“Adduction and Semantics: The Evolution of Personalisation.”
Developing a Framework for e-Learning. 7th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy, Trinity College Dublin, 29th - 31st August 2006.
This paper explores the current use of educational technology and the realm of e-learning in particular in the light of the perceived challenges and threats of rationalisation and globalisation and proposes that their is a fundamental mis-representation of e-learning and its ability to change
the methodologies of teaching and learning in current practice.
June 20, 2006
May 23, 2006
The Proposal, a note or two
Below find references and rationale behind PhD, as always am re-writing, fine tuning and throwing yet another lense to the issues at hand.
Interestingly enough I appear to be a: being very philosophical or b: about to be a trouble maker! ... time will tell.
The title itself
An Epistemological Exploration of the Taxonomy Of E-Learning Models: Theoretical Foundations and the Implications for Future Practice
tells a few tales and will inevitably lead me down a few circuitous routes before even that is locked down. However I believe I have a defnitive track in mind, further writings will make this clear to the outside reader
D
Interestingly enough I appear to be a: being very philosophical or b: about to be a trouble maker! ... time will tell.
The title itself
An Epistemological Exploration of the Taxonomy Of E-Learning Models: Theoretical Foundations and the Implications for Future Practice
tells a few tales and will inevitably lead me down a few circuitous routes before even that is locked down. However I believe I have a defnitive track in mind, further writings will make this clear to the outside reader
D
PhD Proposal: References And Preliminary Biography
Atherton, J S (2003). Learning and Teaching: Learning index [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/ Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou A, & Komis V., 2003. On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object – oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 147-167
BECTA ICT Research, 2003. A Review Of The Research Literature On The Use Of Managed Learning Environments And Virtual Learning Environments In Education, And A Consideration Of The Implications For Schools In The United Kingdom.
www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/VLE_report.pdf Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Biggs, J. B. 1999. Teaching for quality learning. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. 1999. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 18, No.1 p 57-75.
Billet, S. 1996 Situated learning: Bridging socio-cultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6, 263-280.
Cooke, R and Sheeran, P. 2004. Moderation of cognition – intention and cognition – behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology (2004), 43, 159–186.
Dillenbourg P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier
Doise, W. ,& Mugny, G. 1984. The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. 1979. Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 105-198.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. 2005. Problem-based Learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education 39: 732-741.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V. & Hounsell, J. 2002. Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary findings. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project. http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl Accessed 22.07.05
Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.J.F. Forest, (ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives. New York: Garland.
Evans, C.J, Kirby, J.R and Fabrigar, L.R. 2003. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 507–528.
Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. 2003. E-Learning in the 21st Century. A Framework for Research and Practice. RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Harvey, J., Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, 1998, http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Johnson D. J., Suriya C., Won Yoon S., Berrett J.V & La Fleur J., 2002. Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. In Computers & Education 39, 379–393.
Kearsley, G. 1994b. ‘Social Development Theory (L. Vygotsky)’. Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/vygotsky.html Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Knowles, M., & Knowles, H. 1959. Introduction to group dynamics. New York: Associated Press.
Kolb D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (0 13 295261 0)
Land, R. a. B., S., Ed. (2005). Education in Cyberspace. Oxon, RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd edition) London; RoutledgeFalmer
LoBiondo-Wood, G & Haber, 1994. Nursing Research (3rd Edition) St Louis Mosby.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. E. 1994. Group interacting with technologies: ideas, evidence, issues, and agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. 2002. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning Copyright 2002 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol. 33(1): 5-33
Mayes, J.T. (1995). Learning Technology and Groundhog Day. In: Strang, W., Simpson, V.,Slater, D., (eds.). Hypermedia at work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education. Canterbury:University of Kent Press.
Mayes, T. D. F., S (2005). Review Of E-Learning Theories, Frameworks And Models. Jisc E-Learning Models Desk Study. Jisc.
Mason, R. 1998. Models of Online Courses, ALN Magazine, Vol 2, issue 2 www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Norris, D. M., Mason, J., Robson, R. Paul Lefrere, P. &Geoff Collier, G. 2003. A revolution in knowledge sharing. Educause Review, 38 (5), 15-26. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0350.pdf Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Nielsen. J, 2002. Top Ten Guidelines for Homepage Usability. Alertbox, http://www.useit.com/alertbox Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Olivera, F., & Straus, S. G. 2004. Group-to-individual transfer of learning: Cognitive and social factors, Small Group Research, 445-465
Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. 1999. Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Paulus, T. 2005 Collaboration or Cooperation? Analysing Small Group Interactions in Educational Environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Ed Roberts, T.S. Idea Group Publishing, London.
The personal learning environments blog
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D. Eds. 1991. Perspectives On Socially Shared Cognition. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. 1999. Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, June-July, 22-25.
Salmon, G. 2000. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London, Kogan Page.
Salmon, G. 2003. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Kogan Page.
Salomon, G. 1993. Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press
Savin-Baden, M. & Wilkie, K. Eds. 2004. Challenging Research in Problem-based Learning. Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow.
Schoenfeld, A. H. 1987. What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A.H.Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp 189-215. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schmidt, H. G. 1993. Foundation of problem based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education 27, 422-432.
Soloman, B., A. & Felder, R. 1991. Index of Learning Styles. http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Strijbos, Jan-Willem. 2004. "The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning (Het effect van rollen op computerondersteund samenwerkend leren) http://e-learning.surf.nl/e-learning/onderzoek/2627 Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Strijbos, JW., Kirschner, P. A. & Martens, R. L., Eds 2004. What We Know about CSCL and Implementing it in Higher Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Thomas, T. 2002. Critical Thinking And Deep Cognitive Processing By Structured Discussion Board Activities. http://www.celt.lsu.edu/CFD/E-Proceedings/ Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 348–399.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. & Kanselaar, G 2000. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction 10. 311-330.
von Glasserfeld, E. 1988. Cognition, construction of knowledge and Teaching (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED294 754.)
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1930).
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction. http://www.ewenger.com Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Avouris, N., Dimitracopoulou A, & Komis V., 2003. On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object – oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 147-167
BECTA ICT Research, 2003. A Review Of The Research Literature On The Use Of Managed Learning Environments And Virtual Learning Environments In Education, And A Consideration Of The Implications For Schools In The United Kingdom.
www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/VLE_report.pdf Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Biggs, J. B. 1999. Teaching for quality learning. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. 1999. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 18, No.1 p 57-75.
Billet, S. 1996 Situated learning: Bridging socio-cultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6, 263-280.
Cooke, R and Sheeran, P. 2004. Moderation of cognition – intention and cognition – behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology (2004), 43, 159–186.
Dillenbourg P. 1999. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier
Doise, W. ,& Mugny, G. 1984. The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. 1979. Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 105-198.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. 2005. Problem-based Learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education 39: 732-741.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V. & Hounsell, J. 2002. Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary findings. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project. http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl Accessed 22.07.05
Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.J.F. Forest, (ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives. New York: Garland.
Evans, C.J, Kirby, J.R and Fabrigar, L.R. 2003. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 507–528.
Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. 2003. E-Learning in the 21st Century. A Framework for Research and Practice. RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Harvey, J., Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, 1998, http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Johnson D. J., Suriya C., Won Yoon S., Berrett J.V & La Fleur J., 2002. Team development and group processes of virtual learning teams. In Computers & Education 39, 379–393.
Kearsley, G. 1994b. ‘Social Development Theory (L. Vygotsky)’. Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/vygotsky.html Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Knowles, M., & Knowles, H. 1959. Introduction to group dynamics. New York: Associated Press.
Kolb D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (0 13 295261 0)
Land, R. a. B., S., Ed. (2005). Education in Cyberspace. Oxon, RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. 2002. Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd edition) London; RoutledgeFalmer
LoBiondo-Wood, G & Haber, 1994. Nursing Research (3rd Edition) St Louis Mosby.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. E. 1994. Group interacting with technologies: ideas, evidence, issues, and agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. 2002. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning Copyright 2002 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol. 33(1): 5-33
Mayes, J.T. (1995). Learning Technology and Groundhog Day. In: Strang, W., Simpson, V.,Slater, D., (eds.). Hypermedia at work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education. Canterbury:University of Kent Press.
Mayes, T. D. F., S (2005). Review Of E-Learning Theories, Frameworks And Models. Jisc E-Learning Models Desk Study. Jisc.
Mason, R. 1998. Models of Online Courses, ALN Magazine, Vol 2, issue 2 www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Norris, D. M., Mason, J., Robson, R. Paul Lefrere, P. &Geoff Collier, G. 2003. A revolution in knowledge sharing. Educause Review, 38 (5), 15-26. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0350.pdf Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Nielsen. J, 2002. Top Ten Guidelines for Homepage Usability. Alertbox, http://www.useit.com/alertbox Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Olivera, F., & Straus, S. G. 2004. Group-to-individual transfer of learning: Cognitive and social factors, Small Group Research, 445-465
Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. 1999. Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Paulus, T. 2005 Collaboration or Cooperation? Analysing Small Group Interactions in Educational Environments. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Ed Roberts, T.S. Idea Group Publishing, London.
