Please read my contribution here.
Thank you.
Eugene
Personal Blogs
Unit 4: 4.1 Storing my Evidence
Wednesday, 21 Oct 2009, 21:53
Visible to anyone in the world
Unit 2: 2.4 My own attitude to reflection in learning
Saturday, 17 Oct 2009, 12:48
Visible to anyone in the world
Reflection is what I do in my professional environment as well as in my learning environment and not to mention during life in general. For me it means taking a step back and take a critical look at what it is I am doing and if necessary trying to change things.
Reflective Learning is quite a new experience for me. As a student, back in the old days, I experienced more teacher centric approaches than student centric approaches.
I think of reflective learning as a student centered approach: students are somehow more in control of their learning than when I was a student at university.
In this stage of my life, reflecting appears to be all about connecting the dots. Thinking about how everything is linked together. Reflective Learning might be able to help me to connect the dots. In H800 I experienced the connections as well. The various articles and assignments we had to do were all connected together and in the ECA it all came together (which was a nice Eureka-Moment!). During the course we were asked to use our Blog as a mean to reflect on what we were doing. The reflective activities were not as detailed and as specific as they are in H808 so far.
The H800 activities provided the opportunity to use (web 2.0) tools for learning, rather than using them as reflective tools, which we have to do more of in H808. From that perspective H800 was a very valuable course for me. It helped me to learn how to use my Blog properly and now I am benefitting from this.
For me blogging is an excellent tool to write down my reflections. It proved to be very useful in H800 (and H808) when I was reading back over what I had written about specific articles. I found out that my opinion of certain tools, articles and the H800 course had changed over a period of time (ie. I had changed from being an individual learner to a collaborative learner using collaborative tools).
It is good to have proof of this learning process in my blog.... I tend to forget things easily at my age!!
Reading other’s comments on how to use reflection in learning; it strikes me that it is not that easy to do. There seems to be other factors or issues in play as well: the student’s personality, the student’s writing style, the technical skills and so on.
All of this has to be taken into account. Reflective learning sounds very interesting and very useful too, but needs proper guidance as well.
Reflecting on your own learning can be a bit daunting. It is not always clear what is expected of you and what you are supposed to write. I had not been taught how to write reflectively and I’m sure I am not alone in this, so therefore I would argue that activities need to take this into account.
Thanks H800!
Monday, 28 Sept 2009, 09:04
Visible to anyone in the world
Dear All,
Handed in my ECA and H800 is over after 8 months of fantastic learning experiences and learning journeys. I wish everyone the best of luck and maybe we'll see each other somewhere in another course. Thanks Alex for your support, much appreciated!
ECA
Saturday, 19 Sept 2009, 07:32
Visible to anyone in the world
This weekend is going to be a busy OU weekend. I'm rounding off part A of my ECA which has its focus on videosharing and folksonomy. I have mapped my learning activity for part C and have detailed ideas how to set it up..leaves me with the writing of it
Part B and D are scheduled for next week. Meanwhile I have to find another 15-20 hours this week for H808 Unit 2....collaborative activity and reading quite a few papers. Well, at least it gets me straight into the course!
Week 24: de Freitas et al. (2007)
Sunday, 2 Aug 2009, 16:08
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Sunday, 2 Aug 2009, 17:11
What are the two main ways in which interventions intended to change how teachers teach actually attempt to do this? (page 26)
The UK government, for example, has invested significantly in establishing computer-based and networked infrastructure in schools, colleges and universities, and has, in parallel, introduced many e-learning initiatives.
Many of these initiatives have been top-down and strategic, including the Department for Education and Skills(2005) e-learning strategy document introduced to facilitate and guide developments in pre- and post-16 education sectors (Department for Education and Skills 2004).
What are the six main ways in which practice has currently been modelled? (page 27)
• Practice models developed to describe or prescribe specific approaches by practitioners [e.g. Salmon’s (2000) five-step model of online learning; Laurillard’s (2001) conversational model].
• Other practical accounts that don’t fit any modeling framework such as case studies, action research reports, project findings and staff development materials.
• Theoretical accounts designed to provide coherent explanations of learning activities and practice (e.g. systems theory, activity theory, cognitive/constructivist theories).
• Taxonomies and ontologies (structured vocabularies)developed to provide systematic ways of labeling and organizing features of the learning situation.
• Standards and specifications such as Instructional Management Systems Learning Objects Model and Learning Design or ISO SC36; also representations such as workflow diagrams, Unified Modeling Language models or instantiations of standards in working systems.
• Organizational models designed to ensure an institution’s processes make best use of learning systems and best practice standards, such as quality assurance documents.
What are the five main factors that Sharpe (2004) identifies as influencing the success of interventions intended to improve practice? (pages 28–9)
- Usability
- Contextualization
- Professional learning
- Community
- Learning Design
What do the authors mean by ‘reverse engineering’ of their practice by the participants on the workshops? (page 33)
Represent context of teachers’ own teaching. Teachers had to consider their own processes and context of teaching in a different context: out of their own teaching and learning context (acontextuallity)
How does Wenger’s concept of reification help you to understand why pedagogical models cannot just be ‘given’ to practitioners with any hope of their being implemented successfully? (page 36)
A reification, Wenger proposes, is something that a community produces through its shared practice. It may be an outcome of practice (e.g. something that is produced, such as a lesson plan) or may reflect the process of practice (e.g. guidelines on how to design lessons).
