OSS Gripe/Wish List: Time Stamp to Indicate Post Updated

When I update my posts, it merely says “Post updated. View post” at the top of the page.

I have the habit of making multiple small changes (often typos) and hence updates in a very short span of time, and have no idea, if the post has been updated with the latest changes, after clicking the Update button, as I do so, as many as 11 times.

It’d be wonderful if users could see a time stamp at the top, beside”Post updated. View post“, like in Facebook and GMail, so that I instantly know if my latest change has been updated, without needing to view the post?

Stuart Brown’s (2009) Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens Imagination & Invigorates the Soul

Dr Stuart BrownDr Stuart Brown, from Stanford University

I just read a Straits Times article entitled Kids at play learn to give and take dated June 7, 2015, and discovered an area of research known as Play Science.

Dr. Stuart Brown, founder of the National Institute for Play in California, and author of Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination and Invigorates the Soul, contended that play deprivation is pernicious to socio-emotional and affective development, and argues that play the deprived

“… are not as curious, they lack resilience. They have difficulty regulating appropriate emotions,” he says. “People who are play deprived also tend to be inflexible, especially when something surprising happens. Novelty is unpleasant when you are unprepared for it or when you are missing the spontaneity that helps you enjoy or learn from surprises. They tend to be rigid and easily startled and will react with hostility or withdrawal rather than joy.”

Is OSS novel and thus unpleasant to unprepared play deprived users, who view OSS as merely “work that we have to do” (in the words of Jin Long), and do OSS fans such as Prakash consider the same “work” as play?

“Many activities qualify as play. As long it’s voluntary, done for its own sake and gives pleasure. Often, it engages a person deeply and the engagement itself is more important than the outcome. So one has a sense of being lost outside of time,” he says.

I see this play occurring frequently on social media platforms. Users can get lost for hours on Facebook, fully cognizant that there is very little relevance or benefit to their “work”.

In fact, many users can become so engrossed in their own online identities, that they appear narcissistic even, deriving great pleasure when others “like” their posts.

Brown adds: “It must be an activity that can be interrupted; it’s not driven; it’s not compulsive and it is not done to please others but to please yourself.”

Would a feature similar to the “like” button make OSS more “play-able”? Would it serve any purpose, other than to please the user?

Of sport as play, Brown claims:

If it’s all about kicking the ball into the goal, rather than kicking the ball because it feels good, it becomes less play and more performance and anxiety producing.

This reminds me of Jude Chua’s (2009) and Nobel laureate James March’s (1971, 2006) call for a “technology of foolishness” rather than “technology of reason” to mitigate high stakes performative pressures that focus on goals and returns on investment that are inimical to design thinking and the exploratory processes of creative expression. They argue that performance anxiety and obsession with the ends or goals, displace the enjoyment and wonder that make the exploratory process so much more important than the final product/outcome so prized by assessors.

Does OSS in its current iteration facilitate the kind of play that Brown advocates, so that ideas can be tested and toyed around with as learners become lost in dialogic, exploratory, relexive processes amongst peers and tutors, who avoid or at least delay judgement (read assessment)? Facilitating play through the virtual studio and third space, could be a key component of my study.


Brown, S. L., & Vaughan, C. C. (2009). Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul. New York: Avery.

Chua, S. M. J. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7(2), 159-167. doi: 10.1080/14748460902990344

James G. March, “The Technology of Foolishness”, Civiløkonomen (Copenhagen), 18 (1971) 4, 4-12.

James G. March, “Rationality, Foolishness, and Adaptive Intelligence”, Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2006) 201-214.

OSS Research: Preliminary Ideas (& Frustrations)

My Exploratory Micrographic Study of Plant Tissue

The last time I studied something so new and fascinating to me, was in 2007, when I learnt how to create digital micrographs from stained plant dissections, like the ones shown above and below.


My beautiful picture


I think the nature of my doctoral study will be more exploratory than confirmatory, as there are many emergent themes that can (and have yet to) be empirically investigated:

(1) user reluctance or resistance (of tutors and undergraduates)

(2) users’ perceptions of OSS [to ascertain curriculum and research gaps and how OSS can be made hip(per) and cool(er)]

(3) how OSS develops or changes users’ professional identity as artists or Netartizens.

