H809: Activity 3.4: Comparison of First Two Readings with the Timeline
Saturday, 19 Feb 2011, 19:09
Visible to anyone in the world
The Hiltz & Meinke paper was written in 1989 which correlates with the end of phase two, the stand alone systems, described by Conole et al. (2007). They suggest that stage two shows 'increased activity in terms of multimedia functionality but that it is still content driven and focused on the interactive tutorial paradigm'. Hiltz & Meinke describe methods of teaching that are mainly behaviourist and mainly transmissive with e-lectures although there are some indications of self-determination and presentations are assessed. Other parts of the paper suggest a more social and participatory approach. This mixture of methods would link in with the end of stage two and the start of stage three which is characterised by the shift away from the individual and a move to more situated learning as described by Conole et al.
The Wegerif & Mercer paper was written in 1997 and describes research published in 1996. According to Conole et al. this time period fits towards the middle of phase three, networking technologies, where we are 'beginning to see more emphasis on the wider contextual issues (skills, strategy, importance of embedding and integration). Also a shift away from the emphasis on the individual to the concept of situated learning'. There is also evidence of 'linking of development to strategy' as the intervention described by Wegerif & Mercer was planned to coach young children in exploratory talk with the aim of improving group problem solving. According to Conole et al., this is more indicative of the growing awareness of collaborative activities which comes into evidence in phase four (after 2000) and so may suggest that the timeline needs adjusting or that this was school utilising innovative techniques.
In our tutor group timeline we have the introduction of social technologies such as the forum, podcasting and the wiki, in 1994 with blogging coming later in 1998. This seems to suggest that, although the technologies may not have been in widespread use in education, they were available in the market place and there would have been a growing awareness of collaborative work. I believe that this would have been likely to effect the attitudes of more innovative teachers at the time and encourage the form of forward thinking that suggested this intervention.
In the Wegerif & Mercer research, qualitative analysis suggested key words which were analysed by a concordance program which illustrates another aspect of phase three where higher education lecturers are using ICT as a 'tool of the trade'.
H809: Activity 3.4: Comparison of First Two Readings with the Timeline
The Hiltz & Meinke paper was written in 1989 which correlates with the end of phase two, the stand alone systems, described by Conole et al. (2007). They suggest that stage two shows 'increased activity in terms of multimedia functionality but that it is still content driven and focused on the interactive tutorial paradigm'. Hiltz & Meinke describe methods of teaching that are mainly behaviourist and mainly transmissive with e-lectures although there are some indications of self-determination and presentations are assessed. Other parts of the paper suggest a more social and participatory approach. This mixture of methods would link in with the end of stage two and the start of stage three which is characterised by the shift away from the individual and a move to more situated learning as described by Conole et al.
The Wegerif & Mercer paper was written in 1997 and describes research published in 1996. According to Conole et al. this time period fits towards the middle of phase three, networking technologies, where we are 'beginning to see more emphasis on the wider contextual issues (skills, strategy, importance of embedding and integration). Also a shift away from the emphasis on the individual to the concept of situated learning'. There is also evidence of 'linking of development to strategy' as the intervention described by Wegerif & Mercer was planned to coach young children in exploratory talk with the aim of improving group problem solving. According to Conole et al., this is more indicative of the growing awareness of collaborative activities which comes into evidence in phase four (after 2000) and so may suggest that the timeline needs adjusting or that this was school utilising innovative techniques.
In our tutor group timeline we have the introduction of social technologies such as the forum, podcasting and the wiki, in 1994 with blogging coming later in 1998. This seems to suggest that, although the technologies may not have been in widespread use in education, they were available in the market place and there would have been a growing awareness of collaborative work. I believe that this would have been likely to effect the attitudes of more innovative teachers at the time and encourage the form of forward thinking that suggested this intervention.
In the Wegerif & Mercer research, qualitative analysis suggested key words which were analysed by a concordance program which illustrates another aspect of phase three where higher education lecturers are using ICT as a 'tool of the trade'.