Week 23 Activity 3 – Schemas July 16, 2009

Image by fabiogis50 via Flickr

Reading: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue56/conole/

Tension between the rhetoric of web 2.0 – ie selling it on it’s speed and immediacy of accessing information and multiple communication channels which contradicts traditional notions of education – reflection, accumulation of knowledge, developing understanding over time.  Some are arguing for a return to slow learning to counter the speed of digital learning.

Another rhetoric of Web 2.0 is participation and the wisdom of the crowds (mash ups, remixing, co-construction) but educational systems still revolve around individual testing against pre determined criteria. Even where group work is acknowledged, there are strategies to recognise individual contribution,.

Conflict in the other direction is towards assessment processes – why is knowledge recall being tested when information is so easily accessible.  Another conflict is the mix-up nature of Web 2.0 and wikis etc which is against the practices of plagiarism policies.

Web 2 challenging the need for academic referencing because ideas are formed in much more fluid ways now. Cross referencing takes place, but difficult to identify sources these days because of the way the blogosphere works.

The wisdom of the crowds notion – user generated content – mass participation in co-constructing ideas – the challenges the traditional educational notion of teacher as expert, despite the theories of social constructivism which call for a learner centred approach. Web 2.0 fragments a modular approach to education, where there are more cross overs and freedom to search for information more fragmentally and the information is always changing.

Web 2.0 rhetoric says that no one individual is expert – this is in conflict with academic rankings etc

Fear – bcause the technologies are so exciting we are seeing a technologically deterministic drive, rather than on sound pedagogies. But there is also a close alignment between current practices of Web 2.0 and pedagogy. To counter technological drivers, Conole puts forward some ideas to match the affordances of the technology with learning.

Firstly, looking at existing learning theories and reflecting on how they align with Web 2.0 practices through use of a pedagogical framework against which to map tools.

Theories	Main focus	Map to technologies
Behaviourism	Trial and error learning Learning through association and reinforcement	Presentation of content, use of multiple media to convey information Feedback through e-assessment tools Peer feedback
Cognitive constructivism	Focus on the processes by which learners build their own mental structures when interacting with an environment Task-orientated, favour hands-on, self-directed activities orientated towards design and discovery	Guided and adaptive instruction through interactive materials Access to resources and expertise offers the potential to develop more engaging and student-centred, active and authentic learning environments
Social constructivism	Emphasis on interpersonal relationships involving imitation and modelling and joint construction of knowledge	Multiple forms of asynchronous and synchronous communication offer the potential for more diverse and richer forms of dialogue and interaction between students and tutors and amongst peers Archive materials and resources provide ample opportunity for vicarious learning Different online communication tools and learning environments and social fora offer the potential for new forms of communities of practice or facilities to support and enhance existing communities
Situated learning	Learning as social participation Shift from a focus on the individual and information-focused learning to an emphasis on social learning and communication/ collaboration	Networking capabilities of the Web enable more diverse access to different forms of expertise and the potential for the development of different types of communities Online communication tools and learning environments offer the potential for new forms of communities of practice or can facilitate and enhance existing communities

There is currently a good alignment between current thinking in terms of good pedagogy (ie social, situated learning) with web 2.0 practices (eg user generated content, user added value, aggregated effort). The impact of Web 2.0 though is less than dramatic due to technological, organisational and pedagogical reasons in education. EG Education is slow to change, practices are embedded deeply Eg assessment, Cultural issues – changing the mindset of teachers in terms of their role. Conole wants them to think in new ways about how to map pedagogies to use of tools.

1. A pedagogical framework for mapping tools in use

3 dimensions – Individual – Social; Active- Passive; learning through Information – or Experience. Any instance of learning lies somewhere along a combination of the 3 dimensions.

1. A pedagogical framework for mapping tools in use

2.  Mapping pedagogical principles

Focuses on how the principles of learning situation maps to characteristics of learning. 4 characteristics – so learning in any situation is a combination of learning through: thinking and reflection; conversation and interaction; experience and activity; evidence and demonstration.