(4) correlation with academic results or outcomes (efficacy) — visible in audit terms, and (perhaps more importantly) with (complex) affective dimensions (emotions and learning) invisible in audit terms

Currently, we have many hunches and assumptions that require empirical evidence. An exploratory study focussing on the experience of several OSS users via open-ended qualitative interviews, is perhaps one way to start.

It would be wonderful if my findings could be of use to Cynthia and Boyan.

From my personal experience, I am still frustrated by the inability to access the OSS website via NIE Wireless, which acts as a barrier between OSS and me. CITS and NIE’s ACIS  are still unable to resolve the issue (see e-mail exchanges appended below). It’s ridiculous that OSS can be accessed from the wireless networks at SUTD and NUS, but not NIE. OSS is therefore only accessible to me, when I am away from NIE. Until this barrier is removed, I will have leave NIE, whenever I wish to access OSS.

I also keep forgetting to add tags and tick the “Research” box before posting. I’ll probably remember to do so in time. It would be great to have a warning dialogue box that pops up saying, “Do you wish to publish post without tag/category? Yes/No”.

Re: FW: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network 

Thu 6/4/2015 6:37 PM
Sent Items

! Service Desk – CITS;

TAN Edwin (OAAS) <edwin.tan@nie.edu.sg>;
Service Desk (NIE) <servicedesk@nie.edu.sg>;
​Dear Junxie,
​I’m afraid that I am still unable to access the website wirelessly from NIE’s TR207, and received the u/m message.
My classmate was also unable to do so using Chrome on his Windows laptop.
I will be most grateful if you could advise.
Thank you.Sincerely,

From: Ng Junxie <JXNG@ntu.edu.sg> on behalf of Service Desk – NSS <servicedesk@ntu.edu.sg>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:28 PM
Cc: TAN Edwin (OAAS); Service Desk (NIE)
Subject: RE: FW: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network IM22665

Dear Alvin,


Please kindly verify if you are able to access the link now via NIE wireless as the NTU network administrator had made some changes on their side.


If everything is fine now, may we proceed to close case?


Thank you and Regards,

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/graphics/tms/ntulogofit2.gif Junxie  on behalf of NSS Servicedesk | NTU Shared Services| Nanyang Technological University
50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798 | Operating Hours 7.00 am – 11.00 pm GMT+8h
Tel: (65) 6790-HELP (4357) | Email: servicedesk@ntu.edu.sg |


Did you know… You can reset your Network Account Password using SMS? Find out more.

Security Tip: Never share your password with anyone. ServiceDesk will never request for your password via Email




From: Service Desk (NIE)
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June, 2015 2:47 PM
To: Service Desk – NSS
Cc: TAN Edwin (OAAS); NIE15401@e.ntu.edu.sg
Subject: FW: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Dear NTU Service Desk



NIE student is unable to access  http://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/ using the NIE Wireless network. Below is the reply from NIE network team.


For your kind assistance, please. Thank you.


cid:image001.jpg@01CEB9CD.7BF26340 Ellynn NG (Ms) | Service Desk | Academic Computing & Information Services | National Institute of Education
NIE3B-01-02A, IT & Infra Services Hub, Student Hub, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616
Tel: (65) 6790-3033 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6896-9279  | Email: servicedesk@nie.edu.sg |Web: www.nie.edu.sg


From: ANG Choon Gei (CSC)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Service Desk (NIE); QUEK Seng Lee (CSC)
Cc: GOH Wee Kee (CSC)
Subject: RE: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Hi there,


I have checked the firewall logs.  As shown below, there are network traffic between wired/wireless network and oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg


1.       155.69.65.X (NIE wired network) and (oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg)

2.       172.26.183.X (NIE wireless network) and (oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg)


Please check with NTU administrator.







