onlinelearning

The process began three weeks ago with the course authors drafting and sharing for comment,  a proposed syllabus (using Google docs). In order to maintain consistency each ‘module’ consists of an introduction, 12-15 ‘screens’ of content, a summary, a multiple choice quiz and a list of resources for further exploration. The design model also insists that modules are not cross linked to allow for modular use as learning objects. The Google docs spreadsheet module was employed so the content, and especially the learning outcome of each ‘screen’ is articulated by the author and vetted by the ‘ expert consultant and other members of the development team. Each module is designed to take 60-90 minutes of end user time to complete. Fortunately, Epigeum technicians and media experts will actually create the screens which  (I understand) will make liberal use of video, animation and other multimedia resources. The modules are formatted to meet IMS content packaging standard so that they can ‘eaten up’ and delivered by a variety of LMS (OK make that VLEs, in the UK) delivery systems.

The background to the paper overviews the importance of the creation of an adaptable context that the learner creates to support and retain their own learning. They note ” It is not about learning design it is all about learning environment design”. By letting learning emerge from rich inquiry, collaboration and publication tools, learners are able to play active roles in the creation and sustenance of their own learning contexts. These skills, the contexts and the products of course do not end when the course LMS site is closed, but rather become life long learning attributes and capacity. Thus the creation of a rich learning environment that the student creates, owns and continuous to build with is the major learning outcome, the specific knowledge domain outcomes are useful but less important outcomes in a life long learning context.

In my own class, I am encouraging students to venture out beyond the protected walls of the institutional LMS and use blog posting and discussions to create “transactional presence” and sustain cooperative and collaborative learning. However, I note that most students confine reading permissions to others associated with the University or even exclusively to class mates, thereby eliminating exposure to search engines and external readers and communities. A safer, choice, but one that serves to minimize spontaneous and emergent connections and relationships with people outside of the institution

he first  use verbal and non verbal behaviours by which we invite others to enter or to leave our individual spaces. The second is built upon on environmental constraints and opportunities we build and inhabit such as doors, fences, passwords and speaking platforms. Finally, Altman notes cultural constraints such as  the type of questions that are appropriately asked, the loudness of voice and the amount of touching that we use to build and reinforce interpersonal boundaries that culturally define privacy spaces and practices.

hus, it  should come as no surprise that privacy issues are a major concern of all who use the net and perhaps especially so for those using social software tools for both formal and informal learning. No easy asnwers, but I don’t see any compelling reasons to attemopt to totally lockdown our or our students capacity to explore and gain control over their own emerging sense of privacy and security.

1. groups emphasize sameness, networks emphasize diversity 2. groups emphasize order and control, networks emphasize autonomy 3. groups emphasize borders and membership, networks emphasize openness 4. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge

Figure 1 illustrates these three social aggregations with the individual learner in the centre.

The background to the paper overviews the importance of the creation of an adaptable context that the learner creates to support and retain their own learning. They note ” It is not about learning design it is all about learning environment design”. By letting learning emerge from rich inquiry, collaboration and publication tools, learners are able to play active roles in the creation and sustenance of their own learning contexts. These skills, the contexts and the products of course do not end when the course LMS site is closed, but rather become life long learning attributes and capacity. Thus the creation of a rich learning environment that the student creates, owns and continuous to build with is the major learning outcome, the specific knowledge domain outcomes are useful but less important outcomes in a life long learning context.