Such matrices (of pedagogies/tasks v. These 4 characteristics) can be used with end-users to get them to reverse-engineer the pedagogical assumptions inherent in the design of a particular learning intervention or alternatively can also be used as the basis for developing new learning applications at the design stage.

The implications of web 2.0 on institutions are on:

• Changing learning and teaching paradigms
• Staff and learner skills set
• Strategy and policy
• Roles and structure.

Week 23 Activities 1 and 2 July 16, 2009

Image by CarbonNYC via Flickr

Week 23 – starting again. Now that I’ve got a better understanding why and how metaphors are being used I’ve decided to start this week again. Fortunately having read the stuff once it’s quicker again and this time I know what I’m looking for.

Intro:

Exploring the issues of how new digital environments are described and how these descriptions make sense of them. They say there is “a need for new forms of language and meaning making to understand and describe the interaction of individuals in the digital environment.”

It’s important to understand the rhetoric we use as the language we choose can have connotations and hidden assumptions. Every discipline carries its own terminology, epistemology (the study of the theory of knowledge) and ontology (a formal representation of concepts, the characteristics of things that exist)

Activity 1 -

I’ll come back to next week along with everyone on the discussion forum as I am a week ahead.

Activity 2:

The H800 study guide says that learners and teachers lack the skills needed to exploit the technologies on offer. There is a lack of appropriate language to make sense of the interactions between individuals and technologies.

Metaphors are ways of making meaning out of something, to give us different lenses to understand it. Social networking and the network metaphor is about the links between objects and people and not just the people or shared objects.

In this article Conole (2007) Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education offers some possible new metaphors for looking at these interactions and how they impact on learning.

In the past, technologies have been described based on physical spaces but now it’s time to look at the connections between the technologies and users together.  A common way to describe technologies is by functional specifications or by spatial metaphors such as the desktop, files and folders.  But web 2.0 means we use computers differently now, information is no longer in one place, from one source. Spatial descriptions are not adequate for describing what’s happening.

Conole says we should also consider the Temporal (time factors), functional (what do they do, inputs, outputs, info flows) and social dimensions of the web – connectivity.

Conole also introduces Morgan’s work on organisational metaphors and sees if these can be used as metaphors for TEL.

These are – the machine – the org’ns structure; the brain – the information processing systems; the organism – the living ecosystem; the culture – the customs and values; the political – relationships, interests, conflicts and power.

Spatial, temporal and functional dimensions of web 2.0 related to the environment as a machine or brain. But organism, culture and political can also be used to describe the connected nature of the internet.  The organism metaphor, in particular, is starting to be used – learning ecologies, ecosystems, nodes, interconnected, unseen, distributed (Engestrom’s MYCORRHIZAE metaphor).

Using new metaphors in TEL give us more insights into digital environments and ways of describing what is happening.

The cultural metaphor helps us understand the communities, practices and values.

The political metaphor helps us articulate power dynamics, conflict, tensions between technology and institutions, and so on.

Another way of helping us to understand what is going on is with the new visualisation tools such as Compendium and mind maps which help us understand the navigation and narrative paths within a network of social objects which bind people together and generate learning.

I really like Conole’s penultimate line which reads ” the ultimate goal has to remain harnessing the potential of these technologies to provide better and more engaging learning environments and opportunities for students” – that is why I moved into elearning from admin, I’ve always cared so much about giving the student a better learning experience and having experienced text based distance learning myself, I wanted to help give DL students more opportunities for more engaging learning.

Week 21/22 – A1 – The implications of new technologies for education July 8, 2009

Reading first half of:

Conole, G. (forthcoming) ‘Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education’ in Lee, M.J.W. and McLoughlin, C. (eds) Web 2.0-based E-learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching, Hershey, PA, IGI Global.

This article briefly outlines the shift from web 1 to web 2 tools and how they are used.  She argues that the impact of Web 2.0 can be positive and negative so institutions need policies and strategies to handle it.  Web 2 changes the type of technological support provided by institutions but also the way learning is designed, delivered and supported. (paraphrase p 3)

Web 2.0 tools are multifaceted in their classifications (unlike web 1 tools) so hard to classify as one or other purposes, also web 2.0 information can be easily transmitted between tools enabling users to make their own personal environments in the location and format they prefer.  The key shift is towards social and collaborative characteristics of these tools, and from desktop to web hosted services.

