169,431 research outputs found
Designing for interaction
At present, the design of computer-supported group-based learning (CS)GBL) is often based on subjective decisions regarding tasks, pedagogy and technology, or concepts such as ‘cooperative learning’ and ‘collaborative learning’. Critical review reveals these concepts as insufficiently substantial to serve as a basis for (CS)GBL design. Furthermore, the relationship between outcome and group interaction is rarely specified a priori. Thus, there is a need for a more systematic approach to designing (CS)GBL that focuses on the elicitation of expected interaction processes. A framework for such a process-oriented methodology is proposed. Critical elements that affect interaction are identified: learning objectives, task-type, level of pre-structuring, group size and computer support. The proposed process-oriented method aims to stimulate designers to adopt a more systematic approach to (CS)GBL design according to the interaction expected, while paying attention to critical elements that affect interaction. This approach may bridge the gap between observed quality of interaction and learning outcomes and foster (CS)GBL design that focuses on the heart of the matter: interaction
From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of research in e‐learning interaction design
This paper will consider e‐learning in terms of the underlying learning processes and interactions that are stimulated, supported or favoured by new media and the contexts or communities in which it is used. We will review and critique a selection of research and development from the past fifty years that has linked pedagogical and learning theory to the design of innovative e‐learning systems and activities, and discuss their implications. It will include approaches that are, essentially, behaviourist (Skinner and Gagné), cognitivist (Pask, Piaget and Papert), situated (Lave, Wenger and Seely‐Brown), socio‐constructivist (Vygotsky), socio‐cultural (Nardi and Engestrom) and community‐based (Wenger and Preece). Emerging from this review is the argument that effective e‐learning usually requires, or involves, high‐quality educational discourse, that leads to, at the least, improved knowledge, and at the best, conceptual development and improved understanding. To achieve this I argue that we need to adopt a more holistic approach to design that synthesizes features of the included approaches, leading to a framework that emphasizes the relationships between cognitive changes, dialogue processes and the communities, or contexts for e‐learning
Recommended from our members
Models for Learning (Mod4L) Final Report: Representing Learning Designs
The Mod4L Models of Practice project is part of the JISC-funded Design for Learning Programme. It ran from 1 May – 31 December 2006. The philosophy underlying the project was that a general split is evident in the e-learning community between development of e-learning tools, services and standards, and research into how teachers can use these most effectively, and is impeding uptake of new tools and methods by teachers. To help overcome this barrier and bridge the gap, a need is felt for practitioner-focused resources which describe a range of learning designs and offer guidance on how these may be chosen and applied, how they can support effective practice in design for learning, and how they can support the development of effective tools, standards and systems with a learning design capability (see, for example, Griffiths and Blat 2005, JISC 2006). Practice models, it was suggested, were such a resource.
The aim of the project was to: develop a range of practice models that could be used by practitioners in real life contexts and have a high impact on improving teaching and learning practice.
We worked with two definitions of practice models. Practice models are:
1. generic approaches to the structuring and orchestration of learning activities. They express elements of pedagogic principle and allow practitioners to make informed choices (JISC 2006)
However, however effective a learning design may be, it can only be shared with others through a representation. The issue of representation of learning designs is, then, central to the concept of sharing and reuse at the heart of JISC’s Design for Learning programme. Thus practice models should be both representations of effective practice, and effective representations of practice. Hence we arrived at the project working definition of practice models as:
2. Common, but decontextualised, learning designs that are represented in a way that is usable by practitioners (teachers, managers, etc).(Mod4L working definition, Falconer & Littlejohn 2006).
A learning design is defined as the outcome of the process of designing, planning and orchestrating learning activities as part of a learning session or programme (JISC 2006).
Practice models have many potential uses: they describe a range of learning designs that are found to be effective, and offer guidance on their use; they support sharing, reuse and adaptation of learning designs by teachers, and also the development of tools, standards and systems for planning, editing and running the designs.
The project took a practitioner-centred approach, working in close collaboration with a focus group of 12 teachers recruited across a range of disciplines and from both FE and HE. Focus group members are listed in Appendix 1. Information was gathered from the focus group through two face to face workshops, and through their contributions to discussions on the project wiki. This was supplemented by an activity at a JISC pedagogy experts meeting in October 2006, and a part workshop at ALT-C in September 2006. The project interim report of August 2006 contained the outcomes of the first workshop (Falconer and Littlejohn, 2006).
The current report refines the discussion of issues of representing learning designs for sharing and reuse evidenced in the interim report and highlights problems with the concept of practice models (section 2), characterises the requirements teachers have of effective representations (section 3), evaluates a number of types of representation against these requirements (section 4), explores the more technically focused role of sequencing representations and controlled vocabularies (sections 5 & 6), documents some generic learning designs (section 8.2) and suggests ways forward for bridging the gap between teachers and developers (section 2.6).
All quotations are taken from the Mod4L wiki unless otherwise stated
Recommended from our members
Literature review: Analysis of current research, theory and practice in partnership working to identify constituent components of effective ITT partnerships
Recommended from our members
Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. Final Report
Overview
This report suggests that students are increasingly making use of a variety of etools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) to support their informal learning within formalised educational settings, and that they use the tools that they have available if none are provided for them. Therefore, higher education institutions should encourage the use of these tools.
Aims and background
This study aimed to explore how e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) and the processes that underpin their use can support learning within educational institutions and help improve the quality of students’ experiences of learning in higher education (pgs 9-11).
Methodology
The study entailed: (i) desk research to identify related international research and practice and examples of integration of e-tools and learning processes in formal educational settings; (ii) a survey of 160 engineering and social work students across two contrasting Scottish universities (pre- and post-1992) – the University of Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian University – and follow-up interviews with eight students across the two subject areas to explore which technologies students were using for both learning and leisure activities within and outside the formal educational settings and how they would like to use such technologies to support their learning in both formal and informal settings; and (iii) interviews with eight members of staff from across the institutions and two subject areas to identify their perceptions of the educational value of the e-tools. (pgs 24-27).
Key findings
• Students reported making extensive use of a variety of both e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras) and social networking tools (such as Bebo, MySpace, Wikipedia and YouTube) for informal socialisation, communication, information gathering, content creation and sharing, alongside using the institutionally provided technologies and learning environments.
• Most of the students owned their own computer or had access to a sibling or parent’s computer. Many students owned a laptop but preferred not to bring it onto campus due to security concerns and because they found it too heavy to carry about.
• Ownership of mobile phones was ubiquitous.
• Whilst the students’ information searching literacy seemed adequate, the ability of these students to harness the power of social networking tools and informal processes for their learning was low.
Staff reported using a few Web 2.0 and social software tools but they were generally less familiar with how these could be used to support learning and teaching. There were misconceptions surrounding the affordances of the tools and fears expressed about security and invasion of personal space. Considerations of the costs and the time it would take staff to develop their skills meant that there was a reluctance to take up new technologies at an institutional level.
• Subject differences emerged in both staff and student perceptions as to which type of tools they would find most useful. Attitudes to Web 2.0 tools were different. Engineers were concerned with reliability, using institutional systems and inter-operability. Social workers were more flexible because they were focused on communication and professional needs.
• The study concluded that digital tools, personal devices, social networking software and many of the other tools explored all have a large educational potential to support learning processing and teaching practices. Therefore, use of these tools and processes within institutions, amongst staff and students should be encouraged.
• The report goes