Towards a New Learning: The Scholar Social Knowledge Workspace PDF

## Towards a New Learning: the Scholar social knowledge workspace, in theory and practice Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis **Abstract** This article describes the thinking behind the development of Scholar, a ‘social knowledge’ technology developed as part of a series of research and development projec...

## Towards a New Learning: the Scholar social knowledge workspace, in theory and practice Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis **Abstract** This article describes the thinking behind the development of Scholar, a ‘social knowledge’ technology developed as part of a series of research and development projects at the University of Illinois. Seven pedagogical openings are identified in this article, possibilities for the creation of innovative learning environments afforded by a new generation of educational technologies: ubiquitous learning, active knowledge production, multimodal knowledge representations, recursive feedback, collaborative intelligence, metacognitive reflection and differentiated learning. The article explores these ideas in general terms, and also describes the ways in which the Scholar environment attempts to translate these ideas into practice. **Introduction** For the past several years, the authors have primarily been working in two spaces: theoretical and practical. They have revised their New Learning: elements of a science of education (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b). They have also been working on a 'social knowledge' technology, Scholar (http://CGScholar.com), which is a web working space for learners. The initial results of this work are described in the articles in this special issue of E-Learning and Digital Media. This article attempts to tie the theoretical ideas together with the practical agenda established in Scholar. This article builds upon their earlier work on pedagogy, diversity and literacy (Kalantzis & Cope, 1999; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009a; Kalantzis & Cope, 2010). **New Learning** The narrative of New Learning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b) goes something like this: Earlier in the modern period, mass-institutionalized education was established. Schools were a publicly enforced site of socialization and knowledge transmission. The main epistemic artifacts of modern schools were teacher talk and fact-driven or deductively definitive textbook content. Student response was framed in terms of right and wrong answers, either to questions the teacher asked in class, or doing assignments, or responding to questions in tests. Several centuries later, much schooling is still a variant of this didactic paradigm. From the beginning of the modern period, but rising as a distinct alternative voice in the twentieth century, the progressive movement created a more 'authentic' pedagogy. It was more 'constructivist' insofar as it attempted to harness student volition and was more democratic in temper than authoritarian. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, authentic pedagogy also seemed to have become stale. It was not only because it had managed to make only small inroads into didactic pedagogy, now re-institutionalized with its standardized systems of testing and accountability. It was called out because, even when comprehensively applied, it did not seem to have an impact on the distressingly unequal impact when patterns of educational outcome are analysed according to variables such as social class and race/ethnicity. It also seemed to be manifestly inadequate to serve what was touted as an emerging 'knowledge society' (Peters & Beasley, 2006). **What is to be done?** The authors believe that technology is one such opening, one of the revolutionary changes of our times. In particular, information and communications technologies have transformed human representational and communicative capacities – whether this be for better in the democratization of processes of knowledge creation and distribution, or for worse in the case of the 'digital divide'. So too diversity and globalization have transformed our social and communicational environments – forces that require different responses in our time than the 'one-size-fits-all', mass socialization approaches of older educational regimes. So too the idea that we live in a knowledge society, whose basis is a knowledge economy, in which know-how, skills, inventiveness, intellectual risk-taking, culture-work and human service-work are more valuable and more central to economic progress than ever before. This means that an education system that routinely in the industrial era sent a large tail of failed students into unskilled work is fast becoming anachronistic. **Scholar** The Scholar intervention is an attempt to reframe the relations of knowledge and learning, recalibrating traditional modes of pedagogy in order to create learning ecologies which are more appropriately attuned to our times. Technology provides one opening for us, and in particular the new, social media, underpinned by 'cloud computing' (Reese, 2009) and 'semantic publishing' (Cope et al, 2011a) processes. **Seven Pedagogical Openings** The authors explore seven pedagogical openings: 1. Ubiquitous learning 2. Active knowledge production 3. Multimodal knowledge representations 4. Recursive feedback 5. Collaborative intelligence 6. Metacognitive reflection 7. Differentiated learning **Figure 1. Seven openings, seven affordances.