Web 2.0 are being used for new forms of dialogue, collaboration, co-construction of knowledge and reflection and can address the needs of different disciplines, learning approaches and educational challenges such as diversity, accessibility and cultural issues.

Table 3: Characteristics of web 2.0 technologies and associated impact on practice

Change	+ive impacts	negative impacts
Free resources	Specialised niche use social tools, allow contributions	Inappropriate academic literacy skills
Ubiquitous access	Technology as a core tool for learning Scale = wisdom of the crowd	Narrower, but deeper digital divide
Multiple Communication and distribution channels	Increased opportunity for peer and tutor dialogue. Information repurposed to meet different needs	Fragmentation of voice. No centralised repository of knowledge No single communication channel, confusing for user.
Free tools and services	Personalisation	Lack of institutional control What is the point of the LMS? What should the institution be providing
Media Rich representations	New forms of sense-making New forms of representation	Lack of new forms of digital literacy  by teachers and learners
User generated content and social profiling	Variety and acknowledging individual contributions. Knowledge sharing and community build	Quality assurance issues. Inappropriate descriptions and use of personal information for other purposes

Taken from Conole (forthcoming)  p. 8

Implications for learners

Lots of evidence quoted that students are changing the ways they interact with technologies and use them to support their learning.  Students see technologies as core to learning, PC and laptop ownership is high. Range of mobile devices. They use a variety of tools and resources to support their learning, appropriating these tools to their personal preferred style of communication and ways of learning.

2 sides of the argument. 1. that technology changes they way students to learn, they like bite sized chunks of information, multi-modal and multi-faceted representation and learn through experimental interaction, rather than step by step instruction.  2. that students lack the necessary ability to harness their technological skills for learning purposes, eg they know how to find information on the web but not how to critically evaluate them.

Implications for teachers

The change in teachers is less radical, probably for cultural reasons and less value seen in using web 2.0 tools. Lack of support within institutions, lack of time and incentive to develop teaching methods because of research pressures.  The teacher’s role is under threat from the information rich web 2.0 and user generated content, peer dialogue and co-construction of knowledge – the notion of the teacher as expert and student as receiver is out of place.

The main difference is the cultural context within which teachers works.   The use of social tools has a peer dimension, and use of these tools depends on peers using them, and if their peers aren’t using them so they don’t see the potential benefits in using them. There is only interest and value if others are contributing and if what they say interests you.

Academics are overwhelmed by the choices available and the fear of  a fundamental change in their role as teacher, and associated loss of authority.

Implications for support staff

Pro elearning staff find themselves arguing with outdated arguments about technologies with have nothing to do with today’s digital environment. Providing the right kind of professional development for staff is a key issue.  A key characteristic of these technologies is “learning by doing” so potential users need to use them to understand the affordances of these new environments and how they can change their teaching.

Implications for institutions

Most educational institutions are working with out of date systems and environments, at odds with Web 2.0 technologies. Tension between institutional systems and open free tools. Institution systems are generally only available for the duration of the studies and they normally have very low limits. If we are working towards life long learning and long term repositories of information students may be reluctant to invest time into an institutional system.  Thirdly, if students are already using some systems, they may not want to switch to institutional ones, and finally, institutional systems are usually inferior.

However, institutional services are needed when they are robust, supported, linked to MIS, library etc.

These new ways of working together, both socially and in organisations, can change the physical needs of a university too, such as tiered lecture theatres which are out of sync with the new ways of working.

Weeks 13 and 14 Activity 2a Conole et al (2008) May 13, 2009

JISC funded LXP project

Findings; students are immersed in rich, technology-enhanced learning environment and that they select and appropriate technologies to their own personal learning needs.

Implications: for the way in which educational institutions design and support learning activities.

8 Factors informing the changing practice  of students use and perception of technology in learning.

Weeks 8 and 9 – A 9 Forms of representation of design April 15, 2009

My notes from reading:

Conole, G. (2008) ‘Capturing practice: the role of mediating artefacts in learning design’ in Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. and Harper, B. (eds) Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies, pp.187–207, Hersey, PA, IGI Global.