The personal learning environments blog
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D. Eds. 1991. Perspectives On Socially Shared Cognition. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. 1999. Trajectories from today’s WWW to a powerful educational infrastructure. Educational Researcher, June-July, 22-25.
Salmon, G. 2000. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London, Kogan Page.
Salmon, G. 2003. E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. Kogan Page.
Salomon, G. 1993. Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press
Savin-Baden, M. & Wilkie, K. Eds. 2004. Challenging Research in Problem-based Learning. Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow.
Schoenfeld, A. H. 1987. What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A.H.Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp 189-215. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schmidt, H. G. 1993. Foundation of problem based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education 27, 422-432.
Soloman, B., A. & Felder, R. 1991. Index of Learning Styles. http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Strijbos, Jan-Willem. 2004. "The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning (Het effect van rollen op computerondersteund samenwerkend leren) http://e-learning.surf.nl/e-learning/onderzoek/2627 Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Strijbos, JW., Kirschner, P. A. & Martens, R. L., Eds 2004. What We Know about CSCL and Implementing it in Higher Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Thomas, T. 2002. Critical Thinking And Deep Cognitive Processing By Structured Discussion Board Activities. http://www.celt.lsu.edu/CFD/E-Proceedings/ Last Accessed: 22.04.06
Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 348–399.
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J. & Kanselaar, G 2000. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction 10. 311-330.
von Glasserfeld, E. 1988. Cognition, construction of knowledge and Teaching (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED294 754.)
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1930).
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction. http://www.ewenger.com Last Accessed: 22.04.06
PhD Proposal Details.5
Outline (Proposed Chapters)
1. Current Practice (From the Literature)
Perception and Practice
2. Theoretical ‘Crutches’
Applying old ideas to new endeavours
3. Developing a Taxonomy
Past (ideals and theory based)
Present (over reliant on current practices – non cohesive approach)
Future (PLE, removal of traditional trappings) Semantic Web and Internet 2
4. Methodologies and Tools (From Practice – Survey, Interview etc)
Who leads Current practice?
P2P, VLE (Bb, Moodle, Sakai, .LRN), Web Services (FLE3, Coppercore, Los, UoL)
Issues Arising:
Copyright (IPR, DRM)
Economy
Social Impact
Institutional Approach
Globalisation
Government Initiatives [Local and EU]
5. Application
Taxonomy through to an Ideology
6. Concluding Discussion
Ideologies and the Academy: How the language of e-learning is used in education.
1. Current Practice (From the Literature)
Perception and Practice
2. Theoretical ‘Crutches’
Applying old ideas to new endeavours
3. Developing a Taxonomy
Past (ideals and theory based)
Present (over reliant on current practices – non cohesive approach)
Future (PLE, removal of traditional trappings) Semantic Web and Internet 2
4. Methodologies and Tools (From Practice – Survey, Interview etc)
Who leads Current practice?
P2P, VLE (Bb, Moodle, Sakai, .LRN), Web Services (FLE3, Coppercore, Los, UoL)
Issues Arising:
Copyright (IPR, DRM)
Economy
Social Impact
Institutional Approach
Globalisation
Government Initiatives [Local and EU]
5. Application
Taxonomy through to an Ideology
6. Concluding Discussion
Ideologies and the Academy: How the language of e-learning is used in education.
PhD Proposal Details.4
Research Methodology
- Meta-Literature Analysis
- Triangulation of Quantative, Qualitative and Case Study data gathering processes
The research will focus on an initial epistemological approach that will utilise the literature to identify key e-learning models in practice (and those that are not). This will provide the foundation for an evolutionary taxonomy.
A secondary approach will be to apply this taxonomy as a series of queries to those in the field i.e. academics, administrators and learners that are currently engaged with e-learning. Essentially the proposition will be to define the ‘truths, beliefs and knowledge’ with regard to the implementation of e-learning.
This latter intervention will also take the opportunity to identify specific instances of e-learning and delve into the complexity of situation and behaviour to ascertain the impact of the model in use.
Analysis Outline
The resultant data will be examined primarily holistically (encompassing all data in one overview), however to aid this it is intended to apply in part, Merriam’s (1988) seven analytic frameworks for the organization and presentation of data in a ‘coded’ approach (thus allowing one to highlight specific observable elements with relation to the proposed case study):
1. The role of participants
2. The network analysis of formal and informal exchanges among groups
3. Historical
4. Thematically
5. Resources
6. Ritual and symbolism
7. Critical incidents that challenge or reinforce fundamental beliefs, practices, and values.
Merriam’s (1988)
- Meta-Literature Analysis
- Triangulation of Quantative, Qualitative and Case Study data gathering processes
The research will focus on an initial epistemological approach that will utilise the literature to identify key e-learning models in practice (and those that are not). This will provide the foundation for an evolutionary taxonomy.
A secondary approach will be to apply this taxonomy as a series of queries to those in the field i.e. academics, administrators and learners that are currently engaged with e-learning. Essentially the proposition will be to define the ‘truths, beliefs and knowledge’ with regard to the implementation of e-learning.
This latter intervention will also take the opportunity to identify specific instances of e-learning and delve into the complexity of situation and behaviour to ascertain the impact of the model in use.
Analysis Outline
The resultant data will be examined primarily holistically (encompassing all data in one overview), however to aid this it is intended to apply in part, Merriam’s (1988) seven analytic frameworks for the organization and presentation of data in a ‘coded’ approach (thus allowing one to highlight specific observable elements with relation to the proposed case study):
1. The role of participants
2. The network analysis of formal and informal exchanges among groups
3. Historical
4. Thematically
5. Resources
6. Ritual and symbolism
7. Critical incidents that challenge or reinforce fundamental beliefs, practices, and values.
Merriam’s (1988)
PhD Proposal Details.3
The Nature Of The Problem
‘The mis-use and mis-understood practice of E-learning.’
Mayes & de Freitas (2005) have mapped the relationship of theoretical perspectives of teaching and learning to that of current e-learning models. In so doing they have once again unintentionally reverted to a categorisation that is reliant on past ideals. Though this provides a clear link with day to day practice in terms of the current ‘vogue’, it offers no glimpse of possible future iteratives. Mayes and de Freitas themselves note that no current models appear to fall within their identified theoretical construct based upon Lave and Wenger’s CoP, perhaps here is the first indication that we should move beyond the current recognised perspectives and begin to tease out a new realm of investigation.
Selection of Current E-Learning Models:
E-Training
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Britain & Liber’s Framework
Learning Objects Model
IMS Learning Design
DialogPlus Project
Reload Project
CANDLE Project
Networked Learning Model (CSALT)
Conversational Framework (Laurillard)
The Conceptualisation Cycle (Mayes)
Mayes & Fowler’s Framework
Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE Bereter & Scardamalia)
E-Tivities (Salmon)
Flexible Learning Approach (Collis & Moonen)
Extended Learning Objects Approach (OU IET)
Opencourseware Initiative (MIT)
Usage of VLEs across UK HE appears not to be as widespread as first thought, those that are using such systems are utlising them to supplement current practices by providing online access to materials. In so doing a recent JISC report raises the question “Is there a shared understanding of e-learning?” This glaring dichotomy of use and apparent use needs to be further explored.
(JISC ‘Study of Environments to Support e-Learning’, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/e-learning_survey_2005.pdf)
The UNFOLD project outlines an e-learning methodology and a potential set of tools (applications) that one may use in creating and using the particular units of learning created. Fundamental to this process is the interoperable standards required to enable usage across platforms and for diverse practical applications.
One of the key issues addressed by UNFOLD is the need for teachers / developers who have spent a long time, money and expertise in creating content, the ability to be able to export learning resources from one VLE to another. So for example, learning activities that have been set up in the Blackboard VLE by use of the collaboration tools, discussion fora etc are not transferable. Only the actual learning resources accompanying such activities may be exported e.g. text files, bibliographies, .jpegs.
It is this inherent fixation on content that is allowing the programmers to take precedence in an attempt to answer all our prays by developing such an interoperable system that is the IMS LD. As worthy a project as this is, to allow universal exchange of learning resources, it belies a crushing insecurity that has been allowed to fester – the propensity to imagine and seek out a technical solution to the ever increasing weight of educational technology flotsam that has built up over the last decade. It is this flotsam that obscures the true depth of the potential offered by such endeavours as Open Sources initiatives to foster collaboration and development in the realm of e-learning.
