Group items tagged

Figure 1: The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008)

ouros (2008) developed a model of the networked teacher that represents an educator's professional personal learning environment (PLE). A teacher is better equipped to facilitate networked learning if he or she has experienced the construction of such a model first hand. The significant connections in Couros' view of the network include colleagues, popular media, print and digital resources, the local community, blogs, wikis, video conferencing, chat/IRC, social networking services, online communities, social bookmarking, digital photo sharing, and content development communities (Couros, 2008).

Networked teacher model

Developing a model of the networked student The Networked Student Model adapts Couros' vision for teacher professional development in a format that is applicable to the K-12 student. It includes four primary categories, each with many components evident in the networked teacher version (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The Networked Student

The networked student follows a constructivist approach to learning. He or she constructs knowledge based on experiences and social interactions (Jonassen et al., 2003). Constructivism encourages "greater participation by students in their appropriation of scholarly knowledge" (Larochelle et al., 1998).

Technology supports this appropriation as a collection of tools that promote knowledge construction, an information vehicle for exploring knowledge, an active learning tool, a social medium to promote conversing, and an intellectual partner to facilitate reflection (Jonassen et al., 2003)

In a traditional classroom setting, the teacher has primary control over the content. He or she selects or designs the curriculum. Networked learning gives students the ability and the control to connect with subject matter experts in virtually any field.

That connection expands to include access to resources and creative artifacts. Computers and mobile devices continue to broaden access to all types of information and learning sources. As quickly as content becomes available, web applications are released to assist in the management of that content

The networked student constructs a personal learning environment one node at a time. Once these connections are formed, they must be revisited and built upon to facilitate further learning. The personal learning environment lives beyond time spent in a classroom

With so much information to manage, it is increasingly difficult to stay abreast of changes in a given field, much less track implications arising from related fields. Really Simple Syndication (RSS) allows learners to subscribe to changing content and makes tracking changes easier.

Ultimately, meaningful learning occurs with knowledge construction, not reproduction; conversation, not reception; articulation, not repetition; collaboration, not competition; and reflection, not prescription (Jonassen et al., 2003).

Construction of a personal learning environment does not necessarily facilitate comprehension or deep understanding. Learning potential exists in what the student does with the compilation of content and how it is synthesised. The networked student model is one of inquiry, or the process of "exploring problems, asking questions, making discoveries, achieving new understanding and fulfilling personal curiosity" (National Science Foundation, as quoted by Chang & Wang, 2009, p. 169).

Principles of connectivism equate to fundamentals of learning in a networked world. The design of the teacher-facilitated, student-created personal learning environment in this study adheres to constructivist and connectivist principles with the goal of developing a networked student who will take more responsibility for his or her learning while navigating an increasingly complex content base.

Nine out of 15 students indicated that time management was the most difficult aspect of the course. Yet, of the fifteen students participating in the project, thirteen were able to manage weekly assignments per the schedule. Two students fell behind and expressed frustration at the amount of work required to catch up. Teacher intervention was required to facilitate their successful completion of the course. They were given a daily list of tasks designed to scaffold the time management aspects of the project. Time management issues were less associated with construction of the personal learning environment and more concerned with the blended format of the delivery. It was an adjustment for students to manage work outside of class even though they enjoyed the freedom of attending a formal class meeting only 3 out of 5 days a week.

Achieving the delicate balance between teacher control and student autonomy is an ongoing challenge when facilitating student use of new technologies for self-regulated learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Motivation, self direction, and technical aptitude are key considerations for implementing a networked student design. The students constructing personal learning environments in this test case were successful in the contemporary issues course.

spite of the challenges highlighted above, the Networked Student Model offers a design and framework through which teachers can explore a student-centered, 21st century approach to learning. It further provides a foundation for constructing a personal learning environment with potential to expand as new learning avenues emerge. The student is challenged to synthesise diverse and extensive digital materials, connect to others interacting in respectful and meaningful ways, self-regulate an active approach to learning, and develop an option for life long learning that applies to virtually any curricular area. Once a student has learned how to construct a personal learning environment, he or she is left with a model of learning that extends beyond the classroom walls, one in which the learner assumes full control. Regardless of teacher control, the students' success will depend on how well they have been prepared in the processes that support learning in an ever changing, increasingly networked world.

The need for affection is also present in a virtual discussion forum. This need is characterized by trust, self-disclosure and willingness to reveal experiences, thoughts and interpretations.

challenging deeply held beliefs

These "getting-to-know-you" scenarios are as important as course content in reaching the goal of a collaborative community of learners. The instructor needs to be sensitive to this need and find a balance within the discourse.

If they are left dangling for days on end, they lose a feeling of connection and begin to feel lost in Cyberspace.