** The authors go into depth in the above areas. **Ubiquitous Learning** Ubiquitous learning means learning any time, any place (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009b). It is a riff on the idea of 'ubiquitous computing' (Twidale, 2009). Once science fiction, with the rise of laptop computers, tablets and smartphones, ubiquitous computing is an idea that has arrived in a very ordinary and pervasive way – in every store, every workplace, and almost every home, handbag or pocket. But hardly in schools. And when it has arrived there, it is mostly in ways that often does little justice to the dynamic knowledge potentials of the medium. To capture what is distinctive about these potentials, the authors want to label this key aspect of new information and communications technologies – the first of their seven openings – 'ubiquitous learning'. One of the key practical entry points is web browser-based software – the availability of browsers on many kinds of device, without the need to install software locally or adapt software to different devices and operating systems. **Active Knowledge Production** The traditional classroom is, in essence, an epistemic architecture grounded in a communications technology. The communications technology is defined by the walls of the classroom, containing thirty or so children and where one teacher or one student can speak at a time. Here, teachers and textbooks present pithy concentrations of the world in the form of history, grammar, mathematics, or whatever. These are essentially monologues, bodies of knowledge spoken in a singular, synoptic voice, whether the voice be that of the teacher or textbook author. Students read silently, write quietly, and avert their eyes from lateral 'copying' glances as they fill out their worksheets or respond to tests. These are almost solitary process, even when other learners are so close at hand. The aim is that that facts are to be committed to memory and theorems learned from which unequivocal answers can readily be deduced. Memorized facts and the generation of correct answers by the application of theorems can be measured in tests that eleicit right and wrong answers, at the end of a lesson, or week, or a chapter, or a course. In this knowledge architecture, students are primarily configured as passive knowledge consumers rather than active knowledge producers. The knowledge that is transmitted to them takes the form of a univocal narrative. The moral economy of singular content transmission demands unquestioning compliance in the face of epistemic authority, lack of critical autonomy, and an absence of responsibility. This may have been appropriate, perhaps, for an earlier era of industrial discipline and mass conformity. But the sensibilities, habits of mind, knowledge and skills of this heavily didactic pedagogy are not well aligned to the spirit and practical needs our times. Going forward into the future, workers, citizens and learners will not be well served by these kinds of knowledge architectures. Rather, the authors believe that we need to create environments of participatory learning, where learners are knowledge producers at least as much as they are knowledge consumers. Now, they will examine multiple sources (discovering texts with different perspectives, conducting their own observations, indeed acting as researchers themselves). They will collaborate with peers in knowledge production, as co-authors, as peer reviewers, and as readers and discussants of finished works shared with other learners. They will create always-original knowledge syntheses based on unique life experiences and perspectives. Now the authors will be supplementing the predominantly hierarchical knowledge flows of our recent past (expert to novice, authority to authorized, teacher to student) with relations of lateral knowledge co-creation. This fits nicely with wider contemporary shifts in the 'balance of agency' (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012b), where consumers are becoming 'prosumers' with their customizable products and interfaces, where reading (insofar as it is a kind of consumption) is intermingled with writing (insofar as it is a kind of production) in the 'new media', where amateurs are barely distinguishable from professionals in web knowledge spaces like Wikipedia, and where the pleasure of the narrative in gaming is not simply vicarious as it is in television or cinema, because you are a character with shared responsibility for the story's ending. Scholar attempts to capture the spirit of this huge change in the social relations of knowledge and culture. To get away from the heritage connotations associated with 'teachers' and 'students', in Scholar they use the terminology of the social relations of knowledge production. The authors have 'creators', who take credit for the works that are created. They have 'contributors', who review and annotate works. They have 'publishers', who co-ordinate groups in the collaborative knowledge production workflow. And they have a community' where works are published and discussed. Publishers and knowledge community admins may be teachers, but not necessarily so. Their focus is on the logistics of knowledge production, not heritage teaching learning or relations. Designed for Grade 4 and above, they made a decision not to infantilize children with jolly cartoon characters or primary colors. They wanted to emote Scholar with an aura of intellectual seriousness – not fun, not game-like. With a minimalist design, the feel of the space will be their own imagery and texts, not their projections of an appropriate look-and-feel for a childish culture. **Multimodal Knowledge Representations** In an earlier modernity, different forms of representation were kept fairly separate from each other, and for some simple technological reasons. For example, written text in letterpress sections of books were separate from images in sections of lithographic 'plates'; radio and sound recordings were the pre-eminent sites for the transmission of audio; television offered moving image with very little writing; and printed datasets were put in tables that were not readily manipulable by readers. A revolution has occurred with digitization where so much of their capacity to record