When these reifications are produced, their meaning is clear to the producers, because they are aware of both the practice and the reification that seeks to describe it.
It cannot just be ‘given’ because reifications emerge from practice, but they do not define it; the valorization of any model (e.g. as ‘good’ practice) must therefore be treated with caution.
Nevertheless, why are reifications necessary for sharing practice, particularly between practitioners from different contexts?
When this reification is passed on to others (whether as a model, a design tool or an account of ‘best
practice’) members of that new community must work to make it meaningful by constructing a link between the reification and their practice. In Wenger’s view, then, the meaning of any model is situated, arising from the way that particular communities attempt to appropriate them.
Week 24: Wenger (1998) Learning Architectures
Sunday, 2 Aug 2009, 10:12
Visible to anyone in the world
Personal Notes
The four dimensions, identified by Wenger, for design of learning
Participation and reification: participation and reification come as a pair. As a result, design cannot simply involve a choice between the two. One cannot assume that reification is unproblematically translated into practice, and participation is not necessarily coordinated enough to constitute a design.
Design for practice is always distributed between participation and reification – and its realization depends on how these two sides fit together.
The process of design involves decisions about how to distribute a design between participation and reification – what to reify, when, and with respect to what forms of participation; whom to involve, when, and with respect to what forms of reification.
The designed and the emergent: In a world that is not predictable, improvisation and innovation are more than desirable, they are essential.
Practice cannot be the result of design, but instead constitutes a response to design.
As a consequence, the challenge of design is not a matter of getting rid of the emergent, but rather of including it and making it an opportunity. It is to balance the benefits and costs of prescription and understand the trade-offs involved in specifying in advance.
When it comes to design for learning, more is not necessarily better. In this regard, a robust design always has an opportunistic side: it is always – in a sense to be defined carefully for each case – a minimalist design.
The local and the global: no practice is itself global. From this standpoint design will create relations, not between the global and the local, but among localities in their constitution of the global.
Designing for learning, therefore, cannot be based on a division of labor between learners and non-learners, between those who organize learning and those who realize it, or between those who create meaning and those who execute. It cannot be fully assumed by a separate management, educational, or training community. Communities of practice are already involved in the design of their own learning because ultimately they will decide what they need to learn, what it takes to be a full participant, and how newcomers should be introduced into the community (no matter what other training these newcomers receive elsewhere). Whenever a process, course, or system is being designed, it is thus essential to involve the affected communities of practice.
Every practice is hostage to its own past and its own locality. In the process of organizing its learning, a community must have access to other practices. Designing for learning always requires new connections among localities, connections that do justice to the inherent knowledgeability of engagement in practice while at the same time recognizing its inherent locality.
This complex relation between the local and the global can be expressed by the following paradox of design:
No community can fully design the learning of another. And at the same time: No community can fully design its own learning.
Design for learning must aim to combine different kinds of knowledgeability so they inform each other.
Identification and negotiability: design requires the power to influence the negotiation of meaning.
It must shape (or form) communities and economies of meaning.
Design is a stake in the ground, something on which to take a stand. In this regard, it is a proposal of identity:
1) it creates a focus for identification – and possibly for non-identification
2) it is a bid for ownership of meaning – and possibly for sharing this ownership.
Dilemma: Design creates fields of identification and negotiability that orient the practices and identities of those involved to various forms of participation and non-participation.
As a consequence, design can:
- invite allegiance or be satisfied with mere compliance;
- it can thrive on participation or impose itself through non-participation.
- It can seek enough identification to focus energy on its realization;
- it may prefer to be less dependent on widely shared in-spiration.
- It may seek a realization by restricting negotiability and re-fusing to share the ownership of its meaning;
- or, on the contrary, it may endeavour to share this ownership and endow all involved with enough negotiability to decide how to participate in the process meaningfully.
Week 24: Jones & Asesnio (2001)
Friday, 31 July 2009, 12:17
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 31 July 2009, 12:18
Personal notes about the Jones and Asensio (2001) article:
In order to work together there has to be an understanding of each other’s intentions.
It has been argued that there is a relationship between the approach adopted by a
teacher and the students’ experience.
‘The relation between teachers’ experiences and their students’ experiences is such
that university teachers who adopt a conceptual change/student-focused approach to
teaching are more likely to teach students who adopt a deep approach to their
learning, while teachers who adopt an information transmission/teacher-focused
approach to their teaching are more likely to teach students who adopt surface
approaches to their study.’ (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999, p. 162)
Phenomenography is a qualitative research approach. The term originated in the
work of Marton who explained phenomenography as an approach for understanding
people’s ways of experiencing the world.
The aim of phenomenography is to describe qualitatively different ways of experiencing phenomena, in this paper networked learning.
The findings reported here draw together two separate elements of the project research. The aim is to show that the issue of assessment is a live and problematic issue for designers generally and then to investigate the possible problems inherent in the use of assessment for design purposes in one particular example.
