OU blog

Personal Blogs

This is me, Eugene Voorneman.

Week 24: Jones & Asesnio (2001)

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.

Permalink
Share post
This is me, Eugene Voorneman.

Week 24: Learning Design, Learning Activity & Tasks

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.

033b6116131a0b826a73195232ce06bb.jpg

 

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.

 

Permalink
Share post
This is me, Eugene Voorneman.

Week 23: Network Metaphors???

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

Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by Perry Mc Daid, Thursday, 30 July 2009, 09:50)
Share post

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: 242260