From: Service Desk (NIE)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:49 PM
To: ANG Choon Gei (CSC); QUEK Seng Lee (CSC)
Subject: FW: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Dear colleagues,


Refer to email below. Could you kindly advise? Thank you.


cid:image001.jpg@01CEB9CD.7BF26340 Ellynn NG (Ms) | Service Desk | Academic Computing & Information Services | National Institute of Education
NIE3B-01-02A, IT & Infra Services Hub, Student Hub, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616
Tel: (65) 6790-3033 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6896-9279  | Email: servicedesk@nie.edu.sg |Web: www.nie.edu.sg


From: TAN Edwin (OAAS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:44 PM
To: Service Desk (NIE)
Subject: FW: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Dear Service Desk


Good afternoon.


Can you advise me on this matter please?




Thank you and regards



From: #LAU ALVIN# [mailto:NIE15401@e.ntu.edu.sg]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:09 AM
To: TAN Edwin (OAAS)
Subject: Fw: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Dear Sir,
​I will be most grateful if you could advise me on the relevant officer’s e-mail address that I should send the u/m enquiry regarding access to website on NIE’s wireless network.

Thank you.


Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:25 AM
To: servicedesk@nie.edu.sg
Subject: Unable to Access NTU Website Using NIEwireless Network


Dear Sir or Madam,

I’m afraid that I am unable to access  http://oss.adm.ntu.edu.sg/ using the NIE Wireless network, on Windows and Mac, Safari, Chrome and Android.


However, I am able to access the website using NTU wireless, and wired LAN at NIE.


I will be most grateful if you could advise.


Thank you.




How Can OSS be Made Even Hip(per) & Cool(er)?


Physics can be hip and cool too! This mixed-media work of mine, entitled Semiosis, was inspired by the beautiful equations I worked with while I was studying at the college of engineering. How do we make, OSS, which is essentially, a "work"-based virtual studio, hip and cool? Can school work ever be hip and cool?

From the experience of Twitter and Facebook, the hip and coolness factor appears to depend on how much the interface and peers accentuate and fan users’ egos.

The hippest and coolest thing the developers could do, is to have an OSS App that users can access from their mobile devices, without having to do so through a browser — just like the Facebook or LinkedIn apps. This is because now that users receive instant notifications, the app would facilitate users wishing to respond immediately to comments. Users are connected to their laptops for work, but connected to their mobile devices 24/7. Moreover, hip and cool stuff often blurs the line between work and play, so if the app may just be the tool that could facilitate publishing short messages on OSS — like Tweets.

Oddly, its often the non-work related tweets that up the hip/coolness factor in social media. This is missing in OSS, as users consider it mainly a site for all work and no play.

I wonder if OSS would be more hip/cool, if it were more social media like — in terms of having an app that allows users to simply key in a tweet and publish. The ease and speed of publishing comments on Facebook is what makes its so much more popular than blogspot, which requires so many more buttons to click/tap. Blogspot is a paint to use on a tablet, so I only use it when I have access to my laptop.

OSS now requires quite a fair amount of clicking, so it is best accessed via a physical keyboard. As undergrads are tethered to their smartphones all day, I wonder if OSS is tablet friendly enough for them to simply fish out their iPhones and make quick tweets on OSS, in terms of the number of taps and menus they have to navigate.

This is a technical issue, rather than a teaching and learning one. Whether users will ultimately consider OSS cool, is if their peers and tutor do cool things in their virtual studios — like We are Now(here). Authentic purpose is the key — do I have a compelling reason to log in to OSS and regularly contribute and comment on other students’work– perhaps even after the end of the course/module (just like Facebook)?

I will have to speak to more OSS users to ascertain what drives them to use or avoid OSS, to get a clearer picture of the key issues and concern.

You Don’t Know, What You Don’t Know

microscapeRGBI created this microscape in 2007, using images that I gathered from a trinocular microscope examining stained plant tissue specimens that I then digitally manipulated.

I would not have known that photomicrography was a field of artistic practice amongst scientists, had I not stumbled upon the images posted by photomicrographers.

The OSS facilitates collaboration, but unless users venture out of their comfort (content transmission) zones that merely document their (solo) developmental trajectories, their processes of visual representation and expression will perpetuate the creator-viewer dualism. Contrariwise, the participatory universe that Ascott (1984, 1990) envisions in the semantic sea, entails “dispersed authorship”, participation, and recontextualization, uncertainty, uneasiness, and disequilibrium, fuzziness and ambiguity.