The approaches adopted by practitioners
“it’s still extremely difficult to design an on-line environment an on-line course, on-line activities in ways where you are not surprised and/or disappointed by the output.’ (John)
The practitioners’ strategies focused on including more and tighter controls over learners’ choices and the pace of their contributions. Practitioners were concerned with how to organise students and how much to organise students.
The practitioners expressed concerns with how to organise students so that the students could anticipate each other’s actions and co-ordinate their work.
This preliminary work with practitioners draws attention to the use of assessment criteria. Because practitioners of networked learning believe they can affect student behaviour by altering assessment criteria amongst other features of course design, it is worth examining the students’ understanding of assessment requirements in detail.
The approaches adopted by the students
‘it is possible to use assignments as a vehicle for encouraging students to adopt newpatterns of learning, whilst at the same time covering course content.’ (Macdonald et al., 1999, p. 352)
For this aim to be achieved students needed to have had a clear and commonly held understanding of the course designers’ intentions.
The assessment criteria are interpreted by students in a wider context that is not in the course design team’s control. Courses in the Open University (UK) can be taken in any order. This flexibility is in accordance with the aim of networked learning but it makes the task of the design and preparation of standard documentation more difficult.
The range of experience is large and the course documentation is aimed at students who have many external factors influencing their interpretation of standard materials.
Conclusions
Practitioners in networked learning environments use assessment as a device for attempting to control their uncertainty about student responses to design.
The students’ comments indicate that this common understanding amongst the students was related to the use of networked learning and the relative novelty of this approach. In this way uncertainty returns to design because students were influenced by factors external to the assessment criteria.
It points to a general problem with assessment criteria that no document however detailed or clear can provide for the interpretation given to it by a reader.
The general comments on documentation may however, indicate that networked learning has additional constraints because the interpretation of context by students is more vulnerable to the variations in setting that distinguish networked environments.
This suggests that the phenomenographic emphasis on variation could have implications for the evaluation of networked learning environments:
- a definite relationship between teachers’ intentions and students’ experiences
- evaluate the suitability of a relational approach to design.
- teaching interventions are necessary to negotiate understanding ‘on the fly’
- a cautious attitude needed to be adopted to reliance on the use of course documents
in a networked environment.
Week 24: Learning Design, Learning Activity & Tasks
Friday, 31 July 2009, 10:51
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 31 July 2009, 10:54
Again, my personal notes for week 24
In our (Thorpe & Jones 2009) view, design is a social practice that implies a constant interaction between theoretical understanding and practical action. Far from practice being seen as distinct from and potentially opposed to theory, we see practical action as an outcome of some previous theoretical understanding, however much that previous theory might have become almost routine and absorbed into common sense.
Our argument is that learning is at least two steps removed from design. Firstly, the tasks, spaces and organisations that practitioners design rely on being inhabited by actual teachers and learners who enact the designs at particular times and in particular contexts. Secondly, learning does not have a clearly defined relationship to the communities, places and activities that are constituted by teachers and learners. Goodyear (2002) has summarised these distinctions as an indirect approach to learning, and their relationships are shown in Figure 1.
Each designed space is inhabited by students and teachers who constitute the places in which learning takes place.
Organisational rules and rules of etiquette can be provided for online or face-to-face interactions. What cannot be designed is the community that may or may not develop from these. We are sure many of you will have had the experience of the same organisational or structural forms having different outcomes when inhabited by different cohorts of students.
Designers set tasks, which are prescriptions for the work the students are expected to do, while the activity is what students actually do.
Students construct their setting, their own learning context, out of the technology and infrastructure, the other tasks they have to face, other calls on their time, their past experiences and their understanding of what their teachers actually value and these factors range much more broadly than the design itself.
Week 24: Context & Content
Friday, 31 July 2009, 10:46
Visible to anyone in the world
My personal notes regarding the introduction of week 24
Cole (1996): He emphasises the way in which the actions that people take, and the way in which they interact and play particular social roles, also constitute a learning context. Context therefore is emergent, and reflects the actions learners take, as well as the settings and relationships available to them for engagement.
Thorpe (2009)
Sequenced tasks & texts: Tutors emphasised the importance of interpersonal interaction online for student engagement and learning effectiveness. Sequences of carefully designed online texts and activities were identified as key to the pedagogy here.
Sequences of carefully designed online texts and activities were identified as key to the pedagogy here. The peer interaction achieved a successful combination of formality and informality without directly reproducing the face-to-face forms that might be possible on a campus. Tasks prescribed activity by the learners, while at the same time enabling learners to take control over their own learning and interact with each other with a degree of self-organisation. Here, therefore, are methods that work at the level of the online course, but they will be subject still to the impact of emergent context on each student, creating differences of experience and success with the same pedagogic strategy. These approaches require (at the level of design) activities and communicative approaches that students find accessible and that motivate their participation.
Practitioners start to use technology they create learning contexts that are different from those they engage with face to face. Practitioners may draw upon familiar patterns of interaction or ways of behaving in particular settings, but the virtual may be a very different experience.
practitioners start to use technology they create learning contexts that are different from those they engage with face to face. Practitioners may draw upon familiar patterns of interaction or ways of behaving in particular settings, but the virtual may be a very different experience.
Polycontextuality: Learning can become an activity running alongside other aspects of our lives, as when we listen to an iPod while we walk round a gallery or a museum, travel to work, browse the Web or do the shopping. We thus choose to construct our own, personalised learning contexts, while engaging with other contexts simultaneously, in parallel.