and deliver meanings remotely across time and space can now be done using a shared technological platform. Text, image, sound and data can all be reduced to the zeros and ones of computer code. Before, different technologies had to be used for the recording and distribution of these media. Because these things can all be in the same space, their means of representation of meaning are converging. They can be overlaid and mixed in the same space – the screen. But their actual tools often do not reach their potential because they are often needlessly tethered to older technological means – word processors, for instance, still mainly do writing and use anachronistic logics of documents, pages, and typographically ordered text. Even on the web, they keep the modes relatively separate - blogs for writing, podcasts for sound, YouTube for video, Flickr for still images. And of course, in schools, they still have a separate subject for reading and writing ('literacy'), and different subjects for image making ('art'). Now that they have at hand the tools for fully multimodal knowledge representation, it is time they offer these to their learners. They need to move beyond the handwriting book or the word processor. Instead, their learners should be working in the twenty-first-century world of web communications. This is a pedagogical imperative as well as a practical one, so students can represent their meanings independently and simultaneously in different modes written, oral, visual, audio and dataset. Each mode complements the other - the diagram and the text, the oral and the written explanation, manipulable data and its synthetic summary. Each can say the same kind of thing as the other, and is also an irreducibly different mode of representation. Much can be learned by moving backwards between modes, representing meaning in one mode then another – a cognitive process they have called 'synesthesia', extending by metaphor the meaning of a word whose origins lie in cognitive psychology (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012a, chapter 7). Take the science experiment – the representation of its results can include words, diagrams, tables, dataset, and also a video demonstrating the experiment itself. Learning is deepened as students shift from one mode to another, making their meanings one way, then another complementary way. This is also their rationale for creating a purely 'semantic editor' in Scholar. There are no fonts or point sizes or colors. There is none of the bewildering and practically irrelevant range of options presented in the toolbars, ribbons, sidebars and formatting palettes of word processors. In the Scholar toolbar, there is simply 'emphasis' (and that happens to look like italic), numbered and bullet point lists, 'block quotes' (these are indented), tables and hyperlinks. There are also things that word processors don't do or can barely do, such as an image, video, audio, dataset and any other file – all of which can be seamlessly inserted within the body of the text. There are no documents or folders – they don't need these cumbersome nineteenth-century office filing metaphors in the twenty-first century. Instead, there are works that they can reach again by tagging, and which don't need to be on one metaphorical place (a folder) to be found again. There are no pages or endless 'scrolling' because longer texts are ordered into multiple-section information architectures by Scholar's structure tool. **Recursive Feedback** One of the strangest artifacts of traditional schooling is the test. It is strange for its separation from learning (an at-the-end managerial thing, a retrospective judgment which can do little in an immediate sense to further learning). It is strange also for its ways of conceiving knowledge, using as it does quite different devices from the ordinary processes of engaging with knowledge and learning themselves (such as the game in which students discriminate atomized right responses from trick 'distractors', designed to look right but which are deceptively, deliberately not right). In recent decades, the obsession with testing for the purposes of institutional accountability has magnified everything strange and problematic about the heritage processes of testing. Social knowledge technologies, however, mean that assessment does not have to be this way any more (Cope et al, 2011b). One of their aims in the Scholar project has been to focus on formative assessment – assessment that is on-the-fly, and that makes in a detailed and constructive way a direct contribution to student learning. In the era of social knowledge technologies, no learning environment should be without always-available feedback mechanisms – machine feedback and machine-mediated social feedback. Then, when it comes to summative assessment, all they need to do is present a retrospective view of student progress, using no more and no less than all the data collected in the formative assessment process. Scholar's Dashboard mines student data on-the-fly, all the work they have done in a period of time and up until the second when Dashboard is opened. It presents a view of individual learner progress and a comparative view of cohorts. This kind of technology means that they don't need traditional summative assessments. In fact, they might in the not-too-distant future be able to abandon summative assessment, and so its perverse peculiarity as an artifact and its baleful institutional effects. And this because there is so much assessment going on, all the time, from so many perspectives, of everything the learner commits as a documented knowledge work. One area of focus in the Scholar endeavor has been to develop processes through which it is possible to 'crowdsource'. The machine itself can provide some feedback using natural language processing algorithms, and this feedback is computable, the results of which are provided