Group items tagged

onole, Dyke, Oliver and Seale (2004), have proposed a toolkit and model for mapping pedagogyand tools for effective learning design. They say "Toolkits are model-based resources that offer away of structuring users’ engagement that encourages reflection on theoretical concerns as well assupporting the development of practical plans for action (Conole & Oliver, 2002). The models thatform the heart of each toolkit consist of representations of a ‘space’, described in terms of qualities,in which theories or approaches can be described." They emphasise that "the descriptions of these

    Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning - Literature Review 23 approaches reflect the beliefs of describer. These models are thus best understood as sharablerepresentations of beliefs and of practice, rather than as definitive account of the area" (p.18).The framework they propose consists of the following six components (p.22-23):  “Individual – Where the individual is the focus of learning.  Social – learning is explained through interaction with others (such as a tutor or fellowstudents), through discourse and collaboration and the wider social context within which thelearning takes place.  Reflection – Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience istransformed into learning.  Non-reflection – Where learning is explained with reference to processes such asconditioning, preconscious learning, skills learning and memorisation (Holford, Jarvis, &Griffin, 1998).  Information – Where an external body of information such as text, artefacts and bodies of knowledge form the basis of experience and the raw material for learning.  Experience – Where learning arises through direct experience, activity and practicalapplication

ormier proposes a ‘rhizomatic model’ of learning in which “a community can construct a model of education flexible enough for the way knowledge develops and changes today by producing a mapof contextual knowledge” (p.4). In this model, “curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs fromexperts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the

   Left hand side page by Lifelong Learning UK 24   24 learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, andreconstructing itself and the subject of its learning…” (p.3).

Facilitator’s Comments:

‘disruptive’ innovation, where a new technology results in sweeping away old ways of doing something.

Thus knowledge management becomes more important than mere access to knowledge. If we look at xMOOCs though we have taken a new technology – video lecture capture and Internet transmission – and applied it to an outdated model of teaching. True innovation requires a change of process or method as well as a change of technology.

.Content is only one component of teaching (and an increasingly less important component); other components such as learner support and assessment are even more important. Care is needed then because changes in methods of online content development and delivery could have negative knock-on cost and productivity consequences in other areas of course delivery, such as learner support and assessment. I

While distance learning in higher education may have been looked down upon two decades ago, it has clearly become well accepted and gained legitimacy over the past decade. Students, universities, and employers no longer differentiate between university degrees earned traditionally or online. In many cases, universities offer the same degrees traditionally and online while the final diploma does not even mention the mode of delivery. The improvements of technology, the widespread Internet access, the increased legitimacy of online learning within established universities and employers, and the increased participation of adult learners in higher education with clear preferences toward learning anytime and anywhere will further drive future improvements in the quality of distance learning programs. Traditional programs suffered irreparable damages during periods of economic downturns (the post dot com era in 2000-2002 and the major economic recession from 2007-2009), their levels of support have eroded substantially, and their quality did not improve at the same levels as online programs.

Therefore, one should not be surprised if the gap in academic performance between online and traditional learning will only widen in the next decade.

The findings of this study reemphasize prior results and extend it for a period of twenty years. It is clear that the experimental probability of attaining higher learning outcomes is greater in the online environment than in the face-to-face environment. This probability is increasing over time.

The paradigm of the superiority of the FTF modality over its distance learning alternative has been successfully negated. The distance learning approach is becoming the “normal science” (Kuhn, 1962). Yet, this is not fully comprehended by the various decision making institutions where the gate-keeping positions represent, by and large, the past paradigm. Therefore, distance learning is still treated as the anomaly (“step child”) instead of as the emerging standard of quality in higher education. We expect that as a new generation of leaders in higher education emerges, the policy making orientation and regulatory models will change to reflect the new paradigm.