Personal Blogs

The article I chose to review is that of Chris Jones, Mirea Asensio & Peter Goodyear (2000) Networked learning in higher education: practitioners’ perspectives, ALT-J, 8:2, 18-28. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0968776000080203?needAccess=true  Accessed on September 7^th, 2019. As a lecturer still using a traditional face-to-face approach of education and wishing to gradually initiate technology enhanced learning, I have found the article so interesting in several ways. Before the content, I liked the phenomenographical research approach that seeks to understand people's ways of experiencing the world. Thus, through interviews, the paper is based on the data that expresses networked practitioner’s experiences with the practice.  I realise that the paper previews the unit learning objective one which says, “be familiar with the design of the module and the project choices required of you”. The paper thus tackles issues of course design, inclusiveness, innovation and implementation. These inform the pedagogical approaches within, such as constructive learning, collaborative learning as well as the tensions that accrue from strict structured and loose structured modes of assessment. These tensions have an implication on the learning design as well as learning outcomes. It was revealed that very structured modes of assessment with strict deadlines impended the creativity that would come with more time, if the learners had it.  Thus, highlighting the challenges of the course implementation. The other methodological design that impressed me to capture the above is the cross-sectional approach whereby interviewees were selected from 5 universities across 8 study programs including IT, law, education, library, information studies, and management. This depicts the inclusiveness of the research, approach and data.

Among the findings, what interested me was that networked practices are not a single invent occasion. In the due course, practitioners confessed that at first, they got challenges of working with an online environment, and so are the learners.  This at times led to disappointments as many learners dropped off.  It was revealed that at times, practitioners worked offline and loaded online later, thus compromising the learning outcomes and course designs. However, with time of application, the practitioners revealed that they got comfortable with the networked practice. For a practitioner who dealt with post-graduate courses, he confessed having it easy, an implication that conceptualization of learning objectives as well as motivation of learners can ease networked practices at higher learning.