My name is Adrian Granchelli and I am a student of the Master of Educational Technology program at the University of British Columbia exploring METatheory in ETEC 565B.
IP #1: Educational Media Ecologies:
Asking the Right Questions
IP #2: Tools of Intellect: From Tradition to Innovation
'Thing' of interest: the pencil
To develop five slides with speaker notes addressing the following:
-
Apply McLuhan’s tetrad to the pencil
-
Represent the main ideas of actor-network theory
-
Elaborate how the pencil impacts us – what does the pencil ‘prescribe’ to us
-
Identify the differences of object vs. thing and matters of fact vs. matters of concern
-
Compare and contrast Action network theory and media ecology
Speaker Notes
​
Slide 1
What if one day, today, right now, the pencil was to just disappear. The inexpensive, basic, erasable, writing utensil, the pencil. That are used by carpenters since graphite can be painted over or by artists who want to sign their work in a method that is nearly impossible to reproduce or mass produce. How many automatic responses from the pencil will disappear? What could be done with not a pencil in your hand?
Maybe the pen, or paint, or a word editor, or maybe even a scratching device may functionally take the place of a pencil, but the ‘invisible’ actions of the pencil would be lost.
As learning doesn’t exist in a vacuum (Suter, 2014) nor does the pencil. But most won’t see it that way, as they call the pencil an object and not a thing – an object, as Latour (2005) describes, designated as objective and independent. We will explore how the pencil is a thing – how the pencil is subjective, how the pencil is a matter of concern, and not of fact, how the pencil exists in our educational parliament of things. (A parliament since this educational network of things instills ‘laws’).
References
Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik – An Introduction to Making Things Public. In Bruno Latour & Peter Weibel Making Things Public-Atmospheres of Democracy catalogue of the show at ZKM, MIT Press
Suter, W. N. (2014). Educators as Critical Thinkers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
​
​
​
Slide 2
Writing utensils have been part of human media ecology for 25’000 years. Over time they have evolved making use of prevalent materials or stock to write on encouraging writing to be easier and easier and slowly displacing oral communication with written communication.
From the actual writing in stone to the impermanence of pencil, not only has writing utensils become more efficient, but they have become inexpensive, readily available, and versatile in all settings.
Is it a coincidence that the pencil was created amidst the Renaissance? A time of great social change, art, and ‘new’ thinking. A time where the printing press was invented that delivered democratization and popularization of knowledge through writing (WikiPedia, 2021a). More than just the popularization of knowledge and writing, there are some deeper points of overlap (if you stretch):
One. For science the increased value of observation pairs with the pencil - a simple method for record keeping
Two. Inductive reasoning – the non-certain and instead probable conclusion paired with the pencil - impermanence
References
WikiPedia. (2021a). Printing Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press
WikiPedia. (2021b). Writing implement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_implement
WikiPedia. (2021c). Pencil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil
​
​
Slide 3
Using McLuhan’s tetrad to analyze the effects and possibilities of the pencil, we find the following potential relations of the pencil.
Enhances
The pencil enhances the written form, enabling writing in nearly all environments (including underwater and the vacuum of space … actually in a vacuum though still part of a complex system). What may be ‘somewhat’ unique of the pencil compared to previous writing forms is the impermanence. Pencil can be erased, corrected, and rewritten with ease, unlike the pen.
Obsolesces
The pencil is part of a complex family of writing utensils. It, to a certain extent, replaces charcoal, however not in all art forms. The pencil also reduces the pen or more accurately pushes the pen to take upon the more ‘permanent’ form of writing. However, the inexpensiveness of the pencil may have had a greater effect of obsolescing the pen in times of need.
Retrieves
The pencil retrieves the stream of consciousness of thought and oral communication which may have been impeded due to the slower act and/or fear of permanence from writing with pen (and more dramatically, 'hammering' home the point, from writing in stone).
Reverses
The pencil enables writing, the communication of ideas, as valuable; though, it can flip writing from power to uselessness. When the time of permanence becomes no time at all, value also disappears. And, with the ease of writing, the value of each word diminishes (supply and demand), as is apparent when the sheer volume of work is too time-consuming to sift through.
