Definition of distance learning

The concept of distance learning seems like a simple one – until you get into the fine details of the definition. Prior to my introduction to this course, my personal definition of distance learning was a simple one: learners complete courses online, while physically distant, and sometimes temporally distant, from the instructor of the course. These courses could include a variety of activities, such as video lectures/tutorials, interactive media, assigned readings, social interaction (e.g., discussion boards), and graded or ungraded assignments. I also assumed that the courses could be instructor-led or instructor-developed but taken without any instructor guidance. As it turns out, I had conflated several distinct educational terms into one definition.

Distance learning is sometimes called open education, but open education technically refers to informal education that is generally free and that does not typically provide recognized qualifications (Bates, 2013; Simonson, 2015). Additionally, open education could also be conducted on-campus (Todhunter, 2013). Other common terms that are confused with distance learning are online learning and eLearning. These terms differ because eLearning does not necessarily require the use of the internet, whereas online learning does (Todhunter, 2013). Furthermore the term online learning can be used assuming that at least 80% of the course is online (Todhunter, 2013). This then blends into the territory of hybrid learning, which has both an online and face-to-face component (Bates, 2013; Todhunter, 2013). Of course, things are further intermingled because as technology improves, often even on-campus, so-called face-to-face courses require a certain degree of online coursework (Todhunter, 2013).

This mix of terms certainly muddies the waters in terms of defining distance learning. To better understand the term, it is worth looking at the history of distance learning, which traces back to the 1800s and was intended to provide educational opportunities to those who might not otherwise have them (Tracey, 2005). This original form of distance education was print-based correspondence study between a learner and an instructor. Later, with the creation of radio and television stations, distance education evolved to include audio and/or interactive components. Following this, audio cassettes, video cassettes, CDs, and DVDs took over as the primary format for distance learning. Finally, computer- and internet-based courses became the standard for distance learning (Tracey, 2005). It is worth noting, however, that in some rare cases other forms of distance education (e.g., print-based, radio-based) are still in use (Tracey, 2005). One major drawback in the co-evolution of technology and distance learning is that the wide access once provided by this form of education has narrowed. In many cases, learners are required to have access to broadband internet to view media-heavy content (Naidu, 2014).

Based on what I have learned this week, I have developed a new definition of distance learning that considers the history and the evolution of distance learning, its relationship with other forms of learning, and the requirements laid out by Simonson (2015). I now define distance learning as learning wherein learners complete accredited courses, using generation-appropriate technological tools, when physically distant, and sometimes temporally distant, from the instructor of the course, who is actively involved in the teaching of the content and in regular contact with the learners.

At this point it is worth considering the future of distance learning. As I have described, distance learning methods and tools have transformed over time and there is no reason to think that distance learning will halt its progression. One concept that is often volleyed about, yet is difficult to attain is course personalization/flexible learning (Todhunter, 2013). Compared to the standard on-campus learning methods, distance education provides a far better platform for personalization. Furthermore, this would help bring distance learning back to its roots as a method to educate those who have limited access to educational opportunities (Tracey, 2005). To achieve personalized distance learning, I believe that technology will play a large role, just as it has in the evolution of distance learning to this point. The main technology that could help achieve this ambitious target is artificial intelligence (AI). As AI develops, it could become a useful tool to bridge the gap between learner preferences/abilities/access and learning content. Of course this technology would need to be embedded in the course itself, so that those with limited technology access could be provided with personalized courses which do not require access to multimedia. Similarly, those who require additional support could be provided with an almost endless supply of remedial work. With distance learning, this personalization could become a possibility because learning is self-paced and is not restricted in time, location, or access in the same ways as on-campus learning.

When I now look back on my original definition of distance learning, I recognize the flaws. Little did I know, there was a rich history of distance learning prior to the use of home computers and the internet. Similarly, there is likely a rich future to distance learning, beyond our current capabilities. Luckily, I am at the beginning of my career, with many decades to go, so I eagerly wait to see how the future of distance learning unfolds.

[Note: see the attached mindmap #1 for my image-based representation of distance learning and mindmap #2 for my image-based representation of the future of distance learning.]

 

 

 

References

Bates, T. (2013, October). Is there a future for distance education? Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2013/10/23/is-there-a-future-for-distance-education/

 

Naidu, S. (2014). Looking back, looking forward: the invention and reinvention of distance education. Distance Education35(3), 263-270.

 

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing Inc.

