Edited by Steve Bamlett, Wednesday, 27 July 2016, 20:15
Which one of the forms
of SLA in Ferguson & Buckingham-Shum (2012) would I recommend to my company
(if I had one) to develop as a priority and why?
This paper (returning to it again) is what gives me hope in
the course. Here is a ‘learning analytics’ I can relate to because:
·The functions it relate to are all necessary to
good teaching and learning;
·They explicitly involve the learner as the
central point of reflection and action on what we learn from the analytics.
That teachers are also involved is good. It presupposes a collaborative
interest in a joint goal (the learning the learner wants to achieve);
·The data here is finely grained and sensitive
use of it appears to be intended. It is qualitative.
Faced
with a choice, I might emphasise as a priority to my ‘company’, the development
of the role (section 4.2 and 5.4) of ‘disposition
analytics.’
This feels to me totally concordant with traditional
teacher concerns with ‘autonomy’ and ‘self-regulation’ in learning that I associate
with Carol Dweck. It is about the malleability and variability of motivational
factors and can aim to address them through an interaction of internal personal
and external environmental factors that often correlate with motivation in ways
that good teachers have always done.
It is about the reliance of pedagogies on being ‘open to
new ideas’ and about ‘life-long learning’. The visualisations it achieves
belong primarily to the learner to guide whatever interactions with
environmental support they need or might be guided to. The choice can still be
theirs.
It is likely that they will use teacher and peer support
because the variables that make up motivation clearly include the role of
others, in a ‘no wo(man) is an island’ kind of way. In 4.2 ‘relationships and
interdependence’ are seen as being as primary in motivation as identity (5.4)
and I genuinely believe that they are. 4.2 extends this into 3 valid points if
I need them in an essay.
The macro-variable in the ‘Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory’;
(ELLI) is ‘Learning Power’. My only concern here is the inevitable need to tie
these issues to ‘power’ but still, that’s the age we’re in! The spider visuals
show how. Here is Fig 3 from the paper. It is clearly an item of facilitated dialogue
– in which technology is an enabler of pedagogy by being so good at producing
clear visualisations of evidence that could automatically feed development. And
the categories it uses matter, including the importance given to relationships.
No one says anything here about ‘Critical curiosity’ but I think they should.
As a category it aligns with the development of cognitive presence and a good
teacher could easily make that important, linking it to other dispositional
variables. It is so much better than anything that used to happen. No one
category is prioritised (as I think all other LA to date as prioritised ‘Strategic
Awareness’). At last, an education theory not designed as the co-production of
avatars of Count Bismarck.
I just love it!
Ferguson, R. and Buckingham
Shum, S. (2012) ‘Social learning analytics: five approaches’ in Proceedings
2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (29 April – 2
May 2012), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, New York, ACM Press, pp. 23–33;
also available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/32910/ (accessed 14 June 2016).
Socialised Learning Analytics (SLA) Activity 16 Block 4
Which one of the forms of SLA in Ferguson & Buckingham-Shum (2012) would I recommend to my company (if I had one) to develop as a priority and why?
This paper (returning to it again) is what gives me hope in the course. Here is a ‘learning analytics’ I can relate to because:
Faced with a choice, I might emphasise as a priority to my ‘company’, the development of the role (section 4.2 and 5.4) of ‘disposition analytics.’
This feels to me totally concordant with traditional teacher concerns with ‘autonomy’ and ‘self-regulation’ in learning that I associate with Carol Dweck. It is about the malleability and variability of motivational factors and can aim to address them through an interaction of internal personal and external environmental factors that often correlate with motivation in ways that good teachers have always done.
It is about the reliance of pedagogies on being ‘open to new ideas’ and about ‘life-long learning’. The visualisations it achieves belong primarily to the learner to guide whatever interactions with environmental support they need or might be guided to. The choice can still be theirs.
It is likely that they will use teacher and peer support because the variables that make up motivation clearly include the role of others, in a ‘no wo(man) is an island’ kind of way. In 4.2 ‘relationships and interdependence’ are seen as being as primary in motivation as identity (5.4) and I genuinely believe that they are. 4.2 extends this into 3 valid points if I need them in an essay.
The macro-variable in the ‘Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory’; (ELLI) is ‘Learning Power’. My only concern here is the inevitable need to tie these issues to ‘power’ but still, that’s the age we’re in! The spider visuals show how. Here is Fig 3 from the paper. It is clearly an item of facilitated dialogue – in which technology is an enabler of pedagogy by being so good at producing clear visualisations of evidence that could automatically feed development. And the categories it uses matter, including the importance given to relationships. No one says anything here about ‘Critical curiosity’ but I think they should. As a category it aligns with the development of cognitive presence and a good teacher could easily make that important, linking it to other dispositional variables. It is so much better than anything that used to happen. No one category is prioritised (as I think all other LA to date as prioritised ‘Strategic Awareness’). At last, an education theory not designed as the co-production of avatars of Count Bismarck.
I just love it!
Ferguson, R. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2012) ‘Social learning analytics: five approaches’ in Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (29 April – 2 May 2012), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, New York, ACM Press, pp. 23–33; also available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/ 32910/ (accessed 14 June 2016).