Feeling that I have a gap in relation to learning pedagogy and wishing to read some articles that are more 2010 that 2000 ... I have picked out 14 fresh articles to read.
Prensky and his 'Digital Natives' can be dropped - nothing in practice proves the point. It has nothing to do with when we were born, and everything to do with our desire to engage with and exposure to the technology ... oh, and income, eduation, age, opportunity ... the usual criteria.
My 85 year old Father-in-law has had a Mac since ... since they existed. He continues to run postgraduate courses between two countries ... and hasn't had a P.A. for 15 years. He is more comfortable with current ICT than some teenagers ... why? Because he is goal-orientated. The technology is simply a set of tools, a means to an end.
Personally I'm running with the view that there is no such thing as 'e-learning,' just 'learning.'
After all, the models of learning that I need are based on print, lectures, classrooms and tutorials. How often is 'e' justified? Does it work to its strengths? Is is inclusive or exclusive ... just part of the mix or re-mix?
And might I hear from some practioners, rather than researchers? i.e. those who put it into practice? Not just from HE.
Try presenting an OU styled E-tivity plan to a client. Learn what their issues and expetations are?
Try using the word (if it is one) 'E-tivity' for a start.
Keen on innovation, ready to be sold, want the bottom line, to be convinced that it will deliver and that results are measurable. An please, don't quote, cite or reference anyone.
And don't use the term 'e-learning' either.
Not interested. It is 'learning stuff' online ... or online learning, with computers and IT.
Why the great divide between theory and practice? Between universities and the people who employ your students? Should not employers be telling universities what they expect, want and understand, rather than the other way round.
Concentrate on outcomes. Identifying and fixing problems. Multi-mode. Why go the 'e-learning' route for £60k when you can solve the problem for £15k in print.
Why don't we go there?
The needs should dictate the proposed solutions, not the course, or tools ... and their affordances. As if these new comers operate in isolation.