through Scholar's Dashboard. There are also the benefits of constant, machine-mediated human feedback, and from multiple perspectives – teacher, peers, and self. Teachers can, of course, provide feedback. So can peers. Revealingly, they have shown in their research that the mean of two o more peers' assessments is remarkably close to the score of an expert rater (Cope et al, this issue). Learners can also provide feedback, in self-assessments. Teachers and learners are all assessing learning, and every one of their perspectives is of some value. In fact, as their perspectives vary, the feedback may be more extensive, more thought-provoking, more rapidly provided and thus more valuable, than the most assiduous of lone teacher-markers. They can also moderate the various ratings and calibrate results via processes of inter-rater reliability, and the result may also be more reliable assessment. One effect of distributing assessment responsibilities in this way, is to remove the trickery from assessment. This is also to democratize assessment, where teacher and students are all measuring learning against the same criteria, in the same ways. Scholar offers four on-the-fly assessment mechanisms: review, annotations, checker and survey. 'Review' imports the historical processes of peer review as the canonical ecology of scholarly social knowledge production, into any classroom from about Grade 4. Peer reviewers in Scholar can be anonymous or named. However, review is somewhat differently modulated from rubric-based summative assessment. The intellectual raw materials (the 'review criteria') are the same, but instead of framing assessment in a retrospectively judgmental language (for instance, 'How effectively is the claim supported by evidence?'), it is framed in prospective and constructively oriented language ('How might the claim be strengthened with further or differently presented evidence?'). Their research shows that the quality of student response is dependent upon the review criteria established by the teacher (Kline et al, this issue). To elicit constructive response on the part of peers, review criteria need to be framed in terms of constitutive feedback rather than evaluative judgment (McCarthey et al, 2013; Woodard et al, this issue). **Collaborative Intelligence** Traditionally, schooling has been based on the idea of individual intelligence, where intelligence itself is narrowly conceived as personal memory and mechanical skills of deduction. The human mind, however, is an intrinsically social thing (Gee, 1992). Our cognitive capacities reside in the language we have inherited and the ways of seeing we have learned. Intelligence is our capacity to reach for always-available social memory and to apply available logics and computational tools. It is what we can do together in communities of practice. Today, through ubiquitous computing and the social web, externalized memory and computational tools are accessible that have historically unprecedented power. At the same time, work, public community life is more manifestly energized by collaborations. So much, in the twenty-first century, for the culture of closed-book examinations or isolated, individualized student work. One of their primary research questions in the Scholar project, is how do they refigure the discursive positions of teachers and learners (Cazden, 2001) to reflect a more collaborative understanding of the nature of learning and intelligence? In the traditional classroom, peer-to-peer interactions are reduced to a minimum, often for practical reasons of 'noise' and classroom discipline. **Typical Discursive Flows** The authors provide some examples of typical discursive flows in a traditional classroom. **Discursive Flows in Scholar** They then contrast that with some typical discursive flows in Scholar, showing how interaction is more collaborative in this environment. **Metacognitive Reflection** Metacognition is a means to think more deeply, at a higher level of abstraction. It also produces efficiencies in thinking and learning, as conceptualization at higher levels of abstraction broadens the scope of application and transfer for ideas and understandings. There is a big and growing literature on metacognition in learning, the value of which we can take as given (Bransford et al, 2000; Bereiter, 2002). Scholar does metacognition in several ways. One way is in the explicitness of a semantically framed knowledge-representation space, where learners learn about information architectures in an analytical way in the organizational logic of the structure tool, or the tagging tool, and the markup requirements of 'emphasis' or 'block quote'. Another way is the requirement to self- and peer-assess against explicit criteria that are presented before the work even begins, a meta-reflective process which is now shared with the teacher. Students and teachers necessarily engage in dialogue about the fundamental nature of the task, as well as the specifics of task performance. Practically speaking, the Scholar screen is divided into two juxtaposed and closely interconnected sides, as represented in Figure 15. On the left, there is a cognitive side where the learner does their work. On the right is a metacognitive side with various tools and social interaction for metacognitive reflection on the nature of the task. Learners think as they represent their knowledge on the left. They think about their thinking on the right. **Figure 15. Scholar pedagogical architecture: left = the work; right = tools, feedback and interactions about the work; left = cognition; right = metacognition.