mail address: milan.klement@upol.cz

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.812
 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622 1615

Keywords: constructivism; social learning; information technology; connectivism; learning networks; tools for building learning networks; social
networks; cognitive process; generic model

1. Introduction

The idea of a completely natural use of ICT, including e-learning tools and LMS, by today's generation of
students, is more or less taken as a fact, based on two major arguments. The first one stems from the fact that today's
adolescents and even infants deal with and manage the computer technology with a rather striking spontaneity. The
second argument is based on the statistics demonstrating the level of dependence of the use of ICT on age, showing
that unlike older generations; nearly all adolescents use the Internet and mobile phones (Lupac, 2011). It is around
these arguments that Don Tapscott American (1998) built his essays claiming that the power model of the family
was disturbed, because, unlike the past, children were taking over the teaching role and educated their parents with
respect to the orientation in the digital environment. His concepts of N-GEN and that of the digital generation were
soon followed by other concepts, i.e. digital natives (Prensky, 2001a), homo-zappiens (Veen, Vrakking, 2006),
digitally birth (Palfrey, Glasser, 2008) and others. "Digital natives are used to receiving information very quickly.
They like doing more activities at a time (i.e. multitasking). They prefer the image processing over the processing of
the text. They prefer a random access to information (i.e. hypertext) and they like best working in a networked
environment (online). They expect immediate praise and frequent evaluation of their work". (Prensky, 2001a). The
ideas of Prensky and Tapscott were quite influential at the time and have later become subject to several attempts,
more or less successful, by various researchers, to refute them (Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008).
Despite the fact that the above stated categorization of pupils and students has not yet been definitely determined
(Brown, 2008) and the author of this categorization himself revised the concept in his later works and began to use
rather the term of "digital wisdom" (Prensky, 2009), these considerations encouraged the development of a new
concept of learning theory built on the use of the potential of modern information and communication technologies ,
which has been designated as connectivism (Downes, 2012).

2. Theory of learning in the digital age - connectivism

The concept of connectivism "as a theory of learning in the digital age" was first introduced by G. Siemens and
S. Downes, based on their analysis of the shortcomings of the current theories of learning based on behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism (Siemens, 2005). It is thus built on the social cognitive learning theory and takes
into account the fact that the student constructs a system of knowledge (for example cognitive maps of knowledge)
in terms of his or her social environment (for example Vygotsky, 1962).
Connectivism therefore regards education as a process that takes place within a computer network environment,
surpassing the individual. Connectivism, as an applied theory of constructivism, stems from the conviction that
"every learning process is deeply individual, and that knowledge is formed (constructed) by one`s own experiences
and interpretations of the world" (Piaget, 1955). The role of the pupils is thus progressively changing - from them
being passive containers, which must be filled with knowledge, to active participants of the educational process,
who create their own knowledge and surrounding reality (Zounek, Sudický, 2012). Consequently, connectivism
considers understanding by the pupil as dependent on the properties of the network and on the way information is
presented there. Furthermore, every member of this network manages only a certain part of knowledge (Montcon,
2007). Likewise, the teaching based on the principles of constructivism situates the student in the middle of the
process and is perceived as active (as opposed to passive instructivism). At the same time, the role of the teacher is
obviously changing, too, from that of an authoritative source of knowledge to this of an assistant (facilitator), who
rather supports pupils in their own learning (Tracey, 2009).
A key aspect of teaching thus conceived is the creation and the maintenance of interconnection on the network,
expanding the knowledge base of the individual beyond his or her own capacity. Another aspect is the fact that the
volume of information which the educatee is exposed to (within the framework of both intentional and non-
intentional education) is too big for him or her to be internalized by learning or by experience, and at the same time,
is subject to quick changes and becomes obsolete (Downes, 2012). Siemens claims that the network connections
 1616 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622

facilitating further learning and development are of more importance than the current state of knowledge (Siemens,
2005). Nevertheless, it is also essential that contemporary pupils and students are able to organize their own learning
networks, which in future will result in continuing self-education of the latter.

3. Connectivism - research tools and areas

That is why constructivist methods, involving the process of active social learning (Oblinger, Oblinger, 2005) have
been gradually applied recently in order to build a proper learning network and to internalize basic knowledge
structures, including further deepening of the knowledge gained, by the educatee. In a virtual environment, specific
procedures and instruments closely connected with modern information and communication technologies are
applied within the framework of the knowledge construction process (Tracey, 2009):

x discussion forums - asking questions, clarifying context, knowledge sharing,

x wiki modules and nonlinear knowledge banks - social construction of knowledge,
x search function –independently organized further research.