Week 23: Network Metaphors???
Wednesday, 29 July 2009, 19:31
Visible to anyone in the world
I've just finished assignment 5&6..reading Jones and Ingraham about network metaphors..,,I think I've read the articles 3 times and still don't have much of a clue what they were talking about...Is it just me or has anyone else the same difficulties?
Thanks, Eugene
My Revised PLE: Using metaphors
Friday, 24 July 2009, 15:44
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 24 July 2009, 15:45
I've revised my PLE. I've tried to use metaphors in my learning. Not the fancy ones as in Conole's paper, but I used some we've been using along the course. Please click here for a larger view of the image.
Week 23: Thinking about your own learning
Friday, 24 July 2009, 15:31
Visible to anyone in the world
1. What is your experience of being a learner?
As a learner I’ve acquired different skills in different ways. The internet plays a big role in my learning skills nowadays.
Resources:
the internet, books (informal learning), colleagues, friends
Tools:
See my revised PLE here
Where:
Home, School, when traveling professionally (train, plane)
When:
Basically when it suits me, sometimes in the evening, sometimes in between classes, sometimes in the weekends
2. What tools and resources do you use?
I mainly use tools from the internet, see my PLE. The internet is one of my biggest resources. Besides the Internet I still use books for learning as well. I either get them at a library or order them on the internet (Amazon)
I also use my colleagues as a form of resource, communicating in meetings and reflecting education is always very helpful to me!
3. What are your views on different technologies?
I try to critically engage in using new technology for my learning. I have experienced through H800 various new technologies which I was not familiar about. Some I found useful, some I have strong doubts about. In general I believe that technology can enhance my learning. However, I still believe that some web 2.0 applications are not useful for my learning, but might be useful for others. In week 21 & 22 I found Sclaters argument about using a default tool for learning a valid one. If we don’t use a default tool, we might miss-communicate with one another.
4. Can you think of examples where technology has made a significant difference to the way you learn?
Informal learning:
preparing my songs I have to learn for various performances with my band. I used to sort them out by ear, but since the internet and numerous of online bass player communities, it is easy to get the transcription. Makes me lazy though!
YouTube is a fantastic resource. The most difficult bass lines played in front of you on your screen and presented to you step by step.
Formal learning:
Having access to online libraries for my OU study has made a significant difference
Having e-books as pdf files
Using my Smartphone to access my forums and blogs in which I participate
5. Can you think of counter examples where you had a bad experience of a particular technology?
Not necessarily a bad experience but I would prefer to call it a less useful tool in my learning process. I still can’t see the benefits of Twitter as a learning tool for me. It only made sense to me when others from my H800 course participate, but other than that I can’t see the benefits at the moment. I still try to Tweet, but find it sometimes very useless. I can find relevant links on other websites as well, I don’t need to use Twitter for that. I would say that Twitter is my least favorite learning tool at the moment.
6. What did this do to your motivation for learning?
It made me look for other options if I hadn’t one already. When I don’t like the tool, I search for other alternatives and look for tools that suit my needs in another way, a better way.
7. How did you deal with the situation?
See answer from question nr. 6. When it doesn’t suit me I continue to search for better options which suit my needs better.
Google Docs is another example. I like the idea and I’m using it a lot, but our reports are made in massive excel files, which Google Docs couldn’t handle but Office Live could. So I use for my report excel files Office Live, for anything else, Google Docs is fine for me.
Week 22: Activity 3D My Alternative Paper
Friday, 17 July 2009, 12:24
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 17 July 2009, 12:26
I have chosen a paper by the Global Alliance For ICT And Development (G@ID)
You can download the paper here: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/gaid/unpan034975.pdf
In the article from the Global Alliance For ICT and Development (G@ID) “White Paper Information Communication & Technology (ICT) in Education for Development (May 2009)” the authors describe the situation in developing countries as it is today. They look at what the different countries have been doing to implement ICT in education and examine some of the problems they have encountered, as well as the positive results that have been achieved.
They emphasise the need for a good ICT policy and make the following statement, which would seem to be applicable to any country hoping to improve their use of ICT in education:
“A key to success is to adopt a comprehensive, end-to-end, systematic approach, with a phased and learn-as-you-go implementation that can be adjusted to adapt to the specific needs and a changing environment”.
The also put forward recommendations which they hope will help to deliver long term success in bringing ICT to children around the world. These recommendations focus on the following areas: Access, teachers, costs, government and policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation
Comparing this report to the others from Activity 3, there are both similarities and differences. Countries such as the US and the UK already have a good ICT basis to build on in terms of access, budget and government policy. However, in their efforts to develop their use of ICT further they are still encountering many of the same problems as the developing countries ,
“teachers lack the skills to properly integrate ICT into their classrooms. In order for ICT to be effectively used in education, a sense of its value needs to exist as well as the expectation that its use will lead to success. Teachers’ education requires instructional design, a belief about computers needs to be present if all teachers are to use ICT in their classrooms, classroom practices need to change in order to have full effect of ICT, and attitudes of some who may be unwilling to move away from the traditional way of teaching need to betaken into consideration when training teachers for ICT use”
Cheers Eugene
Week 22: Activity 3 Broader Perspectives
Friday, 17 July 2009, 10:52
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 17 July 2009, 10:55
It is clear to me that there are some overlapping themes in the reports. The common denominator seems to be the fact that technology has more and more influence on the way people behave, learn, teach, work and socialise and therefore must be incorporated effectively into teaching and learning.