 

Todhunter, B. (2013). Limitations of online learning – are we selling the open and distance education message short? Distance Education, 34(2), 232-252.

 

Tracey, M., & Richey, R. (2005). The evolution of distance education. Distance Learning, 2(6), 17–21.

Welcome All My EDUC 6135 Visitors!

Welcome to my EDUC 6135 blog. This blog is for my EDUC 6135 (Distance Learning) course at Walden University. I will be posting a couple of assignments here about distance learning as per the requirements of the course. Note to classmates and professor: prior posts were for the EDUC 6115 course are are not related to this course.

Final Course Reflection

(The following is a copy of my final course reflection which was required to be posted on my blog).

Although I generally dislike writing reflection assignments, I actually do enjoy non-compulsory informal reflection from time to time. I see the value in reflecting and at this particular moment in time, it is a good point to stop and reflect on my growth throughout this course. Luckily, this corresponds to a time when a formal written reflection is required. Reflecting on the suggested prompts definitely makes me appreciate what I have learned in this course.

What I found most surprising about how people learn is the fact that most people actually learn in very similar ways. During my teacher training, the concept of learning styles and differentiated instruction had been pushed on us by every one of our instructors, yet as it turns out, learning styles do not reflect how people actually learn (Costandi, 2013; Cuevas, 2014; Goldhill, 2016; Pashler, 2009; Pullman, 2017). In reality, matching a teaching style with a so-called learning style does not produce any improvements upon student learning or understanding (Glenn, 2009; Pashler, 2009).

As far as my personal learning process is concerned, this course has helped me recognize two aspects of my learning that I hadn’t fully appreciated in the past: my requirement for new knowledge to be based upon prior knowledge, and my requirement for relevance of the content in order to keep me motivated in my learning. I have always been a fan of the constructivist viewpoint, which states that new knowledge is filtered through the prior knowledge and experiences of the learner (Ertmer, 2013; Jenkins, 2006; Ormrod, 2009), but it wasn’t until this course that I thought about how my understanding of course content might be different from how others understand it. I also now recognize that basing learning on prior knowledge is a method of increasing motivation in learners (Keller, 1987; Keller 1999). The use of content and teaching methods that are relevant to the learner is another method for increasing motivation in learners that has a huge impact on me (Keller, 1987; Keller 1999). In the future, if I take a poorly designed course, I will do my best on my end to make the course relevant to myself, and to recognize when my prior knowledge and experiences are being used.

In studying the connection between learning theories, learning styles, educational technology, and motivation, I realized that it is not just about psychologists trying to understand how we learn, but rather about how to make us better learners. Although each learning theory is quite different, they provide information about how we learn, which can be translated into learning techniques (Ertmer, 2013). Although learning styles are not real, the learning preferences can help an instructional designer develop better teaching and learning strategies (Laureate education, n.d.). Although not all educational technology is useful, some is absolutely transformative and can bring about better learning apps (Borovoy, 2013; Burns, 2014a; Burns, 2014b; Dabbs, 2014; Davis, 2014; Davis, 2017; Miller, 2012; Richards, 2015; Robledo, 2012). The cherry on the top is motivation, which although it is internal to the learner, can be affected by the course design (Keller, n.d.; N.A., n.d.; Small, n.d.).

As a result of this course, I will be sure to use three things in my instructional design career. Firstly, I will base courses on the prior knowledge of the learners (Ertmer, 2013; Ormrod, 2009). Secondly, rather than relying on learning styles, I will use dual-coding theory to differentiate my instruction (Cuevas, 2014). Thirdly, to motivate my learners, I will use Keller’s ARCS model to ensure that all aspects of motivation are covered (Keller, 1987; Keller 1999).

 

References

Borovoy, A.E. (2013, August). 5-Minutes film festival: mobile learning. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/film-festival-mobile-learning

 

Burns, M. (2014a, January). Android Apps: math, ELA, and video streaming. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/android-apps-math-ela-video-monica-burns

 

Burns, M. (2014b, October). Using scannable technology to reach parents year round. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/scannable-technology-to-reach-parents-monica-burns

 

Costandi, M. (2013; April). The myth of learning styles. Retrieved from https://thinkneuroscience.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/the-myth-of-learning-styles/

 

Cuevas, J. (2014, October). Brain-based learning, myth versus reality: testing learning styles

and dual coding. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-based-learning-myth-versus-reality-testing-learning-styles-and-dual-coding/

Dabbs, L. (2012, October). Mobile learning support for new teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/mobile-learning-support-new-teachers-lisa-dabbs

 

Davis, V. (2014, January). 20 Awesome BYOD and mobile learning apps. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/20-awesome-byod-mobile-apps-vicki-davis

 

Davis, V. (2017, June). The epic BYOD toolbox. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/the-epic-byod-toolchest-vicki-davis

 

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 43-71.