Higher level, in terms of knowledge and skills, is represented by tools and activities based on the theory of
connectivism, which introduce the necessity of the connection to relevant sources of information in terms of the
current exponential growth of information volume. Connectivist activities thus include above all (Tracey, 2009):

x external news feeds (RSS), blogs, wiki modules and discussion forums,
x social and professional networks - Facebook, Twitter, etc.
x information Portals, databases of external links.

In the context of publishing and research activities related to the issue of the use and application of information
and communication technologies in education, based on the implementation of the concept of connectivist learning
theory; it is possible to observe three major schools of thought. The first and the oldest one focuses on the use of
learning networks in education. It primarily deals with the topics related to e-learning in the narrow sense of the
word, that is to say in connection with distance education with a minimum attendance of learners in classes. There
exist many studies dealing with the problem, for example by: J. Zounek (2009a, 2009b), R. C. Clark and R. E.
Mayer (2008), M. F. Paulsen, (2003), A. Barešová (2003), L. Eger (2002), K. Kopecky (2006), J. Prucha and J.
Mika (2000) and other.
The second school of thought focuses on issues related to e-learning in a broad sense comprising new topics such as
dealing with the possible uses of MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) and social networks (Web 2.0) in
education. Compared to the first stream of thought, more general issues and principles connected with possible
distribution of educational content and communication through computer networks, and also with the appropriate
structuring of learning materials and the impact of communication on the process are dealt with. This area has also
been described by a number of authors, for example by: S. Matt and L. Fernandez (2013), Ch. Parr (2012), R. Kop
(2011), T. Iiyoshi and M. S. Vijay (2008), Y. Li and S. Powell (2013), J. Zounek and P. Sudický (2012), and others.
The third thought and research stream focuses on the competencies of pupils and students with respect to the use
of advanced information and communication technologies. This area focuses on the definition and the exploration of
the skills that pupils and students have or which they need to develop to be able to make of use all the possibilities
offered by modern information and communication technologies. Research plans and projects in this area have been
numerous; however, one of them dominates. It is the currently implemented international research project ICILS
(International Computer and Information Literacy Study), involving the total of 18 countries from all around the
world. This international project aims at gaining insight into pupils' skills regarding computer and information
literacy, which a wide range of other, similarly targeted researches and information resources, both of domestic and
foreign provenience, have focused on, too.
However, there is an area hitherto neglected and that is the one which is focused on the examination of the
relationships between the instruments and the procedures used by the educatee while building his or her learning
networks, which are based on the principle of connectivism (Siemens, 2005, Downes, 2012) on the one hand, and
the internalization of basic knowledge structure based on the involvement of the cognitive process of the pupil or the
 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622 1617

student and supported by modern information and communication technologies on the other hand. These cognitive
processes can be defined using the words of R.L. Atkinson as "mental processes of perception, information
encoding, storage, and processing, through which an individual acquires information, plans and solves problems"
(Atkinson, 2003, p 693). According to this interpretation, cognitive processes express the processuality of human
cognition, with the related cognitive functions determining that the process should consist of individual components
or processes. These functions and their components can be defined as: "all thought processes which allow us to
recognize, remember, learn and adapt to constantly changing environmental conditions. Furthermore, higher
cognitive or executive functions are included, such as the ability to solve problems, plan, organize, view and
judge..." (Sternberk, 1990). Here technology is represented mainly by social networks and tools for collaborative
learning in the sense of "interactive cooperation within the group of learners" (Beckman, 1990).

4. Context and objectives of the realized survey research

Within this context, a wide scale of questions arise as to how and to what extend the pupil`s and student`s
cognitive process is influenced by modern information and communication technologies and tools, conversely, how
these technologies are used by pupils and students to build their own learning networks and to internalize their
knowledge structure. Taken into account the abovementioned, it is no longer necessary to ask questions concerning
"what" they use or "how many times" they use, or even "how well " they can handle the learning networks (see the
above-mentioned project ICILS). On the contrary, we need to start asking "to what purpose" the learning networks,
supported by information technologies and social networks are used by the educatees, "how they use them for the
purpose of intentional or non-intentional learning", "how they build these networks", "which strategies they select"
while building them and especially "how these networks affect the process of knowledge construction".
While seeking answers to these questions, the concept of the theory of connectivism described hereinabove shall
be helpful as well as the model of cognitive process mechanism based on the generic model of knowledge
construction (Hejny, 2004). According to this model, it is possible to divide the process of the origination and
construction of a new piece of knowledge into five levels and two level crossings (ascents), which represent the core
of the cognitive process (Hejny, Kurina, 2004).
They are as follows:

1. level of motivation,
2. level of isolated models,
3. first abstraction ascent - generalization,
4. level of generic models,
5. second abstraction ascent - abstraction,
6. level of crystallization (structuring).