The Horizon Report 2009
The Horizon report specifies 6 technologies. These technologies are split into short term, medium term and long term implementation.
Collaborative environments and Online communication tools will become more important in education. I see the value of both tools and have experienced them both positively as a learner. The problem for me as an educator of primary school children is how I can implement this in the classroom. VLE’s could potentially be very useful because they give students the possibility to experiment with online tools in a safe environment and enable them to see how these tools can enhance their learning.
Cloud computing will be an interesting development: “a computing paradigm where the boundaries of computing will be determined by economic rationale rather than technical limits (Prof. Ramnath K. Chellappa)”.
I think this “pay as you go” principle will be very important for institutions in terms of enabling them to lower their costs. It provides a more internet based approach which, I believe, is the way education is heading.
I am also convinced that data sharing will become more and more important as social applications are mostly based on this (Flickr, Delicious, Blogs etc).
Smart Objects, data sharing, peer to peer learning, tagging...all of this will support learning as well and requires new skills. These skills need to be acquired by both learners and teachers. Support (training) is needed to ensure that this happens.
The personal web (web 3.0?) is an interesting development. The internet based upon your personal interests. Students are familiar with personalising their online tools and expect to be able to do the same with their learning environment. Classrooms will need to be prepared for this.
I am still not sure how mobile devices fit into all of this at the moment. I can see their future potential as useful learning tools, particularly as the devices develop to include GPS, internet access etc, but this is currently only available at a fairly high cost and therefore not to everyone. Unless something happens to change this I can’t see how they can really be used successfully. They will remain tools that emphasise the divide between the fortunate and the less fortunate students even more.
The Horizon report also has an interesting approach to the Digital Divide in general: The digital divide, once seen as a factor of wealth, is now seen as a factor of education.
BECTA report 2008
The BECtA report also emphasised the use of technology in education: “Technology is increasingly used in other sectors to provide personalised
services. Learners of all ages use technology for informal learning, recreation and entertainment. This is matched by rising expectations from learners, parents and employers to make good use of technology to support education and training.”
Becta also stresses that implementing technology should be done in steps: “..so it becomes an integral tool in supporting and improving key processes in education. This can only be achieved by securing a technologically confident education and skills system where all participants have a good and self-improving capability with technology.”
I agree with this statement. Introducing something new in education is, in my experience, a difficult subject. It is human nature to compare things with the past, instead of looking forward and assessing how effective new technology could, and would, be.
Becta also describes the involvement of parents in this process: “Technology has an important role to play in ensuring greater participation by parents in children’s learning. It enables schools and colleges to report to parents on their child’s progress as it develops, rather than at a few fixed points in the year, and offers parents new opportunities to engage in dialogue with providers.”
Parents play an important role in the process of learning. They are a countable factor in educational institutions.
Home access is, in my opinion, very important as well: Home access supports and motivates learning. It gives learners a choice of where and how they study, it can improve parental involvement.
“Learners aged 11 to 19 report that three of the most commonly reported activities in class are still copying from the board or a book, ‘listening to a teacher talking for a long time’ and taking notes while the teacher talks. By contrast, learners’ reported preferred ways of learning are ‘in groups’, ‘by doing practical things’, ‘with friends’ and ‘by using computers’.”
We might expect that in 2009 this situation would be different. With all the technological innovation and investment, it is surprising to learn that students are still experiencing these main methods of teaching. Something is still preventing educational institutions from using technology to its full potential. Further support, training and guidance is still needed. The JISC or the government should play an active role in this.
Cheers,
Eugene
Week 22: 2F PLE'S and where you think they are heading
Thursday, 16 July 2009, 10:09
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Thursday, 16 July 2009, 10:09
I summarise what I’ve written before in previous blogs, but then structured this according to task 2f:
How do the various arguments align with your own experience?
I understand the Universities’ point of view that a VLE provides control. Tools from outside, integrated in a central organised VLE provide a clear overview of what students learn (course content), how they interact (forum, blog, elluminate) and how they collaborate (wiki). As a learner this structure helped me to start my first online course properly. I would have been lost if it had just been me and a large selection of internet tools and I simply had to find out which ones would be best for which purpose. I favour Sclater’s (and Weller’s) argument that a default environment makes it clear to the students which tools are needed and in which environment. The OU clearly uses this method as they assigned Delicious to us as an example of Social Networking. There are numerous other applications (Digg, EduTagger etc) that we could have used but we had to work with Delicious. It gave us an idea how to work with these tools in general and now we have these skills can choose our own. For me this approach worked well.
I strongly agree with Weller’s opinion that the Tools on the web need to be used. Learning by using is one of my slogans as well.
Are you broadly in favour of PLEs/use of Web 2.0 in an educational context?