The exploratory, reflexive and dialogic processes of telematic art are however met with the performative pressures to succeed in the high stakes examination system that terrorizes students through the accountability or audit regime. Collaboration, which is invisible in audit terms, is thus ignored, as the “terrors of performativity” (Ball, 2003) displaces the soul, whose quest is to vanquish all academic rival to emerge with that elusive A or distinction, at NTU, where student are often graded on the normalized bell curve.

My concern is, that OSS users whose professional soul is being possessed by the terroristic dominance of performativity, will never know, what they don’t know. How would they know whether their creative decisions are the wisest, from the range of options?

Ang (2010) contends that the competitive high-stakes audit regime in Singapore retards designerly cognition, which requires a millieu of collaboration that supports what Chua (2009) terms technologies of foolishness or experimentation. The process rather than product emphasis is the focus.

In Diana Toh’s performance, the process of tearing into the the black canvas on the wall, was far more eviscerating and visually arresting than the final product, that consisted of splattered marks. I wonder how the GCE A level examiners (who patently value the final artwork or product, over the preparatory sketches or process) will take to marking a splattered wall? I ask this, because in the 2008 examiners’ report, the examiners commended candidates who continued to experiment with their work even during the final execution of the painting, even though as supervisors, we knew that it was euphemism for students who had failed to thoroughly document their research process.

This obsession over the final product over the process at the, primary, O and A levels, may continue to haunt ADM undergraduates. The ghost of the schooling (as opposed to the education) system, may still haunt OSS users, who see little benefit in collaborating or challenging each other’s thinking.

Had I not been challenged to find a new way to represent plants in 2007, I would have never discovered the exciting field of photomicrography. I wouldn’t have known, what I didn’t know.


Ang, W. W. K. (2010). Art education within a competitive paradigm : challenges & alternatives from a Singapore perspective. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr Müller.

Ascott, R. (1984). Art and telematics: Towards a network consciousness. In H. Grundmann (Ed.), Art Telecommnications (pp. 25-67). Vancouver: Western Front.

Ascott, R. (1990). Is there love in the telematic embrace? Art Journal, 49(3), 241.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043065

Chua, S. M. J. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7(2), 159-167. doi: 10.1080/14748460902990344


Ascott’s (1990) Is There Love in the Telematic Embrace?


The Gap Between the Affordances of OSS vs User’s Ontological and Epistemic Beliefs of Art

Borrowing from Maturana and Francisco (1987, cited in Ascott, 1990), it is abundantly clear that technologies such as OSS have the potential to engender the epistemological, ontological, and axiological shift to the contemporary notion of “art as residing in a cultural communications system rather than in the art object as a fixed semantic configuration—a system in which the viewer actively negotiates for meaning” (p. 241).

I believe that OSS can facilitate this epistemic shift that Ascott advocates. However, from reading several posts, it is obvious that a number of OSS users are not harnessing or embracing the full potential of the telematic wonder that is OSS, from the manner in which they primarily upload and share content, rather than challenge one another to rethink their beliefs and experiment with alternative processes of visual representation and expression. The share and comment or show and tell nature of their posts indicate that they may be unreflexively perpetuating the classical communications notion of the artist as one-way dispatcher or sender, progenitor, creator, owner, arbiter, controller of images and ideas, context and content, by merely expecting the viewer to decode or interpret the artist’s intentions and meaning—as the GCE Advanced Level art syllabus regrettably advocates.

This transmissionist view of learning in the visual arts and to a wider of extent, of learning (about, rather than learning by doing or through performance) in general, assumes that the beauty and truth of both art and the world—as fixed and immutable—are “out there” in the world and in the work of art (Ascott, 1990, p. 242). This stubborn view of learning as content transmission is highly problematic, if OSS users still adhere to the old GCE A level way to thinking, where “learning” is evinced by content creation and transmission. Just as you can’t learn swimming by learning about swimming through books and videos, you can’t learn art by learning about it through merely transmitting content for viewers to decode.