The use of Blooms taxonomy (1956, written in an attempt to classify questions asked in assessment) has been trotted out time and again for use as a tool with which to design learning outcomes and interactions within e-learning. Indeed it offers an ideal snapshot of what one might wish to implement to achieve a certain level of instructional competence within an e-learning situation. It does not however begin to touch upon the technical and social perspectives that are immediately apparent in the vast array of e-learning components, tools and learning objects currently available.
The fractious nature of current learning paradigms often leads to a fundamental misconception in the way in which we choose to engage with e-learning. Whilst apparently offering a ‘blended approach’ are we not doing a dis-service to the potential on offer. It is evident that we have been able to develop our traditional face to face teaching to a level of maturity that reacts and interacts within current social behaviour and societal norms. Indeed the use of technology to do this, is nothing new (e.g. from slate and chalk to the interactive whiteboard). What we have bemoaned for too long and yet never genuinely reacted too is the potential offered by new technologies as an entity rather than as a new tool set. We apparently fear the onset of an ever increasing demand by ‘networked learners’ for the insatiable desire for all things electronic, and yet year in we offer up a mild Diaspora of modules ‘enhanced’ with technology. Why have we not changed our ways? We have merely altered our approach by the addition of tool sets that appear to service the administrative needs far better than any academic needs, let alone the learner’s. Indeed is it not the case that the massification of HE offers up the ideal opportunity to track and manage all educational needs via technology? Where are the needs of the learner in this realm? They seem to have been allotted a number in a rather grand computer system.
‘The mis-use and mis-understood practice of E-learning.’
Mayes & de Freitas (2005) have mapped the relationship of theoretical perspectives of teaching and learning to that of current e-learning models. In so doing they have once again unintentionally reverted to a categorisation that is reliant on past ideals. Though this provides a clear link with day to day practice in terms of the current ‘vogue’, it offers no glimpse of possible future iteratives. Mayes and de Freitas themselves note that no current models appear to fall within their identified theoretical construct based upon Lave and Wenger’s CoP, perhaps here is the first indication that we should move beyond the current recognised perspectives and begin to tease out a new realm of investigation.
Selection of Current E-Learning Models:
E-Training
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Britain & Liber’s Framework
Learning Objects Model
IMS Learning Design
DialogPlus Project
Reload Project
CANDLE Project
Networked Learning Model (CSALT)
Conversational Framework (Laurillard)
The Conceptualisation Cycle (Mayes)
Mayes & Fowler’s Framework
Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE Bereter & Scardamalia)
E-Tivities (Salmon)
Flexible Learning Approach (Collis & Moonen)
Extended Learning Objects Approach (OU IET)
Opencourseware Initiative (MIT)
Usage of VLEs across UK HE appears not to be as widespread as first thought, those that are using such systems are utlising them to supplement current practices by providing online access to materials. In so doing a recent JISC report raises the question “Is there a shared understanding of e-learning?” This glaring dichotomy of use and apparent use needs to be further explored.
(JISC ‘Study of Environments to Support e-Learning’, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/e-learning_survey_2005.pdf)
The UNFOLD project outlines an e-learning methodology and a potential set of tools (applications) that one may use in creating and using the particular units of learning created. Fundamental to this process is the interoperable standards required to enable usage across platforms and for diverse practical applications.
One of the key issues addressed by UNFOLD is the need for teachers / developers who have spent a long time, money and expertise in creating content, the ability to be able to export learning resources from one VLE to another. So for example, learning activities that have been set up in the Blackboard VLE by use of the collaboration tools, discussion fora etc are not transferable. Only the actual learning resources accompanying such activities may be exported e.g. text files, bibliographies, .jpegs.
It is this inherent fixation on content that is allowing the programmers to take precedence in an attempt to answer all our prays by developing such an interoperable system that is the IMS LD. As worthy a project as this is, to allow universal exchange of learning resources, it belies a crushing insecurity that has been allowed to fester – the propensity to imagine and seek out a technical solution to the ever increasing weight of educational technology flotsam that has built up over the last decade. It is this flotsam that obscures the true depth of the potential offered by such endeavours as Open Sources initiatives to foster collaboration and development in the realm of e-learning.
The use of Blooms taxonomy (1956, written in an attempt to classify questions asked in assessment) has been trotted out time and again for use as a tool with which to design learning outcomes and interactions within e-learning. Indeed it offers an ideal snapshot of what one might wish to implement to achieve a certain level of instructional competence within an e-learning situation. It does not however begin to touch upon the technical and social perspectives that are immediately apparent in the vast array of e-learning components, tools and learning objects currently available.
The fractious nature of current learning paradigms often leads to a fundamental misconception in the way in which we choose to engage with e-learning. Whilst apparently offering a ‘blended approach’ are we not doing a dis-service to the potential on offer. It is evident that we have been able to develop our traditional face to face teaching to a level of maturity that reacts and interacts within current social behaviour and societal norms. Indeed the use of technology to do this, is nothing new (e.g. from slate and chalk to the interactive whiteboard). What we have bemoaned for too long and yet never genuinely reacted too is the potential offered by new technologies as an entity rather than as a new tool set. We apparently fear the onset of an ever increasing demand by ‘networked learners’ for the insatiable desire for all things electronic, and yet year in we offer up a mild Diaspora of modules ‘enhanced’ with technology. Why have we not changed our ways? We have merely altered our approach by the addition of tool sets that appear to service the administrative needs far better than any academic needs, let alone the learner’s. Indeed is it not the case that the massification of HE offers up the ideal opportunity to track and manage all educational needs via technology? Where are the needs of the learner in this realm? They seem to have been allotted a number in a rather grand computer system.
PhD Proposal Details.2
Current Literature and Practice: ‘How Is e-Learning Happening?’
In current academic practice we are able to adapt and utilise a vast array of theory and practical expertise to enable us to engage with the learner. This research proposal recognises the wealth of past experience open to us as teachers and offers a means to re-define and focus current e-learning practice. To begin to evaluate this hereditary evolution of current practice let us begin by referring to the theoretical constructs at the forefront of e-elearning.
Gagne (1962) provides a theoretical framework with which to consider how we learn. He identifies five levels of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. With these in mind instructional designers may act upon each and provide suitable stimuli that enables the learner to interact and demonstrate a fundamental attaining of each level. This can be further noted in Gagne’s nine instructional events (Kearsley 1994a).
Gagne (1985) 9 steps of instructional design, firmly based on a behavourist stance, offers the learner a means of self actualisation by engaging in a hierarchical process of knowledge building. It is interesting to note the amount of debate that has occurred (Resnick & Resnick 1991) as to the validity of this sequential approach to knowledge acquisition, an approach that offers (for an instructional designer) the ideal opportunity to customise and personalise a learning environment on behalf of the end user.
Perhaps key to any online learning instance is the accommodation of the variety of learning styles represented in any given student cohort. By allowing for this variety the learner may navigate the content and tasks in a way that is directly applicable to themselves, thus enabling a student centred approach and promoting intellectual diversity (Fahy, 1999, 237).
Socio-Constructivism advocates the mastery of new approaches to learning by interaction with others (Doise 1984). An individual’s interaction within a given social environment enables the production (development) of a new personal state. This new state makes it possible to return to or move into another social environment and allows for more sophisticated interactions to take place (Dillenbourg et al 1994). In essence collaborating may unlock and produce a series of criteria (culminating in a new state) within the individual. It focuses on the personal development of the individual as a result of social interactions. Crucial to any successful online experience is the establishment of a community and sense of personal ownership this is often achieved through peer inductions / icebreakers and social forums. Such social orientated tasks are used as the foundation for future collaborative endeavours, often a sense of community, trust and mutual cooperation is achieved outside of the day to day curriculum work and only becomes apparent when a group is presented with a collaborative task relating to the core discipline (Billet 1996).
The concept of Socio-Cultural ideals springs out of Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of proximal development, whereby individual development is a casual result of social interaction. In effect the individual internalizes any processes whilst party to social interactions and brings them to light at a later date independently. Notably he goes further to state that instruction is most efficient when students engage in activities within a supportive environment and when in receipt of appropriate guidance. This is never more apparent than in an online environment where it is essential to provide an identified framework (scaffold), in the form of peer support / mentoring and clear instructional design and learning outcomes to enable a learner to engage in a learning process whereby they may attain their own personal learning objective/s.
Shared Cognition is seen as being situation dependant; it specifically enables social interactions (and knowledge sharing) within a given context that is immediately applicable to the task at hand. By linking context and knowledge the learner is made aware of the conditions under which the knowledge should be applied. In the wider realm the learner may thus see how such knowledge can best be applied in outside situations – thus fostering critical and creative thinking within an online environment, as with traditional face to face teaching, the relevancy of case based scenarios, or contextualised data is essential to focusing the learners attentions on the immediate needs of a problem or example and on the identified module learning outcomes in assuring strategic approaches to online experiences (Evans et al 2003).
