27
Disruptive Technologies or new pedagogical possibilities? Gráinne Conole [email protected] Eduserv Foundation Symposium Inside out: what do current web trends tell us about the future of ICT provision for learners and researchers? 8th May 2008, London

Conole Eduserv

  • Upload
    grainne

  • View
    3.079

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Disruptive Technologiesor new pedagogical possibilities?

Gráinne [email protected]

Eduserv Foundation SymposiumInside out: what do current web trends tell us about the

future of ICT provision for learners and researchers?8th May 2008, London

Education (individualistic, objective) vs. Web 2.0 (social, subjective)

Strangeness vs. familiarity

Slow vs. fast time

Free loaders vs. reuse

Expert view vs. mutual negotiation

Participation vs. acquisition

Knowledge as static vs. participation

Web 2.0/Education

dichotomies

Jones et al. (2008) Networked Learning Conference

The personal digital environment

Weller, 2008

THE VLE IS DEAD!Martin WellerNiall SclaterTony Hirst Brian Kelly

TensionsLoosely coupled

Integrated systems

Personalised tools

Institutional tools

Student “control”

Institution “control”

Implications

Strategy & policy

Roles & structures

Changing learning & teaching paradigms

Staff & learner skills set

Issues

• Changing terrain - danger of technological deterministic approach

• Increasing complexity, what metaphors do we need?

• Need new models to understand the relationship between pedagogy and technology

A pedagogic view• Can we articulate a “web 2.0 pedagogy”?

• What models might be useful?

• Vision for new pedagogical models - case studies:

• Learning Design

• Openlearn

• SociaLearn

Web 2.0 pedagogy models

Learning Design

OpenLearn

SociaLearn

AtomisticMapping “tools

in use” and visualisation

HolisticMapping principles

against learning characteristics

Blog as reflective diary

Learning DesignIndividual

Social

Passive Active

Information

Experience

Conole, Dyke et al. (2004), related framework Warburton (2007)

Blog collective class resource

Web 2.0User generated content,

openness, distributed knowledge, collective value

Good learningPersonalised, experiential, collaborative, reflective, cumulative, reflective

Visualising inquiry-learning

in CompendiumLD

Thinking &reflection

Communication & interaction

Experience & activity

Evidence &demonstration

Four inter-connected facets of learning

Dyke, Conole et al., (2007)

Can we use this as a framework for mapping

different forms of Web 2.0 pedagogies?

Principles Thinking & reflection

Experience & activity

Conversation & interaction

Evidence & demonstration

Reflect on experience and

show understanding

Yes Yes

Frequent interactive exercises & feedback

Yes Yes Yes

Provides support for independent

learningYes Yes Yes

Supports collaborative

activitiesYes Yes

McAndrew et al.(www.open.ac.uk/openlearn)

Technology

Anne’s story

SociaLearn

Web 2.0 for education

Web 2.0 architecture

Learning applications Open API

Walton, Weller, Hirst, Buckingham Shum et al.

Existing OU SOL model

Existing technical & pedagogical

support models (VLE, etc.)

E-learning research &

developments (OpenLearn)

Chang

ing e

duca

tiona

l con

text Changing technical context

Changing societal context

business

applications

API

organisation

Microlearner

Profile

2Learner

Cloudworks

Writes to and imports goals, resources, stream

Create goals, tasks

Pull in and publish relevant content

Pull in and publish relevant courses/designs

Publicise study and learning story

Making connections

OpenLearn SociaLearn

Different set of principles

Different mapping to pedagogies

Value?

Means of visioning

Mapping principles

to pedagogy

Checklist for new innovations

Mapping tools to pedagogy