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
April 06, 2006
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)