** **Differentiate Learning** Traditional classroom communication architectures were oriented to one-size-fits-all transmission of homogeneous content. The teacher spoke to the middle of the class, which meant that what they were saying was not understandable for some students and boringly obvious for others. Progressing through the textbook, all students needed to be on the same page at the same time. And when it came to the test, there was just one set of right answers. This arrangement was premised on homogenizing knowledge focus, content, pace and learning progress. This was a premise that failed as often as it succeeded to homogenize. Few would disagree nowadays that differentiated learning is better. But it is harder work than homogenizing teaching. It is more of a logistical challenge for the teacher. It requires that you are a better teacher, with a broader repertoire of strategies, and superb classroom management skills. Social knowledge technologies make differentiated instruction more feasible. Here's what they have tried to achieve in Scholar. Learners can be doing the same thing at their own pace. If a work involves research, drafting, review, revision and publication, not every student has to be up to the same stage in the process at the same stage. The teacher has an immediate view of where they are up to in the project status screen. Indeed, they can click right into the student's work and see their most recent keystroke. **Figure 16. Different works, different pace, different groups of learners doing different projects.** Moreover, positioning the student as a knowledge producer affords more space for student voice, interest, experience and localized relevance. In general terms, the intellectual project might be the same, but the topics may vary. Or, where the aim is collaborative knowledge creation, every student might be working on one distinctive piece in a jigsaw puzzle of class knowledge that is later shared when it is published and shared with the class community. Instead of forcing homogeneity, such a classroom operationalizes the principle of productive diversity or the complementarity of differential knowledge and experiences. Students might even go on to cite each other's works as knowledge sources, as distributed expertise. Such a learning ecology is one that harnesses learner identities, deepens their sense of engagement, and increases their motivation to devote time to task and engage with others in their knowledge community. Then assessment becomes a somewhat different process than in the past, not measuring capacities to remember identical things or correctly deduce the same answers, but measuring higher order comparabilities and equivalences between knowledge artifacts which may in substance be different. In this assessment regime, you don't have to be the same to be equal. And at this point, managing learner differences may become easier than one-one-size-fits-all teaching. **Conclusion** None of the seven openings that they have outlined in this article is new to the theories or practices of education. In fact, each of them has its origins in pedagogical propositions that have been made, in one form or another, from the first moments of modern, mass-institutionalized education. Their Scholar research has attempted to explore ways in which what they have termed ‘social knowledge' technologies might make each of these ideas easier to realize. Along the way, they have encountered many challenges, some of which they have overcome in part, while others they are still attempting to address. There are problems around adoption, both in terms of the depressingly poor access to now-basic information and communications technologies in schools, and the challenge for teachers to modify heritage pedagogical practices (Olmanson & Abrams, this issue). They have also faced methodological challenges in their attempts to determine 'efficacy' against the measure of a comparison group let alone 'fidelity of implementation'. Teacher practices and school conditions are so very variable. And their agile development methodologies with new releases based on user feedback every two weeks have meant that Scholar is always changing (Ahn & Greene, this issue). However, these very challenges have also brought with them rewards. One teacher tells of how one of the research team: - came in and observed the kids using it and talked to them and they were telling her this should be more like Facebook and we should be able to click on this. Then the next week when they implemented that change the kids were just ecstatic; they loved being able to see it happen [participating] was worth it. The kids were the ones who remembered that we had used it. [They] were proud of the fact that they had a say in [the design]. (Olmanson & Abrams, this issue) This is a moment of profound social transformation. 'Disruptive' is a word applied to new information and communications technologies, to the point at times where it is almost a cliché. It is high time they disrupt traditional schooling, not for disruption's sake but simply, pragmatically, to keep education relevant to their changing times. To return to their key research questions, it is time they create the conditions for learning and assessment which connect collaborative with individual intelligence, which supplement extrinsic motivations with intrinsic motivations in the work of knowledge making and sharing that work in knowledge communities, and which nurture a productive diversity in learning. They have tried to edge in these directions as they have collaborated with learners and their teachers in the development of the Scholar environment. **[1]** The authors wish to acknowledge funding support from the US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences: "The Assess-as-You-Go Writing Assistant: a student work environment that brings together formative and summative assessment' (R305A090394); 'Assessing Complex Performance: a postdoctoral training program researching students writing and assessment in digital workspaces' (R305B110008); 'u-learn.net: an anywhere/anytime formative assessment and learning feedback environment' (ED-IES-10-C-0018); “The Learning Element: a lesson