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
In discussing the concept of shared cognition one inevitably has to consider the social element, how individuals interact within an environment and with one another. Etienne Wenger (1998) developed the concept of Communities of Practice, in which there are three key elements: the domain, the community and the practice. The key to each of these domains (and indeed the community itself) is the interactions between individuals, their joint purpose and their actual endeavours. Wenger sees this as a means by which to promote collaboration online, more often than not it is mistakenly perceived that a community of practice is a mere website, network or shared concern. All of these may indeed form the constituent parts of a community of practice but they require activities to bring them to fruition e.g. Problem solving, Requests for info, Seeking experience, Reusing assets, Coordination and synergy, Discussing developments, Documentation projects, Visits, Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioral changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
In current academic practice we are able to adapt and utilise a vast array of theory and practical expertise to enable us to engage with the learner. This research proposal recognises the wealth of past experience open to us as teachers and offers a means to re-define and focus current e-learning practice. To begin to evaluate this hereditary evolution of current practice let us begin by referring to the theoretical constructs at the forefront of e-elearning.
Gagne (1962) provides a theoretical framework with which to consider how we learn. He identifies five levels of learning: verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes. With these in mind instructional designers may act upon each and provide suitable stimuli that enables the learner to interact and demonstrate a fundamental attaining of each level. This can be further noted in Gagne’s nine instructional events (Kearsley 1994a).
Gagne (1985) 9 steps of instructional design, firmly based on a behavourist stance, offers the learner a means of self actualisation by engaging in a hierarchical process of knowledge building. It is interesting to note the amount of debate that has occurred (Resnick & Resnick 1991) as to the validity of this sequential approach to knowledge acquisition, an approach that offers (for an instructional designer) the ideal opportunity to customise and personalise a learning environment on behalf of the end user.
Perhaps key to any online learning instance is the accommodation of the variety of learning styles represented in any given student cohort. By allowing for this variety the learner may navigate the content and tasks in a way that is directly applicable to themselves, thus enabling a student centred approach and promoting intellectual diversity (Fahy, 1999, 237).
Socio-Constructivism advocates the mastery of new approaches to learning by interaction with others (Doise 1984). An individual’s interaction within a given social environment enables the production (development) of a new personal state. This new state makes it possible to return to or move into another social environment and allows for more sophisticated interactions to take place (Dillenbourg et al 1994). In essence collaborating may unlock and produce a series of criteria (culminating in a new state) within the individual. It focuses on the personal development of the individual as a result of social interactions. Crucial to any successful online experience is the establishment of a community and sense of personal ownership this is often achieved through peer inductions / icebreakers and social forums. Such social orientated tasks are used as the foundation for future collaborative endeavours, often a sense of community, trust and mutual cooperation is achieved outside of the day to day curriculum work and only becomes apparent when a group is presented with a collaborative task relating to the core discipline (Billet 1996).
The concept of Socio-Cultural ideals springs out of Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of proximal development, whereby individual development is a casual result of social interaction. In effect the individual internalizes any processes whilst party to social interactions and brings them to light at a later date independently. Notably he goes further to state that instruction is most efficient when students engage in activities within a supportive environment and when in receipt of appropriate guidance. This is never more apparent than in an online environment where it is essential to provide an identified framework (scaffold), in the form of peer support / mentoring and clear instructional design and learning outcomes to enable a learner to engage in a learning process whereby they may attain their own personal learning objective/s.
Shared Cognition is seen as being situation dependant; it specifically enables social interactions (and knowledge sharing) within a given context that is immediately applicable to the task at hand. By linking context and knowledge the learner is made aware of the conditions under which the knowledge should be applied. In the wider realm the learner may thus see how such knowledge can best be applied in outside situations – thus fostering critical and creative thinking within an online environment, as with traditional face to face teaching, the relevancy of case based scenarios, or contextualised data is essential to focusing the learners attentions on the immediate needs of a problem or example and on the identified module learning outcomes in assuring strategic approaches to online experiences (Evans et al 2003).
The idea of co-construction of shared knowledge supports the premise that shared cognition is not just reliant on the factual knowledge and the common social grounding around that knowledge but on the processes and practices in which one may attain knowledge (Resnick, Levine, Teasley 1991). This implies that collaboration is most effective when there are common objectives i.e. that individual participants are working towards the same goal or set of goals, e.g. engaged in mutual problem solving. However work by Boxtel et al (2000) noted no discernable differences whilst testing collaborative and individual learning outcomes, this is an area of study that requires further quantitative analysis in particular.
In discussing the concept of shared cognition one inevitably has to consider the social element, how individuals interact within an environment and with one another. Etienne Wenger (1998) developed the concept of Communities of Practice, in which there are three key elements: the domain, the community and the practice. The key to each of these domains (and indeed the community itself) is the interactions between individuals, their joint purpose and their actual endeavours. Wenger sees this as a means by which to promote collaboration online, more often than not it is mistakenly perceived that a community of practice is a mere website, network or shared concern. All of these may indeed form the constituent parts of a community of practice but they require activities to bring them to fruition e.g. Problem solving, Requests for info, Seeking experience, Reusing assets, Coordination and synergy, Discussing developments, Documentation projects, Visits, Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
Wenger refers to a “community of practice seen as a living curriculum…” it is this entity that may form the foundation for collaboration and in turn the structure within which shared cognition occurs on an ongoing basis, promoting both life long learning and continuing professional development. A study by Olivera and Straus (2004) testing the transfer of knowledge in a lab-based cooperative learning scenario indicates that learning occurred primarily around cognitive tasks rather than actual social factors, thus highlighting the need for structure based scenarios or a framework to facilitate collaborative efforts such as may be found Wenger’ Communities.
Thomas (2002) puts forward the proposal that the use of discussion boards may aid in the level of thinking undertaken by students. In particular the attainment of critical thinking and deep cognitive processing. In her paper she explores the idea of measuring the environmental impact of the use of facilitators and collaborative tasks. Cooke and Sheeran (2004) also cite the use of moderators to determine behavioral changes in cognitive relations. Problem-based learning is often chaired and run by the learners themselves, in this online version a facilitator was in place to ensure the process was followed through to fruition and to offer any additional and necessary support factors (such as technical assistance, course guidance and mentoring).
An individual’s construction of knowledge, can be suggested as being a ‘collaboration with oneself’, drawing on experience, practice and implementation to achieve a desired objective e.g. a particular learning goal. This is brought into a group dynamic where such implicit experiences are often made explicit via cognitive conflict (i.e. challenging and exploring concepts co-operatively). Each group member may demonstrate a ‘personal’ interaction with the curriculum elements that is interpreted internally yet shared externally. This interaction offers an increased range of experience demonstrated, explored and shared via the entire group. Van Boxtel et al suggest that a key element in the positive perception of collaboration “...is the notion that social interaction stimulates elaboration of conceptual knowledge’ (313, 2000). It provides a forum within which individual learners have the opportunity to engage with the process and express their understanding.
Though this may appear elementary, i.e. differing group members applying personal learning styles or social perspectives for instance. What is not as apparent is the effect upon the group dynamic. According to Vygotsky (1978) the internalization of a shared event by an individual may only be revealed at a later date when that individual is confronted by a similar problem/context within which to react. Thus the results of shared cognition may be seen to be internalized/referenced for future interactions. Furthermore the exposure to differing learning styles may actually affect the way in which individuals decide to learn themselves in future - collaboration leading to co-construction of knowledge.
PhD Proposal Details.1
Introduction
Since Plato established the Academy in the 4th Century BC offering a venue for original thinkers to come together (and as a reaction to the Sophists who were beginning to charge for their interpretations and teachings ) the basic premise of a University has essentially remained the same – the acquisition and promulgation of knowledge.
This PhD research agenda proposes to initiate the exploration of current e-learning models in practice, discern their development and theoretical hereditary and plot a taxonomy of current outcomes. This epistemological approach will provide a lens by which to observe current and imminent developments and construct an ideology that may sit amongst a key cohort of the academy – that of the academic community – enabling them to focus upon the manner in which educational technology has changed our way of learning.
A key issues raised in the use of ET is that it must be driven by pedagogy first, that technology offers us a way to improve our current methodologies and enhance our practice. It has been said that e-learning is merely enhanced learning , providing an explicit use of technology to further promote interaction and engagement of the learner. The study will look at the evidence (in current practice and literature) to discern whether or not the use of e-learning has met its desired outcomes and objectives.
