Group items tagged

Arisaka (2001)

The future development of educational technology will not be determined by the technology itself, states Feenberg, but rather the politics within the educational community and national political trends. In taking a dialogic approach, he stresses educational technology of an advanced society should be shaped by educational dialogue rather than the production-oriented logic of automation.

According to Feenberg (1991), critical theory explains how technology is embedded in society through ‘technological code’ that is dialectical, contextual, aesthetic, and humanly, socially, and ecologically responsible.

In summary, Feenberg (2002; 5) calls for a profound democratic transformation of technologies, asking “can we conceive an industrial society based on democratic participation in which individual freedom is not market freedom and in which social responsibility is not exercised through coercive regulation?” He argues a good society should support the personal freedom of its members enabling them to participate effectively in a range of public activities. This can be manifest in democratizing technological design; pursuing a ‘democratic rationalization’ where actors participate in the technological design processes. For Illich (1973), ‘tools of conviviality’ produce a democratic and convivial society in which individuals communicate, debate, participate in social and political life, and help make decisions. Convivial tools free individuals from dependency and cultivate autonomy and sociality.

Don Ihde (1990)

E-learning literature increasingly perceives the role of the tutor as facilitator (Salmon, 2004), whilst in a connectivist learning environment, it may become further marginalised or even obsolesced (Siemens, 2004). This emphasis on informal and autonomous learning and student engagement with experts outside their formal educational institutions also recalls Illich’s (1970) community webs. Critical educators such as Freire and Feenberg are critical of the diminishing of critical engagement by the tutor and believe it is essential that teachers continue to have a directive role.

Friesen (2008) explores three myths pertinent to current e-learning literature: Knowledge Economy Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Learning Technology drives Educational Change

Kellner stresses that multiple literacies, such as media, computer, and information literacies are required in response to emergent technologies and cultural conditions to empower students to participate in the expanding high-tech culture and networked society.

Karlsson (2002) however, suggests so called web literacies should be recognised and studied merely as print literacies that appear on the web. Feenberg (2002) reminds us arguments emerging around new educational technologies are nothing new. He suggests writing was one of the first (narrow bandwidth) educational technologies, and describes how Plato denounced writing as destructive to the dialogic relationship between teacher and student evident in spoken discourse. (Noble (1997) points out the irony in Plato using written text to critique writing, suggesting that similarly, the majority of current attacks on web-based media circulate online.)

What originated as a hastily-conceived title for a conference presentation has since become a catch-all term for a range of ‘ontologically non–compatible’ elements (Allen, 2008). In an attempt to conceptualize the meaning of Web 2.0, Allen identifies four key components: Technological implementations that prioritise the manipulation and presentation of data through the interaction of both human and computer agents. An Economic model. Using the Web to put people and data together in meaningful exchanges for financial gain. Users are perceived as active participants, engaged in creating, maintaining and expanding Web content. The politics of Web 2.0 are expressed in traditional democratic terms, which emphasises freedom of choice and the empowerment of individuals.

Under a critical perspective, the democratic forms of media consumption and production of Web 2.0 are challenged by the underlying “dictates of a neo-liberal socio–political hegemony” (Jarrett, 2008), as evidenced in the exploitation of user–generated content by major corporations (Petersen, 2008). As Silver (2008) reminds us, “when corporations say community they mean commerce, and when they say aggregation they mean advertising.” Scholz (2008) contends the Web remains largely the domain of “professional elites that define what enters the public discourse,” In addition, social conditions inherent in Web 2.0 practices such as personalization (Zimmer, 2008) and participatory surveillance (Albrechtslund, 2008) require a rethinking of traditional notions of identity, privacy and social hierarchies. As educationalists demonstrate an increasing determination to tap into the apparent technological and sociological affordances of Web 2.0, these are issues that cannot be ignored.

is links to the point made by Goodyear et al (2014) Unless learning is very closely supervised and directed (which it rarely is), there will usually be some slippage between task and activity, for good and bad reasons. This is important to acknowledge, when designing, because what people learn is a consequence of their actual activity, and therefore only indirectly a result of the task set for them. Tasks are designable, activities are not – they are emergent. (p. 1

Goodyear et al (2014) pick up on the term affordance as both important, but also as “a term that is also very widely critiqued and contested” (p. 137). The idea is that particular technologies afford different possibilities dependent on people’s perceptions of a technology. But an affordance isn’t a single set of possibilities seen by every person. Taking what Goodyear et al (2014) describe as a “relational-materialist” the idea of affordance becomes much more complex and emergent.

poll.

“Attempts at integrating technology within education, however, have often focused on enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the status quo, replacing traditional instructional approaches with ones that are technologically reinforced, yet qualitatively similar” “Research continues to show that access to technology alone has limited impact on learning outcomes and instructional methods and is often used to support passive, teacher-centered, and didactic instruction”

learning is often seen as a single and sporadic classroom activity as opposed to an endeavor that is ongoing, lifelong, and independent of educational institutions and age

it is important for learners to understand, and instructors to acknowledge, that knowledge is distributed and that the instructor is not the sole source of knowledge on a topic

We should aspire for learning that changes the ways a learner acts in the world. We want learners to talk, discuss and share their learning with family and friends, rather than compartmentalising

“transformative learning experiences cannot be”imposed” on learners.” invited, and encouraged, and facilitated.