A synthesis of the two approaches makes for deeper understanding of the functioning of the cognitive process,
supported by modern information technologies, and, conversely, for better understanding of the mechanisms of the
influence of these technologies on the process of learning, where learning is seen as a process of active construction
of knowledge by the student in an interactive learning environment (eg. Steinbring, 2005).
The main objective of the submitted project is to produce an explanation of the procedures and tools which
students use in order to build their own learning networks and to internalize their knowledge structures based on a
generic model of knowledge construction. Subsequently, a classification of students shall be carried out based on the
said explanation. To achieve this main objective, it was necessary to implement some sub-goals which can be
defined as follows:

x
to analyze the reason why students use certain tools and procedures when building their own learning networks
for both intentional and non-intentional learning,
x on the qualitative research, to find out how students use certain tools and processes of constructing their
based
own learning networks.
 1618 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622

5. Research methodology and the research sample description

Based on the aforementioned objectives, a research survey was carried out, focused on the connection between
the first two levels of the generic model of the knowledge construction and the tools and procedures that university
students use when learning with the support of information and communication technologies, with a special
emphasis on social networks and open information sources.

The aim of this investigation was to determine what actually motivates the students to use particular tools and
procedures within building their own learning networks for the purpose of both intentional or non-intentional
learning (level of motivation), and to find out how students acquire information and knowledge using social
networks and other tools and procedures aimed at the building their own learning networks for the purpose of
learning (level of isolated models).
The research sample consisted of 170 students of Palacky University Olomouc Faculty of Education, who have
been provided with training in both full-time and distance study programs. The selected research sample
corresponded with the overall structure of the Faculty of Education students, both in terms of gender distribution
(research sample: 29% of men and 71% of women, faculty: 25% of men and 75% women), and age distribution (the
average age of the research sample members: 21,5 , faculty: 22,1). As an initial means to obtain the data required for
the implementation of the survey, a questionnaire was used, consisting of 19 questions and an evaluation scale with
number 1 determining the lowest level of preference and number 6 the highest preference, which enabled the
students to express the degree of their identification with the given statements (for example that they compose the
required information of pieces from different information sources, they communicate with their friends especially on
the Internet, they like consulting problems with friends on the Internet, when solving a learning problem, they can
concentrate on several information sources simultaneously, and so on).
Individual statements were formulated in such a way that they would examine the connection between the level
of knowledge construction generic model on the one hand (due to limited capacities, only two out of five levels were
examined), and the tools or the procedures which students used to construct their cognitive structures with the
support of social networks and open information sources, enabling the construction of their own learning networks,
on the other hand. The research method used for the purpose of processing the acquired research data was the one of
cluster analysis (Pecáková, 2008). Being one of the methods dealing with the study of the similarity of
multidimensional objects, that is to say objects disposing of more variables measured, and with their classification
into groups (clusters), cluster analysis is applied in particular where objects have a natural tendency to cluster.
Having originated as a taxonomic method, it is nevertheless usable in other areas as well (Meloun, Militky, 2006).

6. Selected research results

The first step in data processing was to determine whether there exists any distribution of the respondents
depending on the extent of their identification with the given statements into clusters, which would represent the
evaluation of characteristic groups of respondents. In this way, the total group of respondents was subdivided into
groups which showed a similar dispersion of values. Simply put, should there appear several respondents showing a
similar extent of identification with the given statements, such respondents would form a cluster. The whole
situation is illustrated by the graph number 1 below.
 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622 1619

Graph 1 – Results of the primary cluster analysis

In view of the above, it can be stated that the research sample of respondents shows a strong tendency to split into
two separate clusters, according to the degree of preference to selected tools and procedures used to construct
cognitive structures with the support of social networks and open information sources. It is possible to observe the
fact at the level of the distances between the connections around 12. To better explain this fact and to determine
possible factors which may influence the outcome, further analyses using K-means were performed. Further
descriptive characteristics of the respondents, such as age and gender were used in these analyses. For the outcomes
see the graph number 2 below.