 

Glenn, D. (2009, December). Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help

Students. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/

 

Goldhill, O. (2016, January). The concept of different ‘learning styles’ is one of the greatest

neuroscience myths. Retrieved from https://qz.com/585143/the-concept-of-different-learning-styles-is-one-of-the-greatest-neuroscience-myths/

 

Jenkins, J. (2006). Constructivism. In Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration. Retrieved from the e-Reference from Sage database.

 

Keller, J.M. (1987). The systematic process of motivation design. Performance and instruction, 26(9), 1-8.

 

Keller, J.M. (1999). Using the ARCS motivational process in computer-based instruction and distance education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (78).

 

Keller, J.M. (n.d.).  ARCS model of motivational design (keller). Retrieved from

https://learn.vccs.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/SO/IDOL/Unit%201%20-%20Analyze%20Learners/ARCS%20Model%20of%20Motivational%20Design.pdf

 

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Learning styles and strategies [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

 

Miller, A. (2012, October). Practical tips for mobile learning in the PBL classroom. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/mobile-learning-in-pbl-classroom-andrew-miller

 

N.A. (n.d.). Instructional strategies for stimulating motivation. Retrieved from

http://peru.tamu.edu/Portals/18/Modules/Strategy_Motivation.pdf

 

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate

custom edition). New York: Pearson.

 

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning Styles: concepts and

evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

 

Pullman, J. (2017, March). Brain scientists: ‘learning styles’ like auditory, visual, and

kinesthetic are bunk. Retrieved from http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/22/brain-scientists-learning-styles-like-auditory-visual-and-kinesthetic-are-bunk/

 

Richards. R. (2015, March). The qualitative formative assessment toolkit: document learning with mobile technology. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/qfat-document-learning-mobile-technology-reshan-richards

 

Robledo, S.J. (2012, October). Mobile learning: 6 apps and web tools for high school students. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/mobile-apps-for-high-schools

 

Small, R.V. (n.d.). Motivation in instructional design. Retrieved from

http://www2.oid.ucla.edu/units/tatp/old/lounge/pedagogy/downloads/motivation-eric.pdf

 

Fitting the pieces together

This week we were asked to reflect on our first discussion posting of the Learning Theories and Instruction course (Swanson, 2017) and how our views have changed as we progressed through this course. To be honest, my opinion of the most relevant learning theory has not changed since that post, however, what has changed is the amount of evidence I have to back up my opinion. The more I learned about constructivism, the more I agreed about its central tenets, and the more I learned about other learning theories, the more I disagreed with their views.

Based on the research I have performed for this course, I believe that constructivism best explains how we learn. I agree with the notion that when we learn something new, it is filtered through our prior knowledge and experiences, mental structures, social interactions, motivations, and beliefs (Ertmer, 2013; Jenkins, 2006; Keesee, 2011). I agree with the principle that “learners construct much of what they learn and understand” (Ormrod, 2009), rather than acting as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge (Ertmer, 2013). Although I view some aspects of cognitive theory (such as research on encoding, storage, and retrieval) as beneficial to understanding how we learn, I still view the overall learning process as one of construction (Ertmer, 2013). I do not have confidence in the assertion of social learning theorists that social interactions are a requirement for learning, nor do I have confidence in the assertion of connectivism theorists that knowledge being stored in a group of people counts as a method of learning (Davis, 2008; Kim, 2001; Ormrod, 2009; Siemens, 2004). As far as learning styles are concerned, I believe that a better term would be learning preferences, as these represent differing opinions of learners on how they learn best, rather than distinct differences in their learning abilities during different methods of instruction (Armstrong, 2009; Costandi, 2013; Gardner, 2003; Goldhill, 2016; Pullman, 2017).