EXAMPLE The following example applies Gagne's nine instructional events: Instructional Objective: Recognize an equilateral triangle (example from Kearsley 1994a). Methodology: Gain attention - show a variety of computer generated triangles Identify objective - pose question: "What is an equilateral triangle?" Recall prior learning - review definitions of triangles Present stimulus - give definition of equilateral triangle Guide learning - show example of how to create equilateral Elicit performance - ask students to create 5 different examples Provide feedback - check all examples as correct/incorrect Assess performance - provide scores and remediation Enhance retention/transfer - show pictures of objects and ask students to identify equilateral triangles.

EXAMPLE The following example applies Gagne's nine instructional events: Instructional Objective: Recognize an equilateral triangle (example from Kearsley 1994a). Methodology: Gain attention - show a variety of computer generated triangles Identify objective - pose question: "What is an equilateral triangle?" Recall prior learning - review definitions of triangles Present stimulus - give definition of equilateral triangle Guide learning - show example of how to create equilateral Elicit performance - ask students to create 5 different examples Provide feedback - check all examples as correct/incorrect Assess performance - provide scores and remediation Enhance retention/transfer - show pictures of objects and ask students to identify equilateral triangles

EXAMPLE The following example applies Gagne's nine instructional events: Instructional Objective: Recognize an equilateral triangle (example from Kearsley 1994a). Methodology: Gain attention - show a variety of computer generated triangles Identify objective - pose question: "What is an equilateral triangle?" Recall prior learning - review definitions of triangles Present stimulus - give definition of equilateral triangle Guide learning - show example of how to create equilateral Elicit performance - ask students to create 5 different examples Provide feedback - check all examples as correct/incorrect Assess performance - provide scores and remediation Enhance retention/transfer - show pictures of objects and ask students to identify equilateral triangles

EXAMPLE The following example applies Gagne's nine instructional events: Instructional Objective: Recognize an equilateral triangle (example from Kearsley 1994a). Methodology: Gain attention - show a variety of computer generated triangles Identify objective - pose question: "What is an equilateral triangle?" Recall prior learning - review definitions of triangles Present stimulus - give definition of equilateral triangle Guide learning - show example of how to create equilateral Elicit performance - ask students to create 5 different examples Provide feedback - check all examples as correct/incorrect Assess performance - provide scores and remediation Enhance retention/transfer - show pictures of objects and ask students to identify equilateral triangles.

The primary significance of this hierarchy is to provide direction for instructors so that they can "identify prerequisites that should be completed to facilitate learning at each level" (Kearsley 1994a). This learning hierarchy also provides a basis for sequencing instruction. Gagne outlines the following nine instructional events and corresponding cognitive processes (as cited in Kearsley 1994a): gaining attention (reception) informing learners of the objective (expectancy) stimulating recall of prior learning (retrieval) presenting the stimulus (selective perception) providing learning guidance (semantic encoding) eliciting performance (responding) providing feedback (reinforcement) assessing performance (retrieval) enhancing retention and transfer (generalization)

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.

Although instruction provided through the Internet offers a viable alternative to the need for “physical” space, the need for faculty involvement in online learning remains a prevalent issue for those institutions that plan to continue offering instruction at a distance (Matsom, 2006; Nelson & Thompson, 2005; Schifter, 2004). In many institutions, faculty members are expected to participate in online distance education as a part of their regular duties as faculty (Kim & Bonk, 2006). However, many faculty members are hesitant to convert their traditional courses to an online format. This resistance is attributed to a lack of support, assistance, as well as training by institutions of higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).

Both novice faculty, who may have been reluctant to participate, and expert faculty play a significant role in guiding the types of support, assistance, and training provided by institutions of higher education. Rockwell et al., (1999) evaluated the types of education, assistance, and support that faculty felt were needed to be successful in online teaching and learning. Faculty responded with the assertions that assistance and support for developing instructional materials, developing interaction, and for applying certain technologies were critical to their success in online environments. Faculty regarded teaching online as more difficult than teaching traditional courses (Gerlich, 2005) as well as complain that online delivery were more labor intensive because of the amount of time required to grade papers and respond to questions (Lao, & Gonzales, 2005; Wegmann, & McCauley, 2008; Sellani & Harrington, 2002). In other studies, faculty felt that additional instructional and technical support were needed because faculty were genuinely concerned about the quality of their online courses and the amount of technical assistance and training available to them at their institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).

Surveys conducted by Brogden and Couros (2002), Grosse, (2004), and Lorenzetti, (2004) suggest that the time and effort demands to develop online courses and to learn new technologies are also causes for faculty member’s frustrations. Additionally, some faculty members may resist online teaching because they are concerned that those courses may require more time for advanced planning (Matsom, 2006). Further, faculty members may be hesitant about this shift due to the fact that they may lose autonomy and control of the curriculum, lack of technical training and support, and lack of release time for planning. Generally, understanding the differences between traditional face-to-face learning environment and online learning environment, and the process of being able to shift from one modality to the other, will give faculty members the ability to design better online courses and focus more on course delivery (Conrad, 2004; Harlow, 2007; Marfoglio, 2006, Sugar, Martindale, & Crawley, 2007). Faculty members may also need to rethink (a) the nature of the content to be taught (b) their role as faculty members and (c) the needs and requirements of the students (Ben-Jacob, Levin & Ben-Jacob, 2000; Lee & Busch, 2005; Jones, Kollof, & Kolloff, 2008).

