E846 – Curriculum, learning and society: Investigating practice

Onwards! Having had a short break after H800 to get married, have a honeymoon and start a new job, I’m ready to get cracking with the final instalment of my Masters programme. Having exhausted MAODE modules that get me finished by when I’d like, I’ve opted to round things off with a one year Education module – E846 Curriculum, learning and society: Investigating practice. I’m hoping that this will be particularly pertinent as I am about to get back into teaching after a few years as a researcher. My role of Lecturer in Teaching and Learning Development at the University of Cumbria will be the practice context on which I underpin my reflections for the course. As the handbook explains, to evaluate and reflect through the duality of theory and practice. The course looks great and I’ve done some peripheral reading but I’m already way behind so am eager to get some thoughts down and start my reading in earnest.

Note: I think the course suggest using MyStuff for collating Action responses, but having been there before I think I’ll stick to the blog this time round. It will mean that some entries are password protected for privacy.

Metaphor is better for…

Having read through the second half of Conole’s forthcoming chapter (see previous post), I think I finally have my head around the notion of metaphors for e-learning, well metaphors for anything really, but as this is the context I’m working in at the moment…

I was particularly interested in the use of Morgan’s five metaphors (p.16) for organisations as a lens for contemplating Conole’s main point of her chapter. These five (organisation as machine, brain, organism, culture and political) are certainly evident not only in metaphors for e-learning, but also common in everyday life. The question that arose for me was, are these five examples appropriate for e-learning or should we focus on those metaphors which have their origins in the context being discussed? For example, Sfard’s (Acquisition and participation) metaphors for learning.

Also, a key lessson should be learned form Sfard’s work about the danger of theorizing several metaphors then choosing one or other to work with. I think Conole makes a similar implicit suggestion. She refers to the complexity of e-learning landscape (p.19) and the need for exploring many metaphors to help us understand it.

–

I’m writing my ECA about learning technology in context with HE art, design and media, so I’ve just put a couple of links in here to marry up some thinking with some more focused articles – metaphors in art and design.

Logan, C. (2008) ‘Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1–18

Sagan, O. (2008) ‘Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative learning spaces’, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 173–186

My PLE

I thought it was interesting that no connections were made between entertainment and communication. I suspect that my use of web tools for entertainment are almost always as a consumer, very little of this activity is about discussion or interaction.

Wk 21/22 A2

Further consolidation of the perspective that web 2.0 and the power of the Internet are underpinning a translatory period for education because media shift is affording new learning opportunities beyond the transmissive.

“A fundamental issue is that there is considerable lack of awareness among faculty, media staff, and tutors about how to move from a primarily print-based educational paradigm to one that also effectively exploits the dynamic, interactive and communicative aspects of the Internet.” (Sclater, 2008a, p.9)

Indeed Sclater (2008b, p.2) alludes to this further when discussing the disempowment of students implied by introducing learning management systems, or VLEs.

Weller’s PLE entry into his blog was quite a nice way of thinking about one’s own use of the Internet, a web of tools and practices. It clarifies the contrast between individual and institutional ownership, determined by a different set of values, goals and aspirations. E.g., a University should be committed to ubiquitous provision of technology and resource.

Just a note on Weller’s criteria for a tool to be part of his PLE web: he states that it is something that he regularly contributes too, and that things like Guardian Online are borderline tools, however, I tink that anything that is regularly accessed, even if it is one way, is still part of that PLE. Most users of web 2.0 tools are still passive consumers of the dynamic content being produced – web 1.0 traits.

“…many online learners already make effective and customized use of a wide range of online facilities.” (Sclater, 2008b, p.3)

There are many, many issues around having a PLE approach. Every one will be different. How can these integrate effectively with what the University wants to provide in support of its learners? The “utopian vision” of PLE interoperabililty, IPR, security – these are all concerns. As are the need for centralised and secure systems for submitting work, housing and integrating student records, for example.

Just a thought: It is interesting that Sclater writes about VLEs and PLEs in separate documents, is the solution exploration of mutable, hybrid technology?

My stance on PLEs is described by Sclater on p.4, “One vision of the PLE comprises of a piece of coordinating software.” I think I would prefer to call it an aggreagator – and these toools already exist: Digg, for example, or something with an outward facing dimension like Pageflakes. In my opinion this is what we should be aspiring to fit with. Use of existing standards and an emphasis on aligning with them, not putting an onus on organistional ownership imposing itself so heavily in a learner’s educational life online. This is more in line with Weller’s conception of a ‘distance learning environment’. (p.9, distributed LMSs)

I think this is reflected in my PLE diagram (coming soon), where tools for learning are only a tiny part of my online lifestyle.

Just a thought: An e-portfolio is NOT a PLE!

—

Sclater, N. (2008a) ‘Large-scale Open Source E-Learning Systems at the Open University UK’, Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, vol. 2008, no.12

Sclater, N. (2008b) ‘Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems’, Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, vol. 2008, no.13

Protected: Wk 21/22 A1 – Conole

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Protected: Test entry

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Notes from Wk13/14 A1

A1b, ECAR report
a the scope of the study
Information on technology behaviours, and inform admin staff of technology environments, and inform practice of teachers who want to build IT into their delivery.
b the research questions the authors focused on
Literature review; previous studies
c the methods used to capture the data
Quantitative survey; qualitative focus groups; open-ended survey question; comparison of year-on-year survey data. Respondents came from a good range of disciplines.
d the overarching findings.