Problems And Issues
It is apparent that though there are many models applicable to e-learning instances (e.g. Laurillard’s Conversational Framework, Salmons 5 Step Approach, Palloff & Pratt etc) there are, however, few if any all encompassing theoretical frameworks such as those that are representational of traditional teaching and learning practice (Behaviourism, Socio-Cultural Constructivism, etc.) that may be genuinely claimed for the realm of e-learning.
Historically we have acknowledged the increasing presence of e-learning tools (wikis, blogs, SMS, etc.) as a mere addition to our teaching armory. Rolling out where appropriate, that which can be of value at a given instance (e.g. SkypE for online communications), or being led by institutional direction as to the use of omnipotent ETs (such as the presence of VLEs) in the growing world market of education.
Lateral thinking in the area of curriculum design in recent years has proven a most fertile area in challenging our perceived beliefs about current entrenched practices. Biggs (1999) concept of constructive alignment offers a means by which we might reconsider and ground our practice so that a learner is not only central to our approach but implicitly involved in the dynamic of a process driven curriculum. However this offers a mere addendum to the way we might consider the use and manipulation of ET within our day-to-day practice.
With the advent of the concept of Personalised Learning Environments (PLEs) have we now an opportunity to lay down a path that will enable a theoretical shift on behalf of teaching practice for the 21C? Or is it the case that the lecturer is now viewed as nothing more than a ‘materials developer’ (Smith and Oliver 2002)?
Since Plato established the Academy in the 4th Century BC offering a venue for original thinkers to come together (and as a reaction to the Sophists who were beginning to charge for their interpretations and teachings ) the basic premise of a University has essentially remained the same – the acquisition and promulgation of knowledge.
This PhD research agenda proposes to initiate the exploration of current e-learning models in practice, discern their development and theoretical hereditary and plot a taxonomy of current outcomes. This epistemological approach will provide a lens by which to observe current and imminent developments and construct an ideology that may sit amongst a key cohort of the academy – that of the academic community – enabling them to focus upon the manner in which educational technology has changed our way of learning.
A key issues raised in the use of ET is that it must be driven by pedagogy first, that technology offers us a way to improve our current methodologies and enhance our practice. It has been said that e-learning is merely enhanced learning , providing an explicit use of technology to further promote interaction and engagement of the learner. The study will look at the evidence (in current practice and literature) to discern whether or not the use of e-learning has met its desired outcomes and objectives.
Problems And Issues
It is apparent that though there are many models applicable to e-learning instances (e.g. Laurillard’s Conversational Framework, Salmons 5 Step Approach, Palloff & Pratt etc) there are, however, few if any all encompassing theoretical frameworks such as those that are representational of traditional teaching and learning practice (Behaviourism, Socio-Cultural Constructivism, etc.) that may be genuinely claimed for the realm of e-learning.
Historically we have acknowledged the increasing presence of e-learning tools (wikis, blogs, SMS, etc.) as a mere addition to our teaching armory. Rolling out where appropriate, that which can be of value at a given instance (e.g. SkypE for online communications), or being led by institutional direction as to the use of omnipotent ETs (such as the presence of VLEs) in the growing world market of education.
Lateral thinking in the area of curriculum design in recent years has proven a most fertile area in challenging our perceived beliefs about current entrenched practices. Biggs (1999) concept of constructive alignment offers a means by which we might reconsider and ground our practice so that a learner is not only central to our approach but implicitly involved in the dynamic of a process driven curriculum. However this offers a mere addendum to the way we might consider the use and manipulation of ET within our day-to-day practice.
With the advent of the concept of Personalised Learning Environments (PLEs) have we now an opportunity to lay down a path that will enable a theoretical shift on behalf of teaching practice for the 21C? Or is it the case that the lecturer is now viewed as nothing more than a ‘materials developer’ (Smith and Oliver 2002)?
An Epistemological Exploration of the Taxonomy Of E-Learning Models: Theoretical Foundations and the Implications for Future Practice
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the current use of educational technology and the realm of e-learning in particular in the light of the perceived challenges and threats of rationalisation and globalisation and proposes that their is a fundamental mis-representation of virtual learning and its ability to change the methodologies of teaching and learning in current practice.
The author proposes that it is no longer possible to simply ‘let pedagogy lead our use of technology’ but calls for a change of theoretical practice – the identification of a meta-theory upon which one would frame a new ideology related to the use of educational technology within education.
Research area: E-Learning Models and Applied Theory
Research topic: Epistemology of E-Learning
Major Research Question: Has the impact of past theoretical development been legitimised in the realm of e-learning, does it allow one to explain the use of educational technology and ground it in sound pedagogical theory (and does this theory follow through to a practical implementation).
Data collection methodology: Qualitative, survey, focus groups, quantative analysis of occurrences.
This paper explores the current use of educational technology and the realm of e-learning in particular in the light of the perceived challenges and threats of rationalisation and globalisation and proposes that their is a fundamental mis-representation of virtual learning and its ability to change the methodologies of teaching and learning in current practice.
The author proposes that it is no longer possible to simply ‘let pedagogy lead our use of technology’ but calls for a change of theoretical practice – the identification of a meta-theory upon which one would frame a new ideology related to the use of educational technology within education.
Research area: E-Learning Models and Applied Theory
Research topic: Epistemology of E-Learning
Major Research Question: Has the impact of past theoretical development been legitimised in the realm of e-learning, does it allow one to explain the use of educational technology and ground it in sound pedagogical theory (and does this theory follow through to a practical implementation).
Data collection methodology: Qualitative, survey, focus groups, quantative analysis of occurrences.
April 20, 2006
Current Work as Lecturer in Educational Development
Co-facilitating University online discussion group.
Elearning Forum
Established and facilitating University online discussion group and resource.
Taught Courses 2005/2006:
Higher Diploma in University Teaching and Learning
•HDip Induction
•HDip in Blackboard
•Online management of resources and communications.
•HDip Mentoring Programme
•Facilitated Mentoring for HDip participants.
•HDip Examiner
•Board of Studies
Using Online Resources for Teaching and Learning: Projects and Research
Encouraging Active Learning in Lectures
Blended Learning: Integrating Technology into the Curricula
E-Portfolios in Student Learning
Encouraging Student Interaction in Blackboard
Theories of Teaching and Learning - problem based methodology
Writing effective Exam Questions
Educational Technology Applied to Teaching and Learning.
Using ‘Mind Genius’: Mind Mapping in Student Learning
HEA Targeted Initiatives 2004-2007 Project:
Investigation Processes and Resource Sharing Framework for Shared ELearning Resources, joint initiative with the seven Universities – National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR).
HEA Targeted Initiatives 2005-2007 Project:
Establishment of a Veterinary/Agriculture Subject Area Network on behalf of the NDLR.
Selection of Invited Workshops/Seminars
‘Computers, Assessment and the Learner’ Blackhall Place, Law Society of Ireland.
‘Introduction to Mind Mapping’ Quinn School of Business, BComm.
‘Critical Success Factors in E-Learning.’ Veterinary School, Teaching Skills Interest Group.
‘E-Portfolios In Teaching and Learning’ NUI Maynooth, E-Learning Series.
‘NDLR Working Group on Re-usable Learning Objects Development’ E-Learning Conference, 2005, TCD.
‘Intellectual Property Rights and the NDLR’ NDLR Communities of Practice Launch, UCC, 21.02.06.
‘Presentation Skills – A postgraduate experience’ Humanities Inst, UCD.
Elearning Forum
Established and facilitating University online discussion group and resource.
Taught Courses 2005/2006:
Higher Diploma in University Teaching and Learning
•HDip Induction
•HDip in Blackboard
•Online management of resources and communications.
•HDip Mentoring Programme
•Facilitated Mentoring for HDip participants.
•HDip Examiner
•Board of Studies
Using Online Resources for Teaching and Learning: Projects and Research
Encouraging Active Learning in Lectures
Blended Learning: Integrating Technology into the Curricula
E-Portfolios in Student Learning
Encouraging Student Interaction in Blackboard
Theories of Teaching and Learning - problem based methodology
Writing effective Exam Questions
Educational Technology Applied to Teaching and Learning.
Using ‘Mind Genius’: Mind Mapping in Student Learning
HEA Targeted Initiatives 2004-2007 Project:
Investigation Processes and Resource Sharing Framework for Shared ELearning Resources, joint initiative with the seven Universities – National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR).
HEA Targeted Initiatives 2005-2007 Project:
Establishment of a Veterinary/Agriculture Subject Area Network on behalf of the NDLR.
Selection of Invited Workshops/Seminars
‘Computers, Assessment and the Learner’ Blackhall Place, Law Society of Ireland.
‘Introduction to Mind Mapping’ Quinn School of Business, BComm.
‘Critical Success Factors in E-Learning.’ Veterinary School, Teaching Skills Interest Group.