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).

"Our culture does not nourish that which is best or noblest in the human spirit. It does not cultivate vision, imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring, or compassion. Increasingly in the late 20th Century, the economic-technocratic-statist worldview has become a monstrous destroyer of what is loving and life-affirming in the human soul."

First, all education is environmental education.

The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one’s person.

MBAs, educated in the tools of leveraged buyouts, tax breaks, and capital mobility have done what no invading army could do: they destroyed an American city with total impunity on behalf of something called the "bottom line." But the bottom line for society includes other costs, those of unemployment, crime, higher divorce rates, alcoholism, child abuse, lost savings, and wrecked lives. In this instance what was taught in the business schools and economics departments did not include the value of good communities or the human costs of a narrow destructive economic rationality that valued efficiency and economic abstractions above people and community.

we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities

knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world.

nd the power of examples over words.

the way learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses.

Campus architecture is crystallized pedagogy that often reinforces passivity, monologue, domination, and artificiality

Is adult education Is learner centered Is transformative learning Needs to address motivation Needs to address technology learning

Theories related to Adult Learning. They are Action Learning, Experiential Learning, Self-Directed Learning, and Project-Based Learning

"Action learning is defined as an approach to working with, and developing people, which uses work on a real project or problem as the way to learn. Participants work in small groups or teams to take action to solve their project or problem, and learn how to learn from that action. A learning coach works with the group in order to help them learn how to balance their work, with the learning from that work (O'Neil, 2000, p.44)."

Advantages/Strengths: Process used in forming groups Balanced and diverse groups enhance the learning process and allow significant contributions to the learning community Utilization of group dynamics Disadvantages/Weaknesses: Struggle constantly with the balance between accomplishing their task and learning from it Difficult to ensure consistency across groups and across sessions of any program Challenge of group dynamics

"Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand." Confucius, circa 450 BC

Experiential learning is a learning theory that is learner-centered and operates on the premise that individuals learn best by experience. A good way to describe this theory is "learning by doing". Experiential learning thus has the learner directly involved with the material being studied instead of just thinking and talking about that material.

Experiential learning theory builds on experience. This is especially important in adult learning because simply by living, adults bring a wealth of experience to every learning situtation they face. Experiential learning theory is a holistic learning approach Experiential learning theory is most effective when the learning has intrinsic motivation which is a common characteristic in adult learning

In Project Based Learning, students work in groups to solve challenging problems that are authentic and often interdisciplinary. Learners decide how to approach a problem and what activities to pursue.

Throughout this process, the teacher's role is to guide and advise, rather than to direct and manage student work.

It is defined as the process in which individuals take on the responsibility for their own learning process by diagnosing their personal learning needs, setting goals, identifying resources, implementing strategies and evaluating the outcomes.

goals, the process, and the learner

Advantages/Strengths: Integrated with daily routines Triggered by an internal or external motivation An inductive process of reflection and action Linked to learning of others

basho ("shared context in motion") can help us think about how a context constrains or supports different types of (inter-)actions, and also about how we (re-)shape the contexts we find ourselves in.

the modules must be small in size (noting that heterogeneous granularity will allow people with different levels of motivation to collaborate by contributing smaller or larger grained contributions);

The view of fluid social contexts advanced by Engestrom as a move beyond the traditional "communities of practice" view is quite compatible with the most famous peer production virtue, freedom (cf. ), which is what allows people to function in a distributed and nonlinear fashion relative to a learning or production "ecosystem". Star and Griesemer[16], on whom Wenger drew heavily as he was developing the idea of community of practice[17], describe their view as "ecological". One key difference between Star/Wegner on the one hand and Engestrom on the other has to do with the nature of boundaries. In the community of practice view, boundary objects exist to effect translations or initiations. In Engestrom's view, attention is drawn to boundaries that remain in flux (via an ongoing process of co-configuration) or which are blurred (e.g. by a blurring of consumer and producer roles).

e encourage the research community to test our ideas in practice of various forms. Some ideas for paragogical design include: Establish a group consensus for expectations/goals/social contract of the course and how each of them should be evaluated at its conclusion. Have learners designate learning goals that they then commit to stick with. Formalize a process for assisting peers (e.g. responding to questions, giving feedback on publicly posted work). Develop explicit pathways for learner feedback to translate into changes to the learning environment