​
​
Slide 4
(As an object, the pencil has many uses. It can be used as a skewer, as kindling, as a post to support a plant. Two can be used as chopsticks. A bajillion can make a house. Really, it’s endless.)
But the pencil as a ‘thing’ prescribes us humans to its bidding (Latour, 1992). Nearly every human has used the pencil to scratch it’s lead across a surface leaving behind an inscription - maybe writing or a doodle or working through mathematical problem sets. This is the pencil’s primary mandate: to create in 2D and implant ideas from a human’s head onto a surface. Even still better is when the inscriptions are not planned to be permanent, when they are a work-in-progress. Pencils allow for mistakes and reworking - pencil’s believe in a growth mindset. This, the pencil’s primary function is how educators delegate educating to the pencil: to provide an independent method of practice for performing thoughts and better yet an independent ability for reflection and iteration.
Now, the best way the pencil enslaves us mere humans is when it prescribes us to sharpen its dull point. Maybe the human is lazy and won’t sharpen it, continuing to write in fat blurs that slowly become indiscernible - defeating the pencil’s primary function. Or maybe the pencil’s point just broke right off then a human must do the pencil’s bidding to reinstate the pencil’s primary mandate.
Remember that the pencil doesn’t exist in a vacuum. All these non-humans and humans forces shape the pencil as much as the pencil shapes anything else (Latour, 199) - the pencil is just one actor of the educational network of things.
For example, certain surfaces ‘call’ to the pencil more than others. For most, the blank paper is what the pencil ‘wants’ most - a fresh start. The pencil is also ‘attracted’ to drafts or books to fill spaces between the lines or in the columns. But in other hands, such as the toddler’s, the pencil ‘desires’ every surface including walls, tables, and clothes as the pencil (or other actors such as the parents) have not had the time to train this little human on the pencils best functioning.
References
Latour, B. (1992) 'Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts', in
Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical
Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 225-58.
​
​
​
​
Slide 5
Both the theory of media ecology and actor-network theories see objects as complex - Postman (1992) sees every tool to be embedded with an ideological bias where technologies are not neutral. Similarly, Latour (1992), speaking of actor-network theory calls objects, ‘things’, of not being factual but being complex and sharing many different, at times contradictory, ‘facts’. For example, a pencil inscription is both permanent and impermanent, the pencil is both the means to an end and is the value of the process.
A pencil is indeed more than just a pencil, and both media ecology and actor-network theory encourage us to dive deeper.
Where media ecology and actor network theory start to diverge, is the perspective they take with regards to humans. Media ecology studies the effects on humans - where media is an extension of human senses (Strate & Lum, 2000). Media ecology may say that the pencil enhances less permanent thoughts.
Actor-network theory examines the reciprocity as well, of humans influencing and delegating to nonhumans. Actor network theory does not discriminate between non-humans and humans, as humans and non-humans share equal influence in an actor-network (Latour, 1992). Actor-network theory may come to a similar conclusion: that the pencil has been delegated to provide continual and evolving practice.
In a way, media ecology views tools as intrinsic to humans while actor-network theory views tools as extrinsic.
References
Latour, B. (1992) 'Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts', in
Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical
Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 225-58.
Strate, L. & Casey Lum, C. M. K. (2000) Lewis Mumford and the ecology of technics, Atlantic Journal of Communication, 8:1, 56-78, DOI: 10.1080/15456870009367379
IP #4: Pedagogic Communications
This IP will consider the topic of pedagogic communications while especially focusing on two papers concerning lectures and textbooks. The methods in which text communications are outlined both from the perspective of teacher and student as well as some broader questions that this exploration unfolds.
Transcript
​
We are going to take a look at two of the most prevalent communication methods to education.
The Lecture and the Textbook.
Both tried and true method for teachers to communicate with students.
The lecture is one where the teacher, in this case the lecturer, is the subject of interest. And through the lecturer content is communicated. The content is contingent on who the lecturer is, how they think, and the connection they have with the students. Some other important factors to make a lecture impactful pertain to student engagement. Is the lecture novel? Interesting? In the right context of place and time?
