Monday, November 10, 2008
Some scrabbled notes of the points that leapt out at me...
'the challenge is all about integration not replacement' i.e. meshing [thinks - as opposed to mashing(!?)] 'teaching as design' - the linear relation between time/place of a lecture and the potential for a learning task which may take a while to develop but is not so constrained.
@ 26 mins enriching, 'not content, not syllabus coverage, activity... what the learner does... technology should fit around that', 'learning how to think for a living', engage students in activities which lead to meeting desired outcomes - that may work (via ISD) for certain training situations (e.g. armed forces and industry) but not in HE, we want creativity as they work they develop competence in becoming autonomous, we dont know what students do with the tasks we set! Design is 'indirect' as we cant control everything
@ 38 need to pay attention to tasks, environment, tools, community - but in the end, the activity takes place in a space that is 'co-configured',
@ 46 TasD pedagogically neutral, interpretation of task is deeply influential and emergent activity shows that not everyone benefits from our TasD, Ron Barnett - students need space to get it wrong, but, their choices about technology, community, etc. have a huge impact on the effectiveness of the task. We should scaffold to guide, but the institution's culture also works against effectiveness so you get overworked students
sustainable innovation - has to be continuous and central to the university - a shared sense of how it fits in to this broad learning ecology - what information does the library need. Every business unit needs to see itself as a learning unit within a learning organisation - should be able to describe what good learning looks like and how they contribute to which part of that... but time to engage in these discussions...?
There was also some talk of research they had done which shed light on the 'digital native' concept. Students who were technology-savvy would still expect the university to know best regarding use for learning at university.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
1. We falsely assume that all kids are 'digital natives', disenfranchising those who are 'not fussed on computers' or socio-economically disadvantaged.
2. We, echoing Biggs concerns about 'surfing' and the unfortunate connotations with a 'surface approach' to learning, encourage the thought that being a 'digital native' is somehow in advance of/better than being erudite.
But what I need to know more about is whether the net is promoting evolutionary change to the way that learners' brains are wired and whether these changes are beneficial or cast too much embrained knowledge aside such that 'healthy' living in the non-virtual world is undermined. An example, related to Perkins' 'person plus/person solo' stuff, would be our recently purchasing a satnav. Does the de-skilling around mapreading matter? Do we gain more (in time saved, serenity, not having to get embarrased by stopping and asking, not crashing while trying to perch map on steering wheel, not driving into the congestion zone by mistake, etc.) than we lose from our brains through not having that mental exertion. Does this mean I will become so mentally flabby that I will have to choose to take up mental jogging? Will it free up my mind to become very focussed on my work or interests such that my focus actually narrows too much?
Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education. (Second edition), Buckingham
Perkins, D. (1993) "Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning," in Distributed
Cognitions, G. Salomon ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
at the moment but I wonder for how long before it gets moved to something like...
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
This is an example of how technology can promote connections within a lecture and perhaps enduringly so outwith the event itself...
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
In June 2007 I posted the following message to the networked learning jiscmail list :
I have been thinking about the definition of networked learning and what it means for assessment - especially the central notion of 'promoting connections'. I've come to a question I think might be worth pursuing - what does it mean to be 'network learned'? That is, if one had gone through a degree programme that was designed to 'promote connections', what would characterise the students who graduated from it? Perhaps they would just be the 'embodiment of critical thinking', or some other commonly held aspiration for a modern graduate...Unfortunately, the 2 responses were about the means of conducting assessment via networks rather than the learning outcomes that any assessment might measure. I tried to re-word the question and eventually sent the following:
I mean, what would a person look like, what would make them different (better even?) from someone who had learned via Communities of Practice or lectures/tutorials? My colleague Joe's off-the-bat response to that was 'appropriateness'. Having the 'right' clutch of the 'right' kind of connections that can be 'activated' (all inverted comma concepts in need of unpacking!) in a timely way - not just to people but to resources (of course). Is that a good measure of networked learningness? (am I a good example of having been 'networked learned' since I'm foisting this on your inbox via this jiscmail list?!) Assuming it should, can that be bottled and taught? Can it then be factored in to assessment leading to accreditation? As I said before, all of this might 'just' mean the kinds of things we already hope to see in 'good' students...Thoughts anyone?