‘E-Portfolios In Teaching and Learning’ NUI Maynooth, E-Learning Series.
‘NDLR Working Group on Re-usable Learning Objects Development’ E-Learning Conference, 2005, TCD.
‘Intellectual Property Rights and the NDLR’ NDLR Communities of Practice Launch, UCC, 21.02.06.
‘Presentation Skills – A postgraduate experience’ Humanities Inst, UCD.
April 06, 2006
Publications to date
A Problem and an Opportunity: E-Learning a case for collaboration, Chapter. David Jennings in Savin-Baden M. and Wilkie K (Eds) (2006) Virtually possible? Using Problem-based Learning Online
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development” Paper.
IADIS International Conference Proceedings, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
Virtually Effective: The Measure Of A Learning Environment, Chapter. David Jennings in
O’Neill, G., Moore, S. and McMullin, B. (Eds.) (2005) Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
‘Virtually Effective.’ Article. October 2004 Prelimimary Paper in BbMatters http://www.bbmatters.net/bbmattersproject/default.asp
“E-Learning A Medium For Collaboration: A Case Study Of Shared Cognitive Development” Paper.
IADIS International Conference Proceedings, On Cognition And Exploratory Learning In Digital Age (Celda 2005)
Virtually Effective: The Measure Of A Learning Environment, Chapter. David Jennings in
O’Neill, G., Moore, S. and McMullin, B. (Eds.) (2005) Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
‘Virtually Effective.’ Article. October 2004 Prelimimary Paper in BbMatters http://www.bbmatters.net/bbmattersproject/default.asp
References
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham. Society for research in Higher Education. Open University Press. http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/solo.htm.
Britain, S. (2004). ‘A review of learning design. Concept, specifications and tools’. JISC
report
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (2004). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments (Revised). JISC report. See: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/VLEFull Report8.doc.
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). Retrieved July 16, 2005 from http://www.lamsinternational.com/documents/ASCILITE2003.Dalziel.Final.pdf.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999) What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2002). IMS learning design: best practice and implementation guide. See:
http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0pd/imsld_bestv1p0pd.html.
Kirschner, P. A., and Paas, F. (2001). Web-enhanced higher education: A Tower of Babel. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 347-353.
Koper, E.J.R., and Tattersall, C. (Eds.) (2005). Learning Design: A handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training. Heidelberg: Springer.
Jochems, W., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Koper, R. (2004). Integrated e-Learning: Implications for pedagogy, technology, and organization. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London. New York. Routledge.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2000). Learning technology Standards committee web pages. See: http://www.ltsc.ieee.org/,
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Harvard. Harvard university press.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York. Harper and Row.
Mayes, J.T. Learning Technology and Groundhog Day (1995), In W. Strang, V.B. Simpson & J. Slater (Eds.)Hypermedia at Work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education. University of Kent Press: Canterbury.
Mayes, J.T. & Fowler, C.J.H. ‘Learning Technology and Usability: A Framework for Understanding Courseware’. Interacting With Computers 11, 485-497, 1999
Newell, A. (1980), One final word. In D.T. Tuma & F.Reif (Eds), Problem solving and education: issues in teaching and research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Newell, A. (1990), Unified Theories of Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
OUNL (2004). Learning Network for Learning Design. Heerlen: Open University of The Netherlands, OTEC. Available at http://moodle.learningnetworks.org. Retrieved on August 14th, 2005
Polsani, P. R. (2003). ‘Use and abuse of reusable learning objects’. See: http://www.jodl.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/.
Reigeluth, C. (ed.) (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale. New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reload (2005). Reusable eLearning Object Authoring and Delivery Project, retrieved on July 25, 2005 from http://www.reload.ac.uk/.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991) Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 4, 2-8 Salmon, G. (2000). e-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London. Kogan
Salmon, G. (2002). e-Tivities: The key to active online learning. London. Kogan Page.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard. Harvard university press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge. Massachusetts. MIT press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Edited and translated by: Hanfmann, E. &Vakar. G. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Translated by: Lopez-Morillas, M. In Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (eds.). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. p. 79-91. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press
Watson, J. (1983). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviourist. London. Pinter.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). ‘Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory. A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy’. See: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc, last accessed 20th June 2004.
Wilson, B.G. & Myers, K.M. (2000) Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context. In In D.H. Jonassen, & S.M.Land(eds), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Additional materials...
Atherton, J S (2003). Learning and Teaching: Learning index [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/ Accessed: 14 December 2004
Avouris N., Dimitracopoulou A, & Komis V. (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object – oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 147-167
Bain, J. D. (1999). Introduction. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), 165-172.
Bandura, A 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977, p27.
Bera, S. & Liu, M. Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, In Press, Corrected Proof. 2004
Biggs, J.G., and Rihn, B.A. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to learning. In I. Kirby, (ed.), Cognitive Strategies and Educational Performance. Orlando: Academic Press.
Biggs J (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 18, No.1 p 57-75.
Billet, S. (1996) Situated learning: Bridging socio-cultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6, 263-280.
Cacioppo J.T, Petty R.E & Kao C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of “need for cognition.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Campbell, D. & J. Stanley. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cook, T. & D. Campbell. (1979). Quasi-Experimental Design. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cooke, R and Sheeran, P. 2004. Moderation of cognition – intention and cognition – behaviour relations: Ameta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology (2004), 43, 159–186.
Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984) The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.J.F. Forest, (ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives. New York: Garland.
Entwistle, N.J., and Ramsden, P. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383
Evans, C.J, Kirby, J.R and Fabrigar, L.R. 2003. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2003), 73, 507–528.
Fenwick, T.J. 2000. Expanding Conceptions of experiential Learning: A Review Of The Five Contemporary perspectives On Cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 4, August 2000 243-272.
Gardner H (1993). Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences (2nd edition) London, Fontana
Harvey, J., Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, 1998, http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi.
Kember, D., and Harper, G. (1987a). Approaches to studying research and its implications for the quality of learning from distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 2, 15-30.
Kolb D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (0 13 295261 0)
Kozma R. B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer – based learning tools. Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25
Laurillard D (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd edition) London; RoutledgeFalmer (0-415-25679-)
LoBiondo-Wood, G & Haber, J 1994 Nursing Research (3rd Edition) St Louis Mosby.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. 2002. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning Copyright 2002 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol. 33(1): 5-33
Merriam, S. B. (1985). The Case Study in Educational Research: A Review of Selected Literature. Journal of Educational Thought, 19.3, 204-17.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1996). Some aspects of the individual-difference modeling of causal attribution. Higher Education, 31, 51-71.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994) Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Robey, D. (1991) Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2, 143-169.
Ramsden P (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education London: Routledge (0-415-06415-5)
Reijomiettinen. 2000. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal Of Lifelong Education, Vol.19, No.1 (January-February 2000), 54-72.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals - cognition: A dynamic inter-actional view. In G Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp.111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Säljö R (1979) "Learning in the Learner's Perspective: 1: some commonplace misconceptions" Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, 76.
Shih-Wei Chou and Yu-Hung Tsai. 2004. Knowledge creation: individual and organizational perspectives. Journal of Information Science, 30(3) 2004, pp.205–218
Strijbos, Jan-Willem. 2004. "The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning (Het effect van rollen op computerondersteund samenwerkend leren)
http://e-learning.surf.nl/e-learning/onderzoek/2627
Thomas, T. 2002. Critical Thinking And Deep Cognitive Processing By Structured Discussion Board Activities.
Tormala, Z. L, Petty R. E, 2004. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Resistance to Persuasion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Elaboration.
PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 11, November 2004.
Trickett, E.J and Ryerson-Espino, S.R. 2004. Collaboration and Social Inquiry: Multiple Meaning sofa Construct and Its Role in Creating Useful and Valid Knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol.34, Nos.1/2, September 2004.
Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approaches, perceptions of context and learning outcomes. Higher Educaton, 22, 251-266
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and language Cambridge [Mass] : M.I.T. Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction. http://www.ewenger.com
Writing@CSU: Writing Guide – Case Studies
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/casestudy/com2b1.cfm
Britain, S. (2004). ‘A review of learning design. Concept, specifications and tools’. JISC
report
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (2004). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments (Revised). JISC report. See: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/VLEFull Report8.doc.
Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). Retrieved July 16, 2005 from http://www.lamsinternational.com/documents/ASCILITE2003.Dalziel.Final.pdf.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999) What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2002). IMS learning design: best practice and implementation guide. See:
http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0pd/imsld_bestv1p0pd.html.
Kirschner, P. A., and Paas, F. (2001). Web-enhanced higher education: A Tower of Babel. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 347-353.
Koper, E.J.R., and Tattersall, C. (Eds.) (2005). Learning Design: A handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training. Heidelberg: Springer.