As far as my own learning preferences are concerned, in order to remember new information, I have always found a need to elaborate on the information and this correlates well with the cognitivist principle of encoding and the constructivist principle of filtering knowledge through prior information (Ertmer, 2013; Ormrod, 2009). I also prefer to both see and hear presented information simultaneously or near-simultaneously, and this corresponds well with the idea of dual-coding. According to Ormrod, “dual-coded knowledge may be remembered better, which has important educational implications and confirms the general teaching principle of explaining (verbal) and demonstrating (visual) new material” (Ormrod, 2009). This makes sense based on the explanation of Cuevas that “conceptual knowledge is widely distributed among neural networks throughout the brain, but the pathways connecting those networks appear to be separate, particularly for auditory and visual stimuli … the combined power of bringing both hemispheres into use will increase our ability to retain information without pushing us into cognitive overload.” (Cuevas, 2014).

Although I am doubtful of the validity of connectivism as a learning theory, I must confess that technology does play a role in how I learn these days. To date I have completed nine online certificate programs, six in-depth online courses (once complete, this current course would bring the total up to seven), and a myriad online personal interest courses through organizations such as Coursera and Udemy. I also perform a good deal of academic research through online university libraries and Google Scholar, not to mention general research on Google and YouTube. Not only does technology help me research, but I also use technology to complete assignments (Word, PowerPoint, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, Audition, Camtasia, Storyline, Captivate, etc.), to collaborate with others (Dropbox, Google Drive, OneNote, WordPress, Twitter, etc.), and to keep in touch with knowledgeable contacts (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.).

Although I have been stubborn in my views on learning, this course has helped me better understand the viewpoints of others and the weaknesses in their arguments. It has also helped me better understand the arguments over learning styles, to which I had only been recently introduced. With the information I now possess, I feel that I would be a much more successful instructional designer.

 

References

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. (3rd ed.) Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

Costandi, M. (2013; April). The myth of learning styles. Retrieved

from https://thinkneuroscience.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/the-myth-of-learning-styles/

 

Cuevas, J. (2014, October). Brain-based learning, myth versus reality: testing learning styles

and dual coding. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/brain-based-learning-myth-versus-reality-testing-learning-styles-and-dual-coding/

 

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from

http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Connectivism

 

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 43-71.

 

Gardner, H. (2003, April 21). Multiple intelligences after 20 years. Paper presented to the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from

http://cte.dce.harvard.edu

 

Goldhill, O. (2016, January). The concept of different ‘learning styles’ is one of the greatest

neuroscience myths. Retrieved from https://qz.com/585143/the-concept-of-different-learning-styles-is-one-of-the-greatest-neuroscience-myths/

 

Jenkins, J. (2006). Constructivism. In Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration.

Retrieved from the e-Reference from Sage database.

 

Keesee, G.S. (2011). Learning Theories. Retrieved from

http://teachinglearningresources.pbworks.com/w/page/19919565/Learning%20Theories

 

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism

 

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate

custom edition). New York: Pearson.

 

Pullman, J. (2017, March). Brain scientists: ‘learning styles’ like auditory, visual, and kinesthetic

are bunk. Retrieved from http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/22/brain-scientists-learning-styles-like-auditory-visual-and-kinesthetic-are-bunk/

 

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. [online] Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/articles/connectivism.htm

 

Swanson, P. (2017, July). Understanding the learning process [discussion post]. Retrieved from

https://www.waldenu.edu

Reflection on connectivism mind map

(Please see previous post to view mind map)

Creating this mind map was very interesting for me. Generally, I prefer to be independent and try as much as possible not to rely on others. Therefore, when I read the assignment to create a mind map of all my connections, I thought my mind map would be quite empty. However, as I was reflecting on my connections, I realized that I do have quite a few people on whom I can rely, and who are important to me in my current career, my former careers, and in other areas of life. Some of these connections are from my schooling, others are from work, and others are from my pastimes, church, neighbors, or other less easily categorized groups. Note that I purposely left the branches of the mind map as categories rather than listing specific people, as I wanted to protect the privacy of those people. I also have connections to many others through technology, such as through my YouTube channel and other social networking sites.

I don’t believe that my network has significantly changed the way that I learn. For academic subjects, I tend to learn mostly on my own and it is unless absolutely necessary I do not ask other students for help. However, I do rely on the expertise of my professors and instructors to direct me to good resources that I may use to study various topics. When it comes to other aspects of my life such as sports or knitting, I rely heavily on both my coaches/ instructors and on my peers.

I do not believe that the majority of my social networking sites have had a major impact on my learning. Although I do have a LinkedIn account, I have only recently set up the account, therefore I have few connections. My other accounts such as Facebook and Instagram are more for personal than professional use. Although Twitter and RSS feeds can be useful to obtaining information, I do not use these regularly enough to get the benefit. However, I do find that YouTube, blogs, and general online research (such as through the Walden University Library) are effective in facilitating learning for me.