The key problem lies with the representational nature of the medium that limits learning to a two dimensional virtual plane, for one cannot learn purely through viewing images and responding to posts or comments. If OSS is merely used for content sharing (as one the design students apparently did by documenting her design process), OSS users must be fully cognizant of the fact that content has simply been transmitted through a new medium—from carbon on paper, to pixels on screen, albeit through a sleek interface; the thinking or epistemic belief is still undergirded by slavish notions of schooling (as opposed to educating) or “learning about”.

We are nowhere was a perfect example of how Adobe Connect as a representational medium, to cross out “observer” and replace it with “participator”, and in doing so make the third space a participatory universe (John Wheeler, cited in Ascott, 1990, p. 242). The connection that Ascott makes between art and quantum mechanics, recontextualizes learning in the third space, by shifting the focus from content to meaning, or from data to quanta. Learning telematic art by doing or through performance was evident here, rather than learning about it.

Now, if only there were more opportunities for such collaboration, that could be incorporated into the enacted curriculum. Must the undergraduate OSS artists work solo for the purpose of assessment, all the time? Could there be one aspect of the assessment that rewards students for sustained collaboration and peer critique? I am thinking aloud, how OSS modules can be more collaborative, so that the full potential of this telematic medium is pushed to its limits.

There is no such thing as the “mind”!

I am troubled by Ascott’s repeated use of the “mind”, which can be traced to the Descartian notion of the body and mind as separate entities. I would have used person or artist or viewer, rather than mind. Why does Ascott (1990) insist that the whole (in the context of the telematic network) is greater than the sum of its parts (p. 243), and yet assume that the mind and be decoupled from the person? Speaking about the “mind” makes no sense to me. The “mind” exists through language, and does not have the ontological existence that say the brain or the body has. Similarly, I can show you the NTU swimming pools and lecture theatres, but I cannot “show” you the university, because the “university” comes into existence through the language. Language can create something out of nothing, just as the mind was created when there is no such thing!

Where is the mind? If indeed it is in the brain, as most would argue, then which specific area of the brain does the putative mind reside? Will a dissected brain show where precisely the mind resides? If the mind resides in some part of the brain, what controls it? Those who posit that a little green homunculus controls the mind, then imply that the homunculus is in turn controlled by his mind, containing another homunculus controlling it, thus engendering an infinite regress.

This problem can be traced to Descartian philosophy that assumes the mind and body can be decoupled, to represent the inner mental world (ie. the putative mind) and the outer world (or “reality”) where “true” knowledge resides. However, the mind and body are but one coupled entity. It makes no sense to isolate the mind, and talk about the mind, as if it functions independently of the brain or person. Does the mind think? You see, when presented with a grammar cloze “______ thinks”, what would you fill into the blank, before the verb “thinks?” Alvin’s mind thinks? Nay, it should be “Alvin thinks” or “He thinks”!

This false dualism engenders the erroneous notion that knowledge is passive, unchanging or static and that learning therefore entails “acquiring” (input) and processing this objective reality into the learners’ putative internal store or memory. By the same logic, “learning” is therefore evinced by “output” or transmission of content. This cognitivist model of learning is patently wrong, as the typical learner sees the world beyond the classroom as more than just consisting of say, trees and people, but of leaves and branches swaying in the breeze, and people crossing the road—in other words, in constant dynamic motion or change, not a static photograph, as suggested by cognitivist models of learning.

The widespread materialist cognitivistic conviction even amongst art educators and educational technologists that human cognition (and hence learning) can be reduced to an overly simplistic metaphor of the input-process-output model of the computational theory of the mind, is fundamentally and dangerously flawed, as it mistakenly assumes that there exists an “internal” and “external” environment, and that this external reality should then consequently be “correctly” represented in the “mind” as “true knowledge” (Chee, 2011, p. 100), giving rise to an ontological dualism.