Students from the ‘Net Generation’ have common technological practices typical to other research of this generation. They engage in online socialisation, are multifaceted in the tools and approaches to the use of these tools, but also do not necessarily demand this of the academic courses on which they study. There seems to be a preference for a blended approach. “IT resources… are best situated in learning environments where technology is balanced with other learning activities, especially face-to-face interactions.” (p.16)

A few interesting points:
• Students (or parents) get 1st years a new computer to study with. What does this say about expectations of how they will be asked to study? p.44
• Nearly all of the 2.8% respondents on wholly online courses were part-time, value placed on the flexibility they afford. Authors refer to problems in student responses: lack of f2f, more demanding and require students to ‘teach themselves’; conducive to cheating. p.64
• 85% of respondents used social networking sites, 60% daily. Although comments on this suggest that most use is for personal communication, informal, and infrequent for most ‘friends’. p.88

A1b, Kennedy
a the scope of the study
Students use of established and existing technologies in the support of their learning.
b the research questions the authors focused on
“Universities are ill-equipped to educate a new generation of learners whose sophisticated use of learning technologies is incompatible with current teaching practice.” Investigation into assumptions that all new intake will be net generation; also that if students are using technologies in everyday lives, does this warrant their use in learning and teaching?
c the methods used to capture the data
1) Questionnaire about levels of use, creation and exchange of knowledge, perceptions of potential tech applications in learning. One student focused, one tutor focused to include experiences, skills and current use. 2) Teacher and student focus groups.
These findings to inform pilot projects – to create tools, implement, trial etc and disseminate.
d the overarching findings.
??? Not sure about this, there were no findings present.

Wk12, A4

Notes on Richardson (2009)

• As with Price et al (2007), this data was collected using the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)/ RASI tools, and uses similar methodology in the parameters and constant for data gathering and comparison, but in these data no significant difference between quality of f2f and online was found.

• It is suggested (p.82) that Price et al (2007) yielded the results it did because of the ‘particular demands of a multidisciplinary course.’ This is because students have adiopted similar approaches to studying – however, is this not directed by the activities set, the assessment tasks and the expectations of the dicpline? It is later argued that broad attitudes to studying remained the same regardless of mode – in an attempt to mitigate a weakness in the data that referred to the predisposition of the learner to work online or f2f. However, given that the discpline, content, assessment etc were the same I didn’t think this was particularly surprising.

–

Richardson, J.T.E. (2009) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’, Arts and humanities in higher education, Vol. 8, No.1 pp.69–81 [online] Available from: http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/69 (accessed 7 May 2009)

Wk12, A3

Notes from Price et al, (2007)

• I sometimes find it a little difficult to get around statistical analysis because I think it can overlook some of the human subtleties inherent in teaching and learning, but I understood it in the context of this article. There is certainly a convincing pattern in the data, and it is not contrived as it is removed from the context. The authors are careful to disclaim methodological anomalies.

• The questions in the survey seem to be designed to extract affective responses in a simplified way. These are a mechanism for capturing the learner experience and use the Lawless & Richardson’s (2002) version of the ‘Course Experience Questionnaire’ (CEQ). So I got the impression that this was quite a good mechanism for capturing statistical data on the learner experience.

• The value of pastoral care is significant as it reflects the learner’s notion of wehat their learning experience will be. They expect things of their tutors and therefore the learning experience. The data reveals that students perceive this to be less effective online. To an extent this mirrors my own experience. I am far more reliant on self-motivation, self- and peer-assessment/feedback through reflection. Perhaps I am subconsciously building mechanisms to support my own learning because I have certain beliefs and expectations about how I learn online, and what my relationships with other people will be also.

• Student beliefs about teaching seem to reamin the same regardless of delivery mode. As the article suggests, perhaps it is down to tutors not fully understanding how to deliver on these expectations when online. The authors suggest that one factor in this is the trend to deliver technical support training rather that pedagogy. I think that it is about a clash between expectations, and understanding what is practically possible online. The article’s conclusion suggests online successful communication is the underpinning factor that will enable learners to see online learning as successful as face-to-face.

–

Price, L., Richardson, J.T.E. and Jelfs, A. (2007) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education’, Studies in higher education, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp.1–20 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004366 (accessed 7 May 2009)

Wk12, A2: Follow-up

Further to my inarticulate ramblings yesterday, I remembered the point I was trying to get to. I was talking about how I thought that student’s perceived value of activities might impact on their performance, but I think it will also have an impact on the choices they make in choosing technologies to support their learning. From my own experience, I think the best example of this has been in my work on e-portfolios in art, design and media subject disciplines.

In our findings, we identified that the numerous drivers for e-portfolio use were misaligned between what the education sector understood an e-portfolio to be for, and what ADM students, lecturers and (probably most importantly) employers thought they were for. It comes back to subject culture, expectations and demand. No surprise then that ADM students don’t like using their portfolios for written reflection, because they see it as creative tool for getting a job – and if you’re a graphic designer, the ability to write about your weaknesses isn’t so high up on the agenda for employers. So, this raises the quesiton, would that student use an institutionally oriented technology that could support reflexive learning?

Basically, I think that student’s beliefs about what they need to do to be successful in their chosen subject have an impact on the choices they make in using technologies.

NB I realise that I am off topic on this activity somewhat, but I also feel as though it has provided me with the basis to form some useful learning for myself.