Forms of representation = classification of different types of representing learning design

• Key issues:

1. Capture and representation of activities

2. Mechanisms for scaffolding the design process for other designers.

Mediating Artefact (MA) is the form of representation for abstracting information e.g. models, diagrames,, case studies.

MA are used to inform the process of learning design.

There is a gap between the potential of new technologies and their actual use. Sharing good practice is a way to reduce that gap quickly.  There is a lack of understanding in how technology advantages learning and a lack of guidance on how to design learning activities with these new tools.

Learning Design is a methodology for guiding the design process.  The range of activities associated with creating learning activities (LAs) and provides a means of describing LAs to share, repurpose and scaffold the process of creating new LAs.

Benefits of LD as a way to share practice are:

• Designs respresented in a suitable way for testing and review
• Allows reuse
• Guides individuals through the process of creating new LAs
• Audit trail of decisions
• Highlights policy, resource or staffing issues
• Aids learnings in complex activities by guiding them through the activity.

Issue 1 – capturing and representing practice

This enables adaptation and resuse of learning activities.  The need to abstract essential and transferable properties is key, to be used in other contexts.

The term mediating artefacts is used because their mediating role in terms of how they mediate subsequent design activities.

MAs differ in format – textual, visual, auditory, multimedia; degree of contextualisation; level of granularity and degree of structure.

Types:

• Narratives and case studies – tend to be difficult to adapt
• Vocabulary tables – describes different components of the activity using key words eg 8ELM and HLM
• Diagrams and iconic representations – quick over of key features, emphasis on connections, movement and interrelationships (eg Compendium LD)
• Models – Models usually ways of represnting a pedagogical approach. eg Kolb learning cycle or Salmon’s emoderating framework.

Issue 2 – MA as a means of understanding LAs and supporting practice

A key accepted part of Learning design is the sharing of good pracgice and repurposing of one LA into a new LA to keep up with the fast need to integrate technology into course design.

Meta Mediated Artefacts – 3 types

• Aggregates of examples of MAs – a repository
• Scaffolds – eg tips, hints, guides, processes taken from the aggregates
• Mixed – both aggregates and scaffolds/supporting texts

A new LA can be constructed from a individual MA or from a meta MA.

MAs are based in the sociocultural perspective where learning activities are contextually bound. Activity theory is used to highlight the relationship between different actors, tools and resources.

MAs probably not used in isolation, but a combination/selection of MAs are used as one will probably not be able to satisfy the needs of the new user completely.

Textual representations are usually more contextualised so harder to adapt without further exploration, they are more time consuming to use but they do offer more detail.

Visual respresentations are faster to use, but have less detail but are easier to adapt to any context. They enable you to see the flow of the tasks at a glance. You can read case studies in more depth if you want to understand the decision making process and actual activity better. There is  a lack of the contextual information that grounds the decisions made in the diagrammatical versions. Eg who is the learner and what are their characteristics and needs, what kind of course is it.

Weeks 8 and 9 A6 Three Dimensional Mapping framework April 6, 2009

Mapping tools and activities to pedagogy

Conole et al 2004

- pedagogical framework that abstracts three main dimensions of learning.Mapping tools and activities to pedagogy

3-D Mapping Framework

Three dimensions are continuums where the learning activity can sit anywhere along each. Individual or social learning, passive or active learning, information or experience based.

So a tool does not have to be labelled 2 dimensionally but it can lie somewhere along a spectrum.

Try to indicate the location of the following ‘tools in use’ on the three dimensions (or continua) of the framework in Figure 2:

1. A blog as a reflective diary
2. A blog as a collective resource for collating references within a student group
3. A web search; i.e. students search the web and collate resources against a given set of criteria
4. A drill and practice exercise; i.e. students work through a set of resources and then complete a formative self-assessment
5. A structured online debate; i.e. students choose a side for or against an issue, post their views and read other postings
6. Use of an eportfolio; i.e. students gather evidence against learning outcomes in a portfolio