What then of learning, which is itself an unobservable phenomenon, that materialists seek to “internalize” into a putative internal store. Even Vygotsky made the mistake of problematically using the term “internalize” (L. Smith, Dockrell, & Tomlinson, 1997), implying that the external and internal worlds are different, and that the task of the teacher or artist is to transmit the outer physical reality into the inner mental world of the learner or viewer, as the Nurnberg Funnel suggests, because knowledge cannot be funnelled into our learners or viewers — for “knowing” is a process in which learners have to participate actively. Knowledge is therefore not in the “mind” as widely and mistakenly believed, and is thus not taken from the external world to be internalized or put into the “mind”. Learners do not simply “acquire” what is written onto the blackboard or screen, rather, the reverse is true—the learner often thinks of an idea that is subsequently re-presented or written onto the blackboard.

To illustrate my point, I shall cite Ms Diana Toh’s final year project and performance. The raw emotion that spilled onto the black canvas during her performance evinced learning by doing in the most visceral and eviscerating manner. There was no external pain that she acquired and input into a putative store or memory that she could simply output during the performance. Learning was evinced by a dynamic performance or by doing, as opposed to her static images and videos uploaded to her OSS site.

Interestingly, Randall’s comments on Diana’s project about transcending the physical to the virtual world, did not see any response from Diana or from her peers. I would have loved to see a sustained dialogue between Randall, Diana and her peers. I gather that this dialogue probably occurred face to face, e-mail and through other modalities not captured on OSS. Clearly WordPress is only one out of a range of modalities used in the module, so it would be unrealistic to expect OSS to capture all the exchanges between users.

The Love in The Telematic Embrace Still Ain’t Deep Enough

I believe that there is still room for more love in the telematic embrace of OSS, in the form of robust exchange, dialogue, and debate between OSS users, if Ascott’s (1990) vision of the power of the interface to shape language and thought (p. 243), is to be realized. Cross pollination and development of ideas should ideally occur between users, and not purely between tutor and student, as is currently often the case. The design or developmental trajectory appears to be dominated by student and tutor, with the occasional pleasant perfunctory fleeting comment by fellow undergraduates.

To facilitate vigorous exchange, decentralized authorship, and active participation in joint meaning-making as Ascott advocates, there must be an authentic purpose for learners to engage in peer critique, although my experience as an art teacher indicates that Singaporean students often confuse peer critique with criticism, and therefore shy away from openly challenging other users’ ideas. Netzley and Rath (2012) faced considerable difficulty getting SMU undergraduates to debate one another openly on their wiki space, as the desire to “save face” meant that Singaporean students avoided correcting perceived errors and debating their peers online, for dong so would leave a permanent record of their critique or “criticisms” in the virtual world.

I suppose as with any emergent educational technology, time for students to build trust, and for tutors to realign assessment to the curriculum is imperative (Yan, 2015), for it would be futile to expect users to buy into the new affordances of OSS, when assessment modes and habits remain unchanged. Perhaps, this would compel reluctant learners stuck in the transmissionist GCE A level mode of thinking, to embrace OSS that offers a new approach to learning by harnessing the “global brain” that Peter Russell (1982, cited in Ascott, 1990, p. 242) envisions. I see the potential for OSS to profoundly shift epistemic beliefs of art and learning.

Perhaps the key task is to identify issues and concerns that resistant users face, in doing so. I must speak to more users, and tutors, to explore the push and pull factors that hinder and facilitate OSS adoption. This is necessary, for while I may wish to “light the fire”, I certainly do not want users to feel forced to adopt OSS because of performative pressures. I suppose I need to break away from the carrot and stick approach to technology adoption, that is used on MOE teachers.


Ascott, R. (1990). Is there love in the telematic embrace? Art Journal, 49(3), 241.

Chee, Y. S. (2011). Learning as becoming through performance, play and dialogue: A model of game-based learning with the game Legends of Alkhimia. Digital Culture & Education, 3(2), 98-122.[1987] 1992.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Translated by Robert Paolucci. Rev. ed. Boston: Shambhala

Netzley, M. A., & Rath, A. (2012). Social Networks and the Desire to Save Face: A Case From Singapore. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 96-107. doi: 10.1177/1080569911433434

Smith, L., Dockrell, J., & Tomlinson, P. (1997). Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond : future issues for developmental psychology and education. London ; New York: Routledge.

Yan, C. (2015). ‘We can’t change much unless the exams change’: Teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5-19. doi: 10.1177/1365480214553744