Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Web 2.0 design supports a heutagogical approach by allowing learners to direct and determine their learning path and by enabling them to take an active rather than passive role in their individual learning experiences. Key affordances of social media – connectivity with others, information discovery and sharing (individually and as a group), and personal collection and adaptation of information as required – are also affordances that support self-determined learning activities (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007, p. 667). In addition, Web 2.0 encourages interaction, reflection in dialogue, collaboration, and information sharing, as well as promotes autonomy and supports creation of learner-generated content (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, 2010).

A key attribute of andragogy is self-directed learning

Within transformational learning, learning occurs along a self-directed path; as the learner matures and reflects on life experiences in relation to his or her self-perception, beliefs, and lifestyle, the learner perspective is adjusted and transformative learning can occur

The role of the educator in an andragogical approach is that of tutor and mentor, with the instructor supporting the learner in developing the capacity to become more self-directed in his or her learning. The instructor shows learners how to find information, relates information to the learner experience, and places a focus on problem-solving within real-world situations (McAuliffe et al., 2008). Instructors establish objectives and curriculum based on learner input and guide students along the learner path, while the responsibility for learning lies with the learner.

Heutagogy applies a holistic approach to developing learner capabilities, with learning as an active and proactive process, and learners serving as “the major agent in their own learning, which occurs as a result of personal experiences”

As in an andragogical approach, in heutagogy the instructor also facilitates the learning process by providing guidance and resources, but fully relinquishes ownership of the learning path and process to the learner, who negotiates learning and determines what will be learned and how it will be learned (Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Eberle, 2009).

The heutagogical approach can be viewed as a progression from pedagogy to andragogy to heutagogy, with learners likewise progressing in maturity and autonomy (Canning, 2010, see Figure 2).

More mature learners require less instructor control and course structure and can be more self-directed in their learning, while less mature learners require more instructor guidance and course scaffolding (Canning & Callan, 2010; Kenyon & Hase, 2010).

In an andragogical approach to teaching and learning, learners are actively involved in identifying their needs and planning on how those needs will be met

learners are self-directed to continue to learn on their own and “can personalize their learning paths in the way they desire

Recent research also indicates that the use of social media can support self-determined learning.

Learner-generated content (active media use): Active use of social media in creating learner-generated content seems to contribute to development of skills of self-directedness. Initial research findings by Blaschke, Porto, and Kurtz (2010) indicate that active use of social media, for example, development of learner-generated content, supports cognitive and metacognitive skill development, whereas passive use (consumption) is less effective in supporting development of these skills.

Research on the use of social media and its role in supporting heutagogy is limited, however, indicating that this is an area for further investigation.

A heutagogical approach to learning and teaching is characterized first and foremost by learner-centeredness in terms of both learner-generated contexts and content.

Guiding learners to define self-directed questions is one of the biggest challenges facing developers of heutagogical courses, as designers must be “creative enough to have learners ask questions about the universe they inhabit”

Negotiated and learner-defined assessment has been shown to improve the motivation of learners and their involvement in the learning process, as well as make learners feel less threatened by instructor control of their learning process

Heutagogy’s holistic approach takes into account the learner’s prior learning experiences and the way in which these influence how she or he learns; by considering these past experiences and the learner’s current experience and reflecting upon these, the learner moves into a growth process that has the potential to lead to transformative learning

The literature review conducted here indicates that there is substantial work to be done in researching heutagogy within this research construct, for example examination of the means in which Web 2.0 and social media support a self-determined teaching and learning approach, and investigation of the effectiveness of the approach in higher education and in creating lifelong learners able to effectively and successfully translate competencies into capability in complex, real-world situations. Another area of research includes defining and testing criteria for heutagogy as a framework for teaching and learning.

By incorporating heutagogical practice, educators have the opportunity to better prepare students for the workplace and for becoming lifelong learners, as well as to foster student motivation by cultivating students who “are fully engaged in the topic they are studying because they are making choices that are most relevant or interesting to them” (Kenyon & Hase, 2010, p. 170).

This marginal standing is reflected in the tendency for educational technology academics to be located often within ‘support’ units and divisions, such as cross-faculty ‘Teaching & Learning Divisions’ or departmental ‘E-Learning Units’. Physically as well as intellectually, then, the field of technology and education is often found to be operating on the peripheries of academe

In short, we need to accept that academic work in the area of technology and education is currently falling short of what should now be a significant and substantial area of contemporary education scholarship.