Jochems, W., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Koper, R. (2004). Integrated e-Learning: Implications for pedagogy, technology, and organization. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London. New York. Routledge.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2000). Learning technology Standards committee web pages. See: http://www.ltsc.ieee.org/,
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Harvard. Harvard university press.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York. Harper and Row.
Mayes, J.T. Learning Technology and Groundhog Day (1995), In W. Strang, V.B. Simpson & J. Slater (Eds.)Hypermedia at Work: Practice and Theory in Higher Education. University of Kent Press: Canterbury.
Mayes, J.T. & Fowler, C.J.H. ‘Learning Technology and Usability: A Framework for Understanding Courseware’. Interacting With Computers 11, 485-497, 1999
Newell, A. (1980), One final word. In D.T. Tuma & F.Reif (Eds), Problem solving and education: issues in teaching and research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Newell, A. (1990), Unified Theories of Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
OUNL (2004). Learning Network for Learning Design. Heerlen: Open University of The Netherlands, OTEC. Available at http://moodle.learningnetworks.org. Retrieved on August 14th, 2005
Polsani, P. R. (2003). ‘Use and abuse of reusable learning objects’. See: http://www.jodl.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/.
Reigeluth, C. (ed.) (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale. New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reload (2005). Reusable eLearning Object Authoring and Delivery Project, retrieved on July 25, 2005 from http://www.reload.ac.uk/.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. & Globerson, T. (1991) Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 4, 2-8 Salmon, G. (2000). e-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London. Kogan
Salmon, G. (2002). e-Tivities: The key to active online learning. London. Kogan Page.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard. Harvard university press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge. Massachusetts. MIT press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Edited and translated by: Hanfmann, E. &Vakar. G. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Translated by: Lopez-Morillas, M. In Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (eds.). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. p. 79-91. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press
Watson, J. (1983). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviourist. London. Pinter.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). ‘Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory. A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy’. See: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc, last accessed 20th June 2004.
Wilson, B.G. & Myers, K.M. (2000) Situated Cognition in Theoretical and Practical Context. In In D.H. Jonassen, & S.M.Land(eds), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Additional materials...
Atherton, J S (2003). Learning and Teaching: Learning index [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/ Accessed: 14 December 2004
Avouris N., Dimitracopoulou A, & Komis V. (2003). On analysis of collaborative problem solving: An object – oriented approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 147-167
Bain, J. D. (1999). Introduction. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), 165-172.
Bandura, A 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977, p27.
Bera, S. & Liu, M. Cognitive tools, individual differences, and group processing as mediating factors in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, In Press, Corrected Proof. 2004
Biggs, J.G., and Rihn, B.A. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to learning. In I. Kirby, (ed.), Cognitive Strategies and Educational Performance. Orlando: Academic Press.
Biggs J (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 18, No.1 p 57-75.
Billet, S. (1996) Situated learning: Bridging socio-cultural and cognitive theorising. Learning and Instruction, 6, 263-280.
Cacioppo J.T, Petty R.E & Kao C.F. (1984). The efficient assessment of “need for cognition.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Campbell, D. & J. Stanley. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cook, T. & D. Campbell. (1979). Quasi-Experimental Design. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cooke, R and Sheeran, P. 2004. Moderation of cognition – intention and cognition – behaviour relations: Ameta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology (2004), 43, 159–186.
Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier
Doise, W. & Mugny, G. (1984) The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Entwistle, N.J. (1998). Improving teaching through research on student learning. In J.J.F. Forest, (ed.), University Teaching: International Perspectives. New York: Garland.
Entwistle, N.J., and Ramsden, P. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383
Evans, C.J, Kirby, J.R and Fabrigar, L.R. 2003. Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and strategic flexibility among university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2003), 73, 507–528.
Fenwick, T.J. 2000. Expanding Conceptions of experiential Learning: A Review Of The Five Contemporary perspectives On Cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 4, August 2000 243-272.
Gardner H (1993). Frames of Mind: the theory of multiple intelligences (2nd edition) London, Fontana
Harvey, J., Evaluation Cookbook, Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, 1998, http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi.
Kember, D., and Harper, G. (1987a). Approaches to studying research and its implications for the quality of learning from distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 2, 15-30.
Kolb D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (0 13 295261 0)
Kozma R. B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer – based learning tools. Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25
Laurillard D (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd edition) London; RoutledgeFalmer (0-415-25679-)
LoBiondo-Wood, G & Haber, J 1994 Nursing Research (3rd Edition) St Louis Mosby.
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. 2002. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning Copyright 2002 Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi Vol. 33(1): 5-33
Merriam, S. B. (1985). The Case Study in Educational Research: A Review of Selected Literature. Journal of Educational Thought, 19.3, 204-17.
Meyer, J.H.F. (1996). Some aspects of the individual-difference modeling of causal attribution. Higher Education, 31, 51-71.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994) Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Robey, D. (1991) Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2, 143-169.
Ramsden P (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education London: Routledge (0-415-06415-5)
Reijomiettinen. 2000. The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal Of Lifelong Education, Vol.19, No.1 (January-February 2000), 54-72.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp.111-138) Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals - cognition: A dynamic inter-actional view. In G Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp.111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Säljö R (1979) "Learning in the Learner's Perspective: 1: some commonplace misconceptions" Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, 76.
Shih-Wei Chou and Yu-Hung Tsai. 2004. Knowledge creation: individual and organizational perspectives. Journal of Information Science, 30(3) 2004, pp.205–218
Strijbos, Jan-Willem. 2004. "The effect of roles on computer-supported collaborative learning (Het effect van rollen op computerondersteund samenwerkend leren)
http://e-learning.surf.nl/e-learning/onderzoek/2627
Thomas, T. 2002. Critical Thinking And Deep Cognitive Processing By Structured Discussion Board Activities.
Tormala, Z. L, Petty R. E, 2004. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Resistance to Persuasion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Elaboration.
PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 11, November 2004.
Trickett, E.J and Ryerson-Espino, S.R. 2004. Collaboration and Social Inquiry: Multiple Meaning sofa Construct and Its Role in Creating Useful and Valid Knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol.34, Nos.1/2, September 2004.
Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approaches, perceptions of context and learning outcomes. Higher Educaton, 22, 251-266
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and language Cambridge [Mass] : M.I.T. Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Wenger, E. 2004. Communities of Practice: a brief introduction. http://www.ewenger.com
Writing@CSU: Writing Guide – Case Studies
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/casestudy/com2b1.cfm
Current E-Learning Models
E-Training
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Britain & Liber’s Framework
Learning Objects Model
IMS Learning Design
DialogPlus Project
Reload Project
CANDLE Project
Networked Learning Model (CSALT)
Conversational Framework (Laurillard)
Mayes & Fowler’s Framework
Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE Bereter & Scardamalia)
E-Tivities (Salmon)
Flexible Learning Approach (Collis & Moonen)
Extended Learning Objects Approach (OU IET)
Opencourseware Initiative (MIT)
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Britain & Liber’s Framework
Learning Objects Model
IMS Learning Design
DialogPlus Project
Reload Project
CANDLE Project
Networked Learning Model (CSALT)
Conversational Framework (Laurillard)
Mayes & Fowler’s Framework
Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE Bereter & Scardamalia)
E-Tivities (Salmon)
Flexible Learning Approach (Collis & Moonen)
Extended Learning Objects Approach (OU IET)
Opencourseware Initiative (MIT)
Titles...
A TAXONOMY OF ELEARNING MODELS
A SOCIO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE INTERACTION OF LEARNERS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT
THE PLATONIC ACADEMY AND THE REALM OF THE IPOD
ADDUCTION AND SEMANTICS: THE EVOLUTION OF PERSONALISATION
A CHANGE IS GONNA COME
EXPLOTATION OR IMPORTATION
A SOCIO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE INTERACTION OF LEARNERS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT
THE PLATONIC ACADEMY AND THE REALM OF THE IPOD
ADDUCTION AND SEMANTICS: THE EVOLUTION OF PERSONALISATION
A CHANGE IS GONNA COME
EXPLOTATION OR IMPORTATION
Contextual Questions
Educational Development
• Can we learn how children handle information and use it constructively, collaboratively within an online environment
Constructivism
• The concept of social constructivism as a means to an end
Group Development
• Do we need to determine group structures / rules prior to engagement
Sub contexts
• Institutional VLE usage
o Can this be used as a driver to encourage / promote collaborative learning
• Active Learning
o The very nature of collaboration implies ‘actively’ seeking, establishing, constructing new knowledge, creating new learning environments
Semantic Web
• Is this the answer to ‘genuine’ knowledge collaboration.
• Is it simply another layer / lense to enable collaboration
• Can the study proceed if it is not readily available?
• Could we use this as leverage to use a pilot?
• Should we drop the ‘semantic’!?