Graph 2 – Results of the cluster analysis performed using the method of K-means

As the graph above shows, the presumption was confirmed that the group of respondents can be divided into two
separate clusters according to the degree of preference to selected tools and methods of building cognitive
structures, supported by social networks and open information sources. With respect to the perception of the tools
and procedures used, these groups are completely different not only as regards the degree of identification, but also
regarding their age and gender. The first group (marked in blue) consists of students of lower age, who in most cases
much more prefer the use of tools and procedures for building learning networks. The second group (marked in red)
includes older students, whose preference to such tools is significantly smaller. Both the graphs also show the clear
influence of gender and age on these preferences and the degree of identification. Moreover, it is possible to say that
as far as gender is concerned, women prevail in groups of older age and lower preferences.
 1620 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622

It is possible to confirm these facts also by means of the results of the implemented analysis of variance (see the
table number 1 below), which show that taken the total of 19 statements, 15 showed a substantial degree of
difference between the two groups and only 4 (marked in bold type) did not show any significant statistical
differences.

Table 1 – Results of analysis of variance

Analysis of variance; Include condition: age and gender
group MN internal MN df F signif. p

p1/o1 9,890 93,988 120 12,627 0,001

p1/o2 29,719 88,893 120 40,119 0,000
p1/o3 18,305 101,513 120 21,639 0,000
p1/o4 20,886 90,450 120 27,709 0,000
p1/o5 13,118 92,207 120 17,072 0,000
p1/o6 2,234 124,022 120 2,162 0,144
p1/o7 4,495 131,590 120 4,099 0,045
p1/o8 41,990 79,034 120 63,754 0,000
p1/o9 4,151 106,446 120 4,680 0,033
p1/o10 33,972 81,088 120 50,274 0,000
p1/o11 15,080 96,439 120 18,764 0,000
p1/o12 10,568 89,814 120 14,120 0,000
p1/o13 0,700 116,863 120 0,718 0,398
p1/o14 7,934 96,495 120 9,867 0,002
p1/o15 37,322 93,369 120 47,968 0,000
p1/o16 8,544 108,181 120 9,477 0,003
p1/o17 0,049 133,350 120 0,044 0,834
p1/o18 23,167 97,442 120 28,531 0,000
p1/o19 2,377 128,286 120 2,223 0,139
gender 6,218 90,010 120 8,290 0,005
age 15,144 152,239 120 11,937 0,001

Based on these results, it is possible to categorize students according to the tools and procedures they use while
building cognitive structures, supported by social networks and open information sources. The first category, for the
time being called "non-networking" students, comprises respondents who, while building their cognitive structures,
use information and communication technologies and social networks only marginally. This group is characterized
in particular by their reluctance to use social networks for communication or education purposes, the unwillingness
to share their knowledge and the preference to assembling information on their own. A typical representative of this
group is a middle-aged woman. The second group, for the purpose of the research called "networking" students, are
those respondents who fully utilize the potential of social networks and open sources not only for communication
but also for education and learning purposes. They are characterized by a significantly high level of collaboration,
willingness to share their knowledge and impressions, the speed with which they seek and process information. A
typical representative of this group is a young man.

7. Conclusions

Despite the fact that the above stated results cannot be considered significant (specific research sample, two out
of five levels, number of respondents, and so on), they show some facts that might help explain some of the
differences in the approach to the purposeful use of the tools and procedures while building their own learning
networks by pupils and students.
 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622 1621

One of these facts is that the age and the gender of the respondents do have a clear impact on the construction of
knowledge supported by information and communication technologies in at least two of the five levels of the
generic model. Taken that into account, when all the connections with all five levels and two abstraction ascents
have been analyzed in the future, it will be possible to carry out a comprehensive classification of pupils and
students according to the tools and procedures that the former use to build their own learning networks.
Based on these results, it is possible to perform at least partial categorization of college students into two groups.
Both groups are distinguished primarily by the ability to perform so-called "multitasking" (ability to focus on
several information sources simultaneously). While a group of "non-networking" students do not dispose of this
ability and even reject it on principle, the group of "networking" of students applies the latter in full. Being able to
quickly and efficiently find and process information is therefore obviously a vital skill within the framework of
building the knowledge structure, supported by social networks and open information sources.

References

Atkinson, R. L. (2003) Psychologie. Praha: Portál. 752 p.