I am in favour of using PLEs and web 2.0 tools in an educational context. One can find numerous tools on the internet which suits my needs and certainly the needs of others as well. However, I agree with Sclater that there has to be some kind of default tool which we all use in order to communicate with each other. My experiences with University VLE’S are limited to the OU’s LMS. I like the set up, although I hadn’t initially realised, that the OU used a Moodle based VLE and made it their own. The OU certainly transformed it to ensure the VLE meets their demands and makes it possible to use web 2.0 tools in a controlled environment.
I believe that VLE’s are there as some sort of safety net. They ensure that all students and tutors achieve a baseline level in working with web 2.0 tools and it is then up to the individual to decide how much further they want to take it.
Using my PLE in a default environment would be the perfect solution for me. We can’t deny the existence of the PLEs and tools outside the VLE’s. Why don’t we bring them together? I therefore agree with Paul Coulthard’s comment on his blog where he says that he prefers a mixture of a VLE and a PLE: “....but one that would still not address those learners who do not embrace Web 2.0 technologies or those students who choose to separate the social use of them from their educational use.”
Or do you foresee a number of issues and problems?
Although I favour the use of PLEs and web 2.0 tools in education, I also foresee some problems or difficulties. Technology develops in a fast pace and for tutors/staff/teachers it might be difficult to keep up with the latest tools. If there isn’t a default environment, the divide amongst those who are able to use this technology and those who aren’t will continue to grow.
Another issue raised by Sclater was the difficulty of assessing students. It would be difficult to assess students if they all use different tools. However, I strongly agreed with Weller that Universities and educational institutions should review their ways of assessments. Wouldn’t it be better if we assess processes alongside end results? Isn’t it better to assess how one contributes in addition to what one contributes instead of carrying out the same assessments as 20 years ago with today’s technology? I believe this would be a true reformation and a huge step forward.
To conclude, I am in favour of a controlled environment to introduce learners to technology where necessary, and support many of Sclater’s opinions, but my own use of web 2.0 tools outside the OU’S VLE proves that I look for tools which suit my needs. Somehow I try to integrate this into my study and into my tasks. I use it alongside the OU’s VLE but as well for pleasure and personal persuits.
Week 22: My mindmap
Tuesday, 14 July 2009, 14:55
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Tuesday, 14 July 2009, 15:07
This is my mindmap. The page wasn't big enough to map out all the applications I use. These are the main ones I use.
Click on this link to see the larger file
Week 22: Podcast Sclater/Weller
Tuesday, 14 July 2009, 14:40
Visible to anyone in the world
My notes regarding the Weller/Sclater podcast:
They don’t differ that much actually. They both want to use tools that are out there on the web, the 2.0 applications. They just differ in opinion about how they should be used.
Weller thinks that students should have the freedom to choose their own tools and that it is important that individuals make the choices that suit them best. He does not want to restrict their choice by forcing a centralized system on them. He considers tools available outside the university system superior to their modified versions provided by a university VLE.
Sclater believes that a centralised system provides equal access for all and that many students need to be introduced to learning tools in a structured environment to enable them to gain confidence and develop skills.
He thinks that communication can be restricted if students are all using a wide variety of different tools.
He raises concerns about the robustness of systems outside the university VLE and argues that if there is a problem within the centralised system at least the university will be aware of it and can validate it.
I understand the Universities’ point of view that a VLE provides control. Tools from outside, integrated in a central organised VLE provide a clear overview of what students learn (course content), how they interact (forum, blog, elluminate) and how they collaborate (wiki). As a learner this structure helped me to start my first online course properly. I would have been lost if it had just been me and a large selection of internet tools and I simply had to find out which ones would be best for which purpose. I favour Sclater’s (and Weller’s) argument that a default environment makes it clear to the students which tools are needed and in which environment. The OU clearly uses this method as they assigned Delicious to us as an example of Social Networking. There are numerous other applications (Digg, EduTagger etc) that we could have used but we had to work with Delicious. It gave us an idea how to work with these tools in general and now we have these skills can choose our own. For me this approach worked well.
I strongly agree with Weller’s opinion that the Tools on the web need to be used. Learning by using is one of my slogans as well.
I also agree with him that Universities and educational institutions should review their ways of assessments as well. Wouldn’t it be better if we assess processes alongside end results. Isn’t it better to assess how one contributes in addition to what one contributes instead of carrying out the same assessments as 20 years ago with today’s technology? I believe this would be a true reformation and a huge step forward.
Weller suggested the use of OpenId for the authentification problems and I believe that is a good suggestion. Since I have started using it I can use one ID for numerous webites. It is certainly not 100% foolproof, but good enough for me at the moment.
To conclude, I am in favour of a controlled environment to introduce learners to technology where necessary, and support many of Sclater’s opinions, but my personal views align more closely with Weller’s. I like his approach of using what is available and learning by doing. I strongly favour his arguments about reviewing the entire method of assessment. People like Weller have a Vision about the future, which in my opinion, will bring Education a step forwards. He wants us to stop looking back, stop going in circles, and to move forward.
Cheers, Eugene
Week 22: Sclater 2008
Tuesday, 14 July 2009, 14:05
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Tuesday, 14 July 2009, 14:06
Some interersting articles by Sclater. Here are my thoughts on the article
The “Key Questions to ask” in Sclater’s (2008a) paper are valid questions in my current work environment as we are (still) trying to implement an LMS in our school. The Board of Governors has chosen a commercial company to do this, but I am inclined to agree with the comments Sclater made in his conclusion , that this kind of solution does not offer enough flexibility. It doesn’t allow for enough customisation and this is something that, in my opinion, is very important. As a school, we need to be able to continually modify the system until it meets our demands. Ultimately, the teachers have to work with the system (in terms of providing content and organising the learning environment for the students) and therefore their input is very significant.