When I have questions, most of the time I do a simple search on Google or YouTube. Although not all the information that can be found through these searches is accurate, it is possible to locate effective and accurate sources of information. I was lucky enough to take a certificate course called “Power Searching with Google” and one of the topics was how to identify accurate information on a webpage. This has been helpful to me with all my research needs ever since. If I cannot locate the answer to my questions online, in the rarest of circumstances, I will ask one of my connections for help.

Connectivism describes the ways in which each person is connected to others (often through technology) and how people learn through their connections, rather than on their own (Davis, 2008; Siemens, 2004). It also describes how knowledge is transmitted through an organization or group. This is, somewhat of an extension of the social constructivism learning theory (Kim, 2001; Ormrod, 2009; Siemens, 2004). I personally am more in agreement with the tenets of classical constructivism, although I see some benefits to these other theories. Perhaps one of the reasons that I tend to agree with classical constructivism as opposed to social constructivism or connectivism is because I typically learn on my own. Although there are people who create the courses or videos from which I learn, I generally avoid interacting with others while learning, when possible. This makes it hard for me to believe that social interactions are required for learning (Kim, 2001; Ormrod, 2009). [For Walden students, I posted more about this topic in our Week 4 discussion (Swanson, 2017)]. As far as connectivism is concerned, I must confess that the use of technology has made learning easier for me, although I do not consider it to be essential for learning (which is a requirement of a true learning theory) (Davis, 2008; Siemens, 2004).

 

References

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Connectivism

 

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism

 

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2009). Learning theories and instruction (Laureate

custom edition). New York: Pearson.

 

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. [online] Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/articles/connectivism.htm

 

Swanson, P. (2017, July). Social and constructivist learning [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.waldenu.edu

 

Helpful journals on brain science

For our second assignment this week, we were asked to select two journals and/or websites related to brain science and review them on our blogs. As a former scientist, I decided to explore some scientific journals in the area of educational psychology and instructional design so that I can get information that I can be relatively sure is creditable, rather than relying on websites which can have variable accuracy. I chose three journals for this assignment: Instructional Science, Journal of Educational Psychology, and Educational Psychologist.

 

Instructional Science, which has been in publication since 1972, is focused on instructional design for learners of all ages in formal and informal learning contexts. The journal also has a mix of technologically based and non-technologically based articles. According to their website, the journal “promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs” (N.A., n.d.a). Some recent articles in this journal include an investigation into eye tracking while learners examine science illustrations, an examination of the effect of multimedia on cognitive load, and analysis of whether incorporating problem solving prior to instruction improves learning. I feel that with the mix of types of articles and the varying focus of each article would provide an instructional designer with a good amount of knowledge of the current best practices in instructional design. I also like that there are articles devoted to specific types of instruction, such as math or science.

 

Journal of Educational Psychology is focused on psychological research about learners of all ages and abilities. Some recent articles in this journal include an analysis of the benefits of peer collaboration during problem solving, an investigation into the effects of verbal cues on how learners process visuals, and an examination of how learners learn math when verbal versus visuospatial working memory is activated. I feel that the high level psychological articles presented in this journal would provide an instructional designer excellent knowledge of how the brain and aspects of learning affect learners. Following some reflection on the articles, this can then be translated into instructional design features by the instructional designer.

 

Educational Psychologist is focused on psychological research in a wide range of areas. These areas include teaching methods as well as educational concepts. Some recent articles in this journal include an investigation into the effects of digital games on learning using a constructivist viewpoint, an examination of the effects of gender on working memory usage, and an analysis of the use of learning goals even when used for self-directed learning. I feel that the interesting areas of research that are often grouped together in themed issues would help an instructional designer understand the root aspects of how their learners learn. As with the Journal of Educational Psychology, the instructional designer could reflect on these articles in order to understand how to better design courses.

 

All three of these journals have excellent information regarding the brain and information processing and their relation to learning. With access to these journals through the Walden University Library, I hope to keep up to date on this important area of study throughout my time at Walden.

 

References

N.A. (n.d.a) Instructional Science: an international journal of the learning sciences. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/journal/11251

 

N.A. (n.d.b.) Journal of Educational Psychology. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/109/3/

 

N.A. (n.d.c) Educational Psychologist. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=hedp20