Barešová, A. (2003) E-learning ve vzdělávání dospělých. Praha: VOX. 110 p.
Beckman, M. Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy? College
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational
Technology 39(5). pp. 12-31.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008) E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia
learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 510 p.
Downes, S. (2012) Connectivism and Connective Knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks [online]. Toronto: National Research
Council Canada. 616 p.
Eger, L. (2002) Příprava tutorů pro distanční výuku s využitím on-line formy studia. Plzeň: ZČU. 59 p.
Hejný, M. (2004) Mechanizmus poznávacího procesu. Praha: PedF UK. pp. 23–42.
Hejný, M., Kuřina, F. (2009) Dítě, škola a matematika. Konstruktivistické přístupy k matematice. Praha: Portál. 232 p.
Iiyoshi, T. & Vijay, M. S. (2008). Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content,
and Open Knowledge. Chicago, M.I.T. Press. 265 p.
Janíková, M. & Vlčková, K. (2009) Výzkum výuky: tématické oblasti, výzkumné přístupy a metody. Brno: Paido, 2009. 179 p.
Kop, R. (2011) The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Athabasca, AU Press.
Kopecký, K. (2006) E-learning (nejen) pro pedagogy. Olomouc: Hanex. 121 p.
Li, Y. & Powell, S. (2013) MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education White Paper. University of Bolton: CETIS, 2013.
117 p.
Lupač, P. (2011) Mýty (a realita) digitální generace [online]. Lupa [cit. 2012-01-10]. Gained from: http://www.lupa.cz/clanky/myty-a-realita-
digitalni-generace/
Matt, S. & Fernandez, L. (2013) Before MOOCs, Colleges of the Air. Chronicle of Higher Education, 40(2). Washington D.C.
Meloun, M. & Militký, J. (2006) Kompendium statistického zpracování dat: metody a řešené úlohy. Praha: Academia, 2006. 982 p.
Moncton, S. D. (2007) What Connectivism Is. Half an Hour [online]. February 3, 2007 [cit. 2014-02-03]. Gained from:
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005) Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation. Educating the Net Generation [on-
line]. Educause, c2005 [cit. 2013-03-011]. Gained from: http://www.educause.edu/Resources/EducatingtheNetGeneration/IsItAgeorITFirstSt
Palfrey, J., & Glasser, U. (2008) Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. Oxford, Oxford Press. 143 p.
Parr, Ch. (2012). "Mooc creators criticise courses’ lack of creativity". Times Higher Education, 10(4). London, TSL Education.
Paulsen, M. F. (2003) Online Education and Learning Management Systems - Global Elearning in a Scandinavian Perspective. Oslo: NKI
Forlaget. 337 p.
Pecáková, I. (2008) Statistika v terénních průzkumech. Praha: Professional Publishing. 231 p.
Piaget, J. (1955). The Child's Construction of Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Prensky, M. (2001a) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants [online]. On the Horizon 9(5), pp. 1-6. Gained
from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Do They Really Think Differently? [online]. On the Horizon 9(5), pp. 7-11. Gained
from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Prensky, M. (2009) Homo Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate [online]. February/March
2009, Vol. 5, Iss. 3 [cit. 2014-01-03]. Gained from
http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital_From_Digital_Immigrants_and_Digital_Natives_to_Digital_Wisdom.pd
f
Průcha, J. & Míka, J. (2000) Distanční studium v otázkách. Praha: NCDV. 39 p.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning [on-line]. January 2005, Vol. 2, No. 1 [cit. 2014-01-01]. Gained from: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
Steinbring, H. (2005) The construction of new mathematical knowledge in classroom interaction: An epistemological perspective. USA:
Springer.
Sternberg, R. J. (1990) Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 339 p.
 1622 Milan Klement et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 (2015) 1614 – 1622

Tapscott, D. (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. 271 p.
Teaching, 1990, 38(4). pp. 128–133.
Tracey, R. (2009) Instructivism, Constructivism or Connectivism? Learning in the Corporate Sector [online]. Posted on 17 March 2009 [cit.
2014-03-05]. Gained from: http://ryan2point0.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/instructivismconstructivism-or-connectivism/
Veen, W. & Vrakking, B. (2006) Homo Zappiens. Growing Up In A Digital Age. London, Network Continnum Education. 47 p.
Vygotskij, L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.
Zounek, J. & Sudický, P. (2012) E-learning učení se s online technologiemi. Praha, Wolters Kluwer. 248 p.
Zounek, J. (2009a) E-learning – jedna z podob učení v moderní společnosti. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. 161 p.
Zounek, J. (2009b) E-learning ve školním vzdělávání. In Průcha, J. a kol. Pedagogická encyklopedie. Praha: Portál, pp. 277 – 281.