• Can we learn how children handle information and use it constructively, collaboratively within an online environment
Constructivism
• The concept of social constructivism as a means to an end
Group Development
• Do we need to determine group structures / rules prior to engagement
Sub contexts
• Institutional VLE usage
o Can this be used as a driver to encourage / promote collaborative learning
• Active Learning
o The very nature of collaboration implies ‘actively’ seeking, establishing, constructing new knowledge, creating new learning environments
Semantic Web
• Is this the answer to ‘genuine’ knowledge collaboration.
• Is it simply another layer / lense to enable collaboration
• Can the study proceed if it is not readily available?
• Could we use this as leverage to use a pilot?
• Should we drop the ‘semantic’!?
A sense of Purpose
E-Learning A Collaborative Medium:
The Semantic Web and Shared Cognitive Development
Purpose of Research
• Elaborate the meaning of collaboration in an online environment
• Identify the potential of the semantic web
• Identify where / how collaboration occurs
• Measure the occurrence of shared cognition
Analyse;
• Is facilitation key to successful collaboration
• Is shared cognition pre-determined by teaching and learning methodologies
• Can a scaffold be used to achieve shared cognition
The Semantic Web and Shared Cognitive Development
Purpose of Research
• Elaborate the meaning of collaboration in an online environment
• Identify the potential of the semantic web
• Identify where / how collaboration occurs
• Measure the occurrence of shared cognition
Analyse;
• Is facilitation key to successful collaboration
• Is shared cognition pre-determined by teaching and learning methodologies
• Can a scaffold be used to achieve shared cognition
Leading Ideas and Questions
To develop a taxonomy of e-learning
To ascertain the experiences of the learner
To ascertain the experiences of the academic
To compare these two perceptions
To assess the effectiveness of chosen systems
To propose a developmental model that takes heed of future developments e.g. semantic web
How we do it right now: (perceptions and reality)
VLE to manage content, link with MIS, offer collective of tools.
F2F and additions. Didactic, socio-constructive, behaviourist etc
Training vs teaching vs learning – do they collide or converge?
Role of Uni and future of learning – mobility, professional needs,
Hierarchy of course roles: un-initiated (fresh out of school), mature learners, returning learners, professional needs
Does this actually equate to UG, G, PG?
How to deliver? Different needs/challenges.
Why do we insist on blended when we have ef2f?
Can we devise a new pedagogical theory that underpins the 21C rationale?
To ascertain the experiences of the learner
To ascertain the experiences of the academic
To compare these two perceptions
To assess the effectiveness of chosen systems
To propose a developmental model that takes heed of future developments e.g. semantic web
How we do it right now: (perceptions and reality)
VLE to manage content, link with MIS, offer collective of tools.
F2F and additions. Didactic, socio-constructive, behaviourist etc
Training vs teaching vs learning – do they collide or converge?
Role of Uni and future of learning – mobility, professional needs,
Hierarchy of course roles: un-initiated (fresh out of school), mature learners, returning learners, professional needs
Does this actually equate to UG, G, PG?
How to deliver? Different needs/challenges.
Why do we insist on blended when we have ef2f?
Can we devise a new pedagogical theory that underpins the 21C rationale?
The Research theme
ADDUCTION AND SEMANTICS: THE EVOLUTION OF PERSONALISATION
This paper explores the current use of educational technology and the realm of e-learning in particular in the light of the perceived challenges and threats of rationalisation and globalisation and proposes that their is a fundamental mis-representation of e-learning and its ability to change the methodologies of teaching and learning in current practice.
The author proposes that it is no longer possible to simply ‘let pedagogy lead our use of technology’ but calls for a change of theoretical practice.
Since Plato established the Academy in the 4th Century BC offering a venue for original thinkers to come together (and as a reaction to the Sophists who were beginning to charge for their interpretations and teachings ) the basic premise of a University has essentially remained the same – the acquisition and promulgation of knowledge.
This paper proposes to initiate the exploration of current e-learning models in practice, discern their development and theoretical hereditary and plot a taxonomy of the current outcomes. Furthermore it hopes to establish a future line of exploration into the nature of learning within an online environment and offer the beginnings of a radical departure from the status quo in our current thinking and practice in the use of educational technology (ET).
A key issues raised in the use of ET is that it must be driven by pedagogy first, that technology offers us a way to improve our current methodologies and enhance our practice. It has been said that e-learning is merely enhanced learning , providing an explicit use of technology to further promote interaction and engagement of the learner.
It is apparent that there are many pedagogic models applicable to e-learning instances (e.g. Laurillard’s Conversational Framework, Salmons 5 Step Approach etc) however there are few if any all encompassing theoretical frameworks such as those that are representational of traditional teaching and learning practice (Behaviourism, Socio-Cultural Constructivism, etc.) that are genuinely valid for the realm of e-learning.
Historically we have acknowledged the increasing presence of e-learning tools (wikis, blogs, SMS, etc.) as a mere addition to our teaching armory. Rolling out where appropriate, that which can be of value at a given instance (e.g. SkypE for online communications), or being led by institutional direction as to the use of omnipotent ETs (such as the presence of VLEs) in the growing world market of education.
Lateral thinking in the area of curriculum design in recent years has proven a most fertile area in challenging our perceived beliefs about current entrenched practices. Biggs (1999) concept of constructive alignment offers a means by which we might reconsider and ground our practice so that a learner is not only central to our approach but implicitly involved in the dynamic of a process driven curriculum. However this offers a mere addendum to the way we might consider the use and manipulation of ET within our day-to-day practice.
With the advent of the concept of Personalised Learning Environments (PLEs) have we now an opportunity to lay down a path that will enable a theoretical shift on behalf of teaching practice for the 21C?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open University Press.
The personal learning environments blog
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple
Mayes, T. D. F., S (2005). Review Of E-Learning Theories, Frameworks And Models. Jisc E-Learning Models Desk Study. Jisc.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework For The Effective Use Of Educational Technology London, Routledgefalmer
Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The Key To Teaching And Learning Online. London, Kogan.
This paper explores the current use of educational technology and the realm of e-learning in particular in the light of the perceived challenges and threats of rationalisation and globalisation and proposes that their is a fundamental mis-representation of e-learning and its ability to change the methodologies of teaching and learning in current practice.
The author proposes that it is no longer possible to simply ‘let pedagogy lead our use of technology’ but calls for a change of theoretical practice.
Since Plato established the Academy in the 4th Century BC offering a venue for original thinkers to come together (and as a reaction to the Sophists who were beginning to charge for their interpretations and teachings ) the basic premise of a University has essentially remained the same – the acquisition and promulgation of knowledge.
This paper proposes to initiate the exploration of current e-learning models in practice, discern their development and theoretical hereditary and plot a taxonomy of the current outcomes. Furthermore it hopes to establish a future line of exploration into the nature of learning within an online environment and offer the beginnings of a radical departure from the status quo in our current thinking and practice in the use of educational technology (ET).
A key issues raised in the use of ET is that it must be driven by pedagogy first, that technology offers us a way to improve our current methodologies and enhance our practice. It has been said that e-learning is merely enhanced learning , providing an explicit use of technology to further promote interaction and engagement of the learner.
It is apparent that there are many pedagogic models applicable to e-learning instances (e.g. Laurillard’s Conversational Framework, Salmons 5 Step Approach etc) however there are few if any all encompassing theoretical frameworks such as those that are representational of traditional teaching and learning practice (Behaviourism, Socio-Cultural Constructivism, etc.) that are genuinely valid for the realm of e-learning.
Historically we have acknowledged the increasing presence of e-learning tools (wikis, blogs, SMS, etc.) as a mere addition to our teaching armory. Rolling out where appropriate, that which can be of value at a given instance (e.g. SkypE for online communications), or being led by institutional direction as to the use of omnipotent ETs (such as the presence of VLEs) in the growing world market of education.
Lateral thinking in the area of curriculum design in recent years has proven a most fertile area in challenging our perceived beliefs about current entrenched practices. Biggs (1999) concept of constructive alignment offers a means by which we might reconsider and ground our practice so that a learner is not only central to our approach but implicitly involved in the dynamic of a process driven curriculum. However this offers a mere addendum to the way we might consider the use and manipulation of ET within our day-to-day practice.
With the advent of the concept of Personalised Learning Environments (PLEs) have we now an opportunity to lay down a path that will enable a theoretical shift on behalf of teaching practice for the 21C?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open University Press.
The personal learning environments blog
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple
Mayes, T. D. F., S (2005). Review Of E-Learning Theories, Frameworks And Models. Jisc E-Learning Models Desk Study. Jisc.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework For The Effective Use Of Educational Technology London, Routledgefalmer
Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The Key To Teaching And Learning Online. London, Kogan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)