Students are just there, observers. And in the true sense of a lecture, they do not contribute to the lecture and provide very little if any feedback to the lecturer.
Frank (1995) explains
“Writing in the persona of lecturer, Barthes says, "I speak, endlessly, in front of someone who remains silent. . . never knowing how that discourse is being received". For Barthes, "the teacher is the person analyzed" (194), and the students are "the Other [who] is always there, puncturing his discourse"”
In the other hand the textbook, is impersonal but holds even more authority than the lecture.
The textbook holds content that is above critique - text is fact and one of the reasons why is that it is separated from the author. Now, if the readers were part of the peer group of the author then the textbook would be married to the author and would be able to be critiqued.
This power of the textbook, is proven to be evident throughout history with the Bible or other holy texts. The words are above critique, teachers (in this case priests), pay close attention to every single word. Societally, one was only able to critique the Roman Catholic Church 1000 years after the popular ‘textbook’ of that time, the New Testament was written (note the establishment or the teacher was scrutinized and not the text, the text to a certain extent was still above critique)
Sikhs value their holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, so highly, that the textbook itself was named the fifth and last guru, which is the highest ' person' of the religion.
Teachers also show this high value to textbooks, by falling back on it in times of criticism, by directing students to consult the textbook.
Students on the other hand, attempt to commit to memory many textbooks and as described by Olson in 1980, Textbooks are the single most important teaching tool - this likely remains true (in their current state or an e-text style) as the fundamental information source 40 years later.
In learning from textbooks, students learn without any feedback from their 'teachers'. It is an impersonal process which implies a method of holding knowledge - like concrete facts, complete grammatical forms, emphasis on logical structure, etc (Frank, 1995).
“As to the social relations expressed and maintained by written texts, we may begin by noting that texts have authority; they are taken as the authorized version of a society’s valid knowledge” (Olson, 1980).
The lecture may present the same content as the textbook but the teacher is detached and there is no ritual.
“The lecture presents a text that is ostensibly independent of the lecturer but actually covers a ritual centering on the value of the lecturer's physical presence” (Frank, 1995).
The student is in the presence of the teacher, and attempts to absorb their method of thinking.
This moment depicts a type of 'fantasy’ for the student, where the student may view the ideas from the lecturer as their own, unable to dissociate what is the students and what is the lecturers. Again, the lecturer is the subject of interest. The student must learn to ‘use’ the ideas/concepts as their own and not as an extension of the lecturers as if it is their self.
So both the textbook and the lecture hold a certain kind of authority. Does all knowledge need authority? And does authority need to be unwaveringly true? This construct may promote black and white thinking which may remove knowledge that is less concrete? Or minimize the pursuit of knowledge, since it would yet assert authority.
“The child’s growing competence with this somewhat specialized and distinctive register of language may contribute to the similarly specialized and distinctive mode of thought we usually associate with formal education” (Olson, 1980).
And as a society, do we have any control on how we communicate? As educators, we may have a choice, but it is also our duty to meet students where they are at, or where the industry is.
The essay ultimately did not evolve in a way true to ‘wit and wisdom’ but as a necessity to gatekeep students (Brice-Heath, 1993).
Technologically, those who don’t adopt the most powerful items are destined to become extinct though those who do evolve, do not always change into what they want to be.
A prime example is when early European settlers came to the pacific northwest, those indigenous tribes who traded with the settlers got guns and killed their rival tribes who restricted outside influence and had no guns. But this trade, only unbeknownst later, led to the end of their culture for new (Vaillant, 2006). Is this what communication forms are subject to? A movement to the most ‘powerful’ or maybe in this context, the most efficient, or one that incites the largest emotional response? Because maybe a conscious effort for a more noble form of communication would not survive.
​
​
References
​
Frank, A.W. (1995) Lecturing and Transference: The undercover work of pedagogy. Pp28-37 in – Pedagogy: The question of impersonation, Jane Gallop (Ed).