planning and curriculum documentation tool for teachers' (ED-IES-10-C-0021); and 'Infowriter: a student feedback and formative assessment environment for writing information and explanatory texts' (ED-ED-IES-13-C-0039). They also wish to acknowledge funding support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Scholar code owned by the University of Illinois has been licensed by Common Ground Publishing LLC, directed by Bill Cope and located in the Research Park at the University of Illinois. **References** - Bereiter, Carl (2002) Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. - Bransford, John D., Brown, Ann L. & Cocking, Rodney R. (Eds) (2000) How People Learn: brain, mind, experience and school. National Research Council Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington: National Academy Press. - Cazden, Courtney B. (2001) Classroom Discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. - Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington DC. [http://www.corestandards.org/](http://www.corestandards.org/) - Cope, Bill & Kalantzis, Mary (2009a) 'Multiliteracies': new literacies, new learning, Pedagogies, 4, 164-195. - Cope, Bill & Kalantzis, Mary (2009b) Ubiquitous Learning: an agenda for educational transformation, in B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds) Ubiqutous Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. - Cope, Bill, Kalantzis, Mary & Magee, Liam (2011a) Towards a Semantic Web: connecting knowledge in academic research. Cambridge: Woodhead. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781780631745](http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781780631745) - Cope, Bill, Kalantzis, Mary, McCarthey, Sarah, Vojak, Colleen & Kline, Sonia (2011b) Technology-mediated Writing Assessments: paradigms and principles, Computers and Composition, 28, 79-96. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.007) - Espelage, D.L., Rao, M.A. & Craven, R. (2013) Relevant Theories for Cyberbullying Research, in S. Bauman, J. Walker & D. Cross (Eds) Principles of Cyberbullying Research: definition, methods, and measures. New York: Routledge. - Gee, James Paul (1992) The Social Mind: language, ideology, and social practice. New York: Bergin & Garvey. - Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2009) Participatory Transformations, in B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds) Ubiquitous Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. - Kalantzis, Mary & Cope, Bill (1999) Multicultural Education: transforming the mainstream, in S. May (Ed.) Critical Multiculturalism: rethinking multicultural and anti-racist education, pp. 245-276. London: Falmer Press. - Kalantzis, Mary & Cope, Bill (2010) Introduction: learning by design, E-Learning and Digital Media, 7, 198. [http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.198](http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.198) - Kalantzis, Mary & Cope, Bill (2012a) Literacies. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139196581](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139196581) - Kalantzis, Mary & Cope, Bill (2012b) New Learning: elements of a science of education. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139248532](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139248532) - Kellogg, R.T. (1994) The Psychology of Writing. New York: University Press. - Kellogg, R.T. (2008) Training Writing Skills: a cognitive developmental perspective, Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26. - Kellogg, R.T. & Whiteford, A.P. (2009) Training Advanced Writing Skills: the case for deliberate practice, Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600) - McCarthey, Sarah J., Magnifico, Alecia, Woodard, Rebecca & Kline, Sonia (2013) Affordances and Constraints of an Online Writing Environment: the case of Tom, in R. Ferdig & K. Pytash (Eds) Exploring Technology for Writing and Writing Instruction. Hershey PA: IGI Global. - Peters, Michael A. & Beasley Tina (A.C.) (2006) Building Knowledge Cultures: education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. - Reese, George (2009) Cloud Application Architectures: building applications and infrastructure in the cloud. Sebastatpol, CA: O'Reilly. - Twidale, M.B. (2009) From Ubiquitous Computing to Ubiquitous Learning, in B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds) Ubiquitous Learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. **Bill Cope** Bill Cope is a professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Illinois. He is also Director of Common Ground Publishing, located in the Research Park at the University of Illinois, developing the internet publishing software Scholar for schools and scholarly publications. Recent books include The Future of the Academic Journal, edited with Angus Phillips (Chandos, 2009) and Towards a Semantic Web: connecting knowledge in academic research, co-authored with Kalantzis and Magee (Woodhead, 2010). With Mary Kalantzis, he is co-author or editor of: Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures (Routledge, 2000); New Learning: elements of a science of education (Cambridge University Press, 2008/2012); Ubiquitous Learning (University of Illinois Press, 2009); and Literacies (Cambridge University Press, 2012). **Mary Kalantzis** Mary Kalantzis is Dean of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She was formerly Dean of the Faculty of Education, Language and Community Services at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, and President of the Australian Council of Deans of Education. With Bill Cope, she is co-author or editor of: Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures (Routledge, 2000); New Learning: elements of a science of education (Cambridge University Press, 2008/2012); Ubiquitous Learning (University of Illinois Press, 2009); and Literacies (Cambridge University Press, 2012).