Instead, the academic study of technology and education should be developing as much along the lines of critical social science as it does in the guise of a cognitive learning science.

attempting to move “outside the assumptions and practices of the existing order and struggling to make categories, assumptions and practices of everyday life problematic”.

As Sonia Livingstone (2012) puts it, this problematizing of technology and education usually pursues three basic lines of inquiry: What is really going on? How can this be explained? How could things be otherwise? As these questions imply, a critical approach also involves speaking up for, and on behalf of, those voices usually marginalized in discussions of what technology and education ‘is’ and ‘sh

What to do about digital technology?’ remains a high-profile

As Alison Hearn has argued, contemporary higher education is now predicated around ambitions to produce human capital rather than critical thinkers; and to foster creativity, innovation and knowledge rather than critical thinking.

This stems, at least in part, from the fundamental desire amongst most educational technologists to improve education through the implementation of digital technology. For many academics, then, technology and education is approached as an inherently ‘positive project’. Indeed, I suspect that most people working in this area are driven to some degree by an underlying belief that digital technologies are capable of improving learning and/or education in some way

I would argue that any academic who is working in the area of technology and education should feel obliged to be critical, or at least justify why they have chosen not to be critical

e expected to be

The following are several specific examples of what the open standards and services must enable to make this new architecture for learning a reality: Digital content and applications must be easily, quickly (ideally, within a few minutes versus months), and seamlessly integrated into any platform that supports a set of vendor-neutral open standards and, importantly, are not trapped inside a single platform. User, course, and context information must be synchronized among selected applications so that neither the manual transfer of information nor multiple logins to different applications are required—thus making set-up and use of new software much easier for all concerned. Data that describes usage, activities, and outcomes must flow from learning content apps to the enterprise system of record, learning platforms, and analytics platforms. Systems, services, and tools must be virtualized and must increasingly move toward the elastic computing model that enables sharing scenarios across systems or other federations of users.Imagine what would happen if CIOs could safely add services and applications in a matter of days instead of months, if instructors could seamlessly combine these tools into their courses with one click, and if analytics data would begin to flow immediately thereafter. This new IT architecture would revolutionize the support for academic technology in the same way that the app movement has revolutionized what is available on mobile devices. A key difference with the new IT architecture, however, is that these educational apps are built using standards adopted and managed by the educational community and would be connected into the educational enterprise IT infrastructure.

The rise of the MOOC illustrates how important innovations often happen outside of established channels: by faculty who, interested in innovation, put together their own technology solutions outside their college or university. This should be a wake-up call for the higher education community to do better. Enterprise IT organizations need to enable such innovation, not stand in its way.

test-based accountability is “doing untold damage to the profession of teaching.”

The main thing that works is treating teaching as a profession, and teachers as professionals.

That means that teachers are as well paid as other professionals, that they have a career ladder, that they go to elite schools where they learn their craft, and that they are among the top quartile of college graduates instead of the bottom quartile.

When I suggested that American cities couldn’t afford to pay teachers the way we pay engineers or lawyers, Tucker scoffed. With rare exception, he said, the cost per pupil in the places with the best educational systems is less than the American system, even though their teachers are far better paid. “They are not spending more money; they are spending money differently,” he said.

Tucker would not abolish tests, but he would have fewer of them.

And they would have a different purpose: In the high-performing countries, the tests exist to hold the students accountable, rather than the teachers.

When a school falls short, instead of looking to fire teachers, the high-performing countries “use the data to decide which schools will receive visits from teams of expert school inspectors. These inspectors are highly regarded educators.”

Tucker envisions the same kind of accountability for teachers as exists for, say, lawyers in a firm — where it is peers holding each other accountable rather than some outside force. People who don’t pull their own weight are asked to leave. The ethos is that people help each other to become better for the good of the firm. Those who successfully rise through the ranks are rewarded with higher pay and status.

Would the teachers’ unions go along with such a scheme? The unions would certainly have to shed some of the things they now have, such as control of work rules.

fixation with test-based accountability

every other successful country has