Costs are also an important issue for us. Our LMS requires a yearly fee of an average of 3 euro’s per student. We have over 900 students which means close to 3000 euro a year on licenses only. This is a significant amount of our IT budget. Using Open Source software would certainly bring us the benefit of cutting the costs of our current LMS system.
Another advantage of using an LMS based on Open Source software is that you have a instant support community to help you set up and develop your system. Knowledge is available, it is out there and we can benefit it from it. However, I would agree with Sclater that the downside to using OS Software is the time scale involved. Working with discussion groups takes longer, people need to reply to forum questions, try different coding solutions etc. There is no instant response.
To avoid having the same old discussion about which technology to use, we need to look to other successful projects and use these results and experiences as a starting point. We have evidence that at least certain elements of these projects have been successful and can try to combine them. We could also ask prospective users to agree on a set of important criteria, before making a selection.
Cheers, Eugene
Week 21 & 22: Activity 1D Technology in our Organisation: Part 3 & 4
Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 11:57
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 21:06
Part 3&4 are about the implications for teachers:
Part 3:
Conole says on page 9 that the implications for teachers and others are less radical. She continues on page 10 to mention the fact that lack of participation by staff members in peer networks: “... students are in peer networks. The same is not true for academics; currently the majority of teachers are not connected in this way and hence the potential benefits of such networks are not apparent to them. Participation in the blogosphere or via microblogging services such as twitter or immersion in 3D-worlds such as second life, only have true value if others are contributing and if what they are saying is of interest to you as an individual, i.e. if it adds value to your practice. Academics currently struggle to see the practical benefits of these tools, being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and potential possibilities and intimidated by the fact that incorporation of these new approaches will require a fundamental change in their role as ‘teacher’ and associated lose of authority.”
This is quite true I’m afraid. In our school the majority of teachers are not participating in peer networks and therefore gain no new knowledge. The most frequently heard argument is that they are afraid of violation of privacy. In my opinion it is the fear of using new technology because they haven’t experienced it yet. I participate in a couple of peer networks for teachers in which one shares knowledge, materials and even problems. It is quite interesting and very different to other social network sites. A good example of an English version is the following website: http://teachade.com/
Part4:
How do we get teachers to be less afraid of web 2.0? Perhaps we have to provide opportunity for them to participate and experience web 2.0, facilitate proper training and then give them a gentle push over the edge!
I have found, in my opinion, a very good website that helps people to get acquainted with web 2.0 tools. It is a an online learning program by the California School Library Association 2.0 team
http://classroomlearning2.blogspot.com/
It presents a very good example of bringing web 2.0 INTO the classroom. What is also important to note is that as a teacher, you can train yourself in your own pace and time!
Week 21 & 22: Activity 1D Technology in our Organisation: Part 2
Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 11:55
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 21:05
Part 2 is about the barriers in our Organisation
Part 2
There are however, some barriers in our school when it comes to technology. Conoly made the following statement in her article: “The minority who are facing a frustrating battle trying to convince their colleagues of the importance and impact of these new technologies, finding themselves arguing against outdated arguments and concepts about technologies which relate to the way things used to be and have little or nothing to do with the reality of today’s digital environment.” People in our school tend to look back and compare with the past instead of looking at today & tomorrow, or instead of engaging critically in the discussion and seeing what is useful or not, they do not compare at all!!
Our school website, for example, needs to be updated. It was designed in a typical web 1.0 environment in which people are only consuming the information. The ICT co-ordinators want to make it more interactive and want the school community to be able to participate more in it. We believe that web 2.0 can provide us with the proper tools to do this: blogs, wiki’s and video sharing.
I have found a pretty good example of a school that has already done this: http://www.scuola3d.eu/index.php?t=1
Our school has the ideas, a survey has been done to find out what the community wants and now we have to look for the right company to build our website.
Week 21 & 22: Activity 1D Technology in our Organisation: Part 1
Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 11:53
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Friday, 31 July 2009, 16:52
Hi All,
These are my notes for assigment 1D with the Conole paper integrated and some web 2.0 websites or tools that are relevant to me. I have split my notes up in 4 parts otherwise this Blog Post is much too long. Enjoy reading and feel free to comment.
Part 1
Since 2002 our school organisation has made a massive shift in its use technology. It was the first year we had a proper ICT Budget and at last we could invest in our IT structure. We set up our school network and connected the kindergarten, primary school, secondary school and the administration department to it. Since then our school has changed drastically and become almost fully digitalised. (There are now computers in classrooms, IT rooms, smartboards, an email system, online admin tools, a website, digital video cameras, photo cameras, use of software in class, digital assessments, a digital follow up system, digital reports and the use of Office as a standard in our school)
In the same way that Conole described in her article, there were a couple of triggers that forced our school to make a swift change in its use of technology. The triggers were the increasing use of internet and email, the sheer development of Windows based PC’S (we had old Macintosh computers) and the continuous development of our direct competitors (International Schools in the area).