​
Brice-Heath, S. (1993). Re-thinking the sense of the past: The essay as legacy of the epigram, pp. 105-131 in Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing: Rethinking the Discipline, Lee Odell (ed).
​
Olson, D. (1980/2006). On the Language and Authority of Textbooks. Journal of Communication. Volume 30, Issue 1, 1 March 1980, Pages 186–196, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb01786.x
​
Vaillant, J. (2006). The Golden Spruce: A True Story of Myth, Madness, and Greed. W. W. Norton & Company
IP #8: “Lines of Flight” Over Times and Across Space: Historical and Cultural Trajectories
​
IP 8 is an exploration of diverse perspectives on educational technologies and their potential contribution to the future trajectories for technology in education. Two articles are offered (Mitra & Crawley, 2014; Brayboy & Maughan, 2009) for analysis with a third to be determined by me. This paper will outline how pedagogies sit within the context of the “issues, interests, actors and agendas” (Selwyn, 2012) that educational technology will be used.
Searching for this third article proved to be challenging. I am very interested in the ‘maker movement’ and believe that makerspaces provide a departure from traditional Western pedagogies. The concept of makers may be ‘Western-centric’ but China and Ghana are already full of makers (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018). Makerspaces may have been ‘realized’ in Western culture, but its values have been “embraced, reinterpreted, remixed, or rejected” worldwide to serve and include the local culture (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018).
​
Many research papers were amazing but strictly western-centric: Thestrup & Pederson, 2019; Hughes, Morrison, Kajamaa, & Kumpulainen, 2019; while some viewed the makerspace through traditional pedagogies: Blackley, Rahmawati, Fitriani, Sheffield & Koul, 2018, where the makerspace is an ‘object’ - a tool to achieve a task - as opposed to viewing the makerspace as a ‘thing’ and realising much of its potential. As said best by Dougherty (2013), “We can create a workshop or makerspace, and we can acquire tools and materials, but we will not have succeeded at creating innovative thinkers and doers unless we are able to foster a maker mindset.”
​
Ultimately, I chose a paper by Irie, Hsu, and Ching (2018) because it compares makerspaces in four different countries and illuminates underlying “issues, interests, actors and agendas” (Selwyn, 2012) of the makerspace. A close second was a case study of a makerspace in India by Sheffield and Koul (2021) but it was focused on teaching STEM within a makerspace environment opposed to exploring makerspaces broadly.
​
​
​
Knowledge is a constantly evolving construct. We will briefly overview three articles that evolve beyond the tradition western-centric ideas of education and knowledge construction. A departure from education that is individual-centred, teacher-focused, rigid in curriculum, and removed from context (Mitra & Crawley, 2014; Brayboy & Maughan, 2009; Irie, Hsu, and Ching, 2018).
​
Irie, Hsu, and Ching (2018) review research on makerspaces in four different countries: U.S., Singapore, China and Ghana, to explore how the values within the makerspace are “embraced, reinterpreted, remixed, or rejected” (Irie, Hsu, & Ching, 2018). Only papers that included “discourse of makerspace founders and government policy makers” were reviewed (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018).
​
Table 1 ((Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018) outlines how maker discourse is interpreted in the four countries (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018) utilizing the ‘tenants’ of making by Hatch (2014) as a framework. These differences allude to the economic, political, and socio-cultural influences within each country and how they may affect the purpose and use of a makerspace (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018).
​​​
​
Each country has embraced certain aspects of the makerspace while rejecting others. In some instances, the reasons are obvious and are in response to current practice, for example, U.S. makerspaces value “freedom to fail as an antidote to the pressures of standardized curricula and assessments” and makerspaces in China value creative thinking to break from the focus on rote learning (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018).
​
At the core of makerspaces is a constructionist notion - learning by making - but the ‘space’ is fundamental which induces a social constructivist environment - a focus on the experience and social interactions (Ramorola, 2013), including self-organized learning and tool access.