Siemens (2005) describes the following characteristics of connectivism: Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions

Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources

The near infinite potential of dancing with anyone, anywhere, anytime coupled with the vast sound tracks and light shows (open educational resources) accessible on the Net, demand that learning be an experience of connecting and applying resources, rather than memorizing particular tunes or steps. The art of improvisation, of learning to dance, becomes the life learning skill – accumulating static data or memorizing scripts becomes obsolete.

When I reflect on other courses of formal study that I have undertaken at this university there are a diverse array of online teaching practices evident. Some model, facilitate and challenge learning just like this one; while others have an approach of ‘here is the assessment, good luck…see you at the end’. I need to make sure that all of my teaching is supportive and challenging to students learning – there is limited learning with the ‘here is the assessment…enjoy’ approach.

‘As Student’

“It is through writing our ideas down that we make what we learn explicit, thus enabling us to “reflect upon it, and reanalyse it in light of new and sometimes conflicting information” (Goal et all., 2008).”

Riel and Polin reading is that we are a knowledge-based community given we “construct, use, reconstruct, and reuse knowledge in deliberate, continuous cycles” (p. 32).

‘As Student’

sharing our ideas in PCP is not scary and threatening, but can help ourselves and others. Everybody’s ideas seem obvious to them. What is obvious to me is amazing for someone else.

I continue to do my work, I tell my little tales and share my point of view. Nothing spectacular, just my little thoughts.

‘As student’ I was initially hesitant to share my thoughts opinions and ideas because I wasn’t sure if they were worthy of sharing. They are nothing different or innovative. But through engagement in Blogging and the non-threatening nature of the task – just blog, it doesn’t have to be perfect – has assisted a great deal. Overtime I have noticed that I am more comfortable sharing ideas.

feeding forward’, as identified by Downes (2011).

“We suggest three distinct but overlapping forms of learning within communities (task-based, practice-based; knowledge-based learning) and discuss practical design implications of these distinctions.”

learning theory has evolved from a cognitive theory of acquisition of knowledge to a social theory of increased participation in activity (Bruner, 1973; Cole, 1988; Lave, 1988; Mehan, 1983; Nonnan, 1980; Rogoff, 1994; Wertsch, 1997).

ntellectual development becomes a process of negotiation of meaning in everyday practice with others (Dewey, 1916; Vygotsky, 1978).

Learning occurs through engagement in authentic experiences involving the active manipulation and experimentation with ideas and artefacts – rather than through an accumulation of static knowledge (Bruner, 1973; Cole, 1988; Dewey, 1916).

Wenger (2000) uses the metaphor of a garden to describe the nature of support that works for something as delicate as a community of practice. You cannot, he says, make the flowers grow by pulling on their leaves. You can, however, keep the flower beds free of weeds and pests, ensure there is water and sunlight, and you can even apply some plant food. But the flowers must do their own growing. What does that sort of support for the flowerbed look like in an isolated and troubled profession such as teaching?

‘As Student’

‘As Student’

sharing our ideas in PCP is not scary and threatening, but can help ourselves and others. Everybody’s ideas seem obvious to them. What is obvious to me is amazing for someone else.

feeding forward’, as id

We suggest three distinct but overlapping forms of learning within communities (task-based, practice-based; knowledge-based learning) and discuss practical design implications of these distinctions.”

earning theory has evolved from a cognitive theory of acquisition of knowledge to a social theory of increased participation in activity (Bruner, 1973; Cole, 1988; Lave, 1988; Mehan, 1983; Nonnan, 1980; Rogoff, 1994; Wertsch, 1997).

tellectual development becomes a process of negotiation of meaning in everyday practice with others (Dewey, 1916; Vygotsky, 1978).

Learning occurs through engagement in authentic experiences involving the active manipulation and experimentation with ideas and artefacts – rather than through an accumulation of static knowledge (Bruner, 1973; Cole, 1988; Dewey, 1916).

Wenger (2000) uses the metaphor of a garden to describe the nature of support that works for something as delicate as a community of practice. You cannot, he says, make the flowers grow by pulling on their leaves. You can, however, keep the flower beds free of weeds and pests, ensure there is water and sunlight, and you can even apply some plant food. But the flowers must do their own growing. What does that sort of support for the flowerbed look like in an isolated and troubled profession such as teaching?

d social bookmarking in t

“Learners need to find their own unique pathway to transformative understanding of networked learning. There’s no simple and straightforward way to mastery that can be taught.”

‘The past always looks easy and the future always looks challenging’.

Our information overload is a filtering issue and we are having filter failure.

lexibility is the greatest strength.

online learning is that it is asynchronous and students can participate and engage with content anywhere, anytime. I believe the f

Siemens (2004) also notes that learning occurs in informal and non-formal learning contexts.

“Knowledge is contained in the links between interconnected nodes and learning is the creation of these connections and the ability to traverse these connections. “For an individual this is about growing the connections in the mind by growing the connections.”

Alec Couros pointed out in a keynote from FUSION 2013 that – “There is strength in weak ties. Our acquaintances, not our friends, are potentially our greatest source of new ideas and information” (paraphrased from Gladwell, 2010).

meaningful for everyone

These technologies become so complicated to use, that people simply don’t use them.

“the system does this, but I want to do that.”

What if a technology is so specific, it’s designed for just one person – yourself?