I would conclude that up until 2005 we made good progress, but then things seemed to plateau. However, the current use of web 2.0 based applications by students and some teachers are triggers for our school to take the next step in IT development: creating an online or electronic environment to communicate with students (Moodle, StudyWiz) and installing Wi-Fi in our school to provide more teaching facilities for staff members and the use of laptops in school by students.
Week 21 & 22: An introduction to Conole
Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 09:40
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eugene Voorneman, Wednesday, 8 July 2009, 21:09
Some thoughts and visions that popped up in my brain whilst preparing for the Conole Article.
A bit philosophical but hey..why not?
Are we on another ‘groundhog day’ cycle or is there something significantly different this time?
I don’t believe we live in cycles. I believe that any novelty in technology brings us somewhere else in life and points us in a new direction. Whether this is forward or backwards is debatable, but it certainly gives you a new perspective and I consider that, always, as a step forward!
If your conclusion is broadly that each technology is just another cycle of change, with promises not matching reality, is the perspective any different if the lens on this is over a longer time frame? In other words, has there been a significant change in practice when you take a longer-term, cumulative account of a range of technologies?
I believe that all new technology challenges the way you think and gives you the opportunity to approach many aspects of life differently. It can make you reflect on what is considered to be old and it can help you gain new insights, but it definitely makes you think. That is, in my opinion, always a step forward.
Let’s face it...we can’t go back in time and can’t “uninvent” new technology. It is there and it will be there, even beyond our graves. Surely it is better to learn how to approach technology critically and to consider how we can use it effectively in education instead of simply ignoring it and not evaluating it at all.
Will it replace teachers, will it replace educational Institutions....I don’t believe so!
The need for personal expertise will always be there.
Cheers and happy Blogging for the following two weeks,
Eugene
Mobile Learning
Saturday, 4 July 2009, 12:30
Visible to anyone in the world
Thanks Vikki for your links on Twitter. I have read both of your articles and found them both very interesting.
However, I still don't get my head around using mobile devices in class. I do see the benefits in informal learning but for me there isn't enough good rock solid evidence that this could work well in formal learning.
It is quite interesting to read that a so called 25% of the students performed better than the ones who hadn't used their cell phone for that particular purpose ( I believe it was an algebra test/assignment). But it still doesn't convince me that mobile devices in classrooms are useful tools for learners. Aren't they just a distraction..aren't students tempted to just send a text or play a game on their mobile in between doing their tasks or assignments.
Do you have any other experiences? we had an interesting discussion in the elluminate session. The Spanish teacher was mentioned as an example of how mobile devices could be used in formal learning...to be honest I found that example in the article quite weak...not a proper example or evidence that mobile devices are useful in education. Anyway..sorry for the rant! Trying to get my head around the TMA and the two technologies!
Mobile 2.0? Who creates the content...practitioners? students?
Cheers,
Eugene
Week 20: TMA03
Thursday, 2 July 2009, 21:33
Visible to anyone in the world
I'm still researching the net for interesting articles about the two technologies I want to choose for my ECA. At the moment I'm looking into Social Bookmarking and its use of Tagging. I just wonder how this can be used in education. Is tagging a useful tool and will users need to develop new skills to really benefit from this new technology in their learning?
I'm not sure about the second technology: use of web-logs in education or the use of social networking in education.
Mobile 2.0 is also interesting, but I can't get my head around at the moment about how to use mobile devices in education? Who creates content, users or practitioners? Who is consuming and who is participating (mobile 2.0), why is someone participating...because of consumer behaviour (making assignments on mobile devices?)
Maybe someone has any ideas or tips?
Well it's 22:35 here in Karlsruhe (DE), time to call it a day!
Cheers
Week 19: Elluminate session
Sunday, 28 June 2009, 22:44
Visible to anyone in the world
A summary of our Elluminate session. Mainly from room 2 where I was allocated. If someone has something to add, please do:
Feedback: Also thinking about the H800 theme of individual and collaborative learning.
Room 1 (Brian, Ravi, Rose)
Difficult to find informal use In formal - transferring information to learners Spanish example - mobile learners took ownership by changing the nature of the task. But this isn't easy to see at the moment. New technologies are developing fast - but is the learning or teaching developing as fast
Room 2 (Allessandro, Corina, Eugene)
Opportunities in developing countries as mobile access is better than Internet? BBC example: hospitals sending out text messages to local doctors who can’t attend to an in service-training.
Ways of integrating mobile in formal learning is difficult. We felt that it was easier to use mobile learning in informal learning. It has greater opportunities to access information in addition or as a compliment of formal activities and resources. In terms of process - mobile does provide greater control in the hands of the learner. But formal learning is still in the hands of the institution.
Content consumption and content creation - learning starts with the expertise of tutors . Why do learners need to create content ? Is it because of assignments made by expert practitioners.
Ownership of learning: it is a process. Is what we need to learn in the hands of learners. We believe not.
Companies have big influence on the mobile market and therefore on education. Companies develop new technologies. This development is fast. Companies have influence on this process. It makes mobile devices so much easier to use in where the shift of ownership of learning might go faster than we think.
Cheers,
Eugene
This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.
Total visits to this blog: 242073