​
Mitra and Crawley (2014) explored this idea of self-organized learning and tool access. Students were organized in groups, given access to the internet, and asked questions that were above their age’s difficulty level. Without any prior knowledge of the subject, students were able to teach themselves, and most remarkably, their understanding improved over a period without any formalized learning activities (Mitra & Crawley, 2014).
​
An Indigenous perspective offers a direct confrontation to Western constructs (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009). A Western approach to knowledge oftentimes has content separated from context, with a focus on the individual while Indigenous Knowledges value “how knowledge is used and to what end” – an emphasis on context (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009). “For many Indigenous peoples, community is at the core of [their] existence” and it is in this perspective that the knowledge is greater than an individuals’ (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009). Taking this notion one step further, “Knowledge is not what some possess … but is a living process to be absorbed and understood” (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009).
​
When the makerspace is used with an ‘open’ approach, then the makerspace becomes a space of intra-action. This ‘open’ approach is where some educators struggle to integrate the makerspace into their classroom by adhering too strongly to curricular guidelines and teacher-directed learning instead of allowing student-directed and self-organized learning to flourish (Irie, Hsu & Ching, 2018).
Inline with New Materialism, knowledge is a co-constructed concept that is constantly evolving. It is both a by-product and a tool of the “issues, interests, actors and agendas” of the peoples using it (Selwyn, 2012). Although the makerspace is adapted within each country to serve their context best, the makerspace is widely adopted. Core values such contructionism, a social/sharing environment, and self-organized learning remain prevalent across nations - Does this speak to a global trend for education?
​
​
​
​
​
​
REFERENCES
Brayboy, B. & Maughan, E. (2009) Indigenous Knowledges and the Story of the Bean. Harvard Educational Review, Vol 79, no. 1, pp. 1-21.
​
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
​
Irie, N, Hsu , Y., & Ching, Y. (2018). Makerspaces in Diverse Places: A Comparative Analysis of Distinctive National Discourses Surrounding the Maker Movement and Education in Four Countries. Springer.
​
Mitra, Sugata & Crawley, Emma (2014) Effectiveness of Self-Organised Learning by Children: Gateshead Experiments. Journal of Education and Human Development, Vol. 3(3) pp. 79-88
​
Ramorola, M Z. (2013). Challenge of effective technology integration into teaching and learning. Africa Education Review, 10(4), 654-670.
​
IP #10: The New Materialist Turn
This IP will consider the theory of New Materialism. It will briefly overview the concept and how it pertains to educational studies technologies as if it were presented to 'a professional learning seminar for educational technology specialists wanting to 'think outside of the box'.
SPEAKER NOTES
​
This presentation is to be spoken in your slow, pensive voice. Then re-presented in the voices of David Attenborough, then Greta Thunberg, then Donald Trump, and then your mother. Then this presentation will be translated and re-delivered in five languages you speak and two you don't. Then it will be presented whilst the audience experiences it through a microscope, then telescope, and then through a filter of non-newtonian fluid. Then it will be recited by a twelve-year-old and then sounded out syllable-by-syllable by a six-year-old. Finally, it will be given to a room full of monkeys armed with a typewriter, audio recorder, and mass spectrometer, for an infinite period of time, which will then be disseminated and shared as a transcript, podcast, and pile of matter.
Enjoy.
and thank you for your prompt feedback.
​
​
SLIDE 1
Logos are a fantastic example of a probe into an ecology with a temporal snapshot. A logo is a public identification which “should express the fundamental essence” of a brand (Wheeler, 2018). The logo encapsulates a culture, a style, and a history (Wheeler, 2018) to engage its audience - the public, which evolves over time with their ecology, with their designer, with the public, with the brand, and the very notion of time. The logo loses its impact when removed from its context.
So, I ask you, do the past iterations feel antiquated? Can you put your finger on why or how?
And, if you’ve interacted with these products in the past, do you remember the logo being fresh and new? Or do you remember the time in which the logo changed or did you not even realize the logo has changed?
New Materialism dictates that “objects as entities affect us, prior to and irrespective of our understanding of them” (Charterisa, Smardona, & Nelson, 2017). We act ‘differently’ according to the objects we encounter (Charterisa, Smardona, & Nelson, 2017). A link can be made to Social Constructivism where the individual is affected by such variables as social interaction, culture, and language (Power & Kalina, 2009) and extending this theory we will include non-humans and inanimate entities (Toohey, 2018).
SLIDE 2
These logos, like me, are performing in this instant. But would the logo and I be performing if it weren’t for you, the observers? Because to me and to the logo, you are the performers and we are the observers.
Like a Qubit in quantum computers, a forefront of physics, we are both an observer AND a presenter, we are entangled, (Toohey, 2018) but any attempt to measure this will result in a state of measurement of observer OR presenter.Thus the data extracted is indeed real and true in that moment of time but is not universal, it is not the ‘being’ of the thing measured (Toohey, 2018). Ingold (2013) says that “to convert what we owe to the world into ‘data’ that we have extracted from it is to expunge knowing from being.”
In our research, how could we pinpoint the presenter and the observer, or the student and the teacher, in order to make just conclusions?
SLIDE 3
The lens of New materialism dissolves the individual person or thing into a singular entity that is constantly reshaping and evolving (Toohey, 2018). Where each component has autonomy and the power to influence others.
To put it simply, from philosophers, Indigenous knowledges, and spiritual leaders: “We are all one.”
And this is the power of Quantum Computing, many Quibits or coins, in multiple contradicting states at once, in an external uncertainty (IBM, 2021). The quantum computer is a singular entity that intra-acts, that is the act of change within the relationship of being (Kerr, Adams & Pittard, 2014). And the quantum computer is no different than our world or our classroom, with many entities intra-acting. This is a fallacy of traditional research, to freeze time and draw conclusions out of a component from a larger entity - removing the “knowing from being” (Ingold, 2013).
“New materialism challenges us to go beyond these concepts and activities … to understand how words and things can be assembled and can intra-act to produce outcomes that have no finality” (Toohey, 2018).
SLIDE 4
In order to narrow our focus we draw boundaries:
-
Participant; Observer
-
Heads; Tails
-
Student; Teacher
These boundaries may offer order, comprehension, and comfort. Barad (2007) called boundaries ‘agential cuts’ - a severance from entanglement, a division of entities. The two entities thus are independent and inter-act with one another (Kerr, Adams & Pittard, 2014). Thus a particular cut “can lead to discoveries about real things; however, had the cuts been made in other ways, different, perhaps even contradictory, discoveries can be made that are also real” (Toohey, 2018).
SLIDE 5
The researcher who aims to extract “knowing from being” has to be cautious of what is ‘objective’. Knowledge itself is ‘on-the-move’ as it is becoming with researchers, humans, and non-humans (Hill, 2017).
‘Diffractive practice’ respects the entanglement of knowledge and researcher and encourages an evaluation of this intra-action (Hill, 2017). Methods of diffractive practice include analyzing data from different states of beings such as readings with various theories, concepts, and contexts (Hill, 2017). Diffractive practice is made obvious by this art exhibit by Olafur Eliasson (2019), different 'truths' are witnessed in different lights.
With diffractive practice, we allow space for knowledge to evolve with its own agency.
With New Materialism, we may “shift into exciting territories where boundaries are disrupted, openings are created and opposing paradigms are encouraged to interfere with one another” (Hill, 2017).
References
Charteris, J., Smardon, D. & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning
environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 49:8, 808-821, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1298035
Hill, C. (2017). More-than-reflective practice: Becoming a diffractive practitioner. Teacher Learning and Professional Development. (2). 1. pp. 1-17
IBM. (2021). What is Quantum Computing? IBM. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/topics/quantum-computing
Kelleen, T. (2018) “New materialism and language learning”, Ch. 2 in Learning English at School (2nd edition) Multilingual Matters: Bristol
Kerr, S., Adams, E. & Pittard, B. (2014). Three Minute Theory: What is Intra-Action?. Three Minute Theory. YouTube Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0SnstJoEec&ab_channel=ThreeMinuteTheory
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-251
Wheeler, A. (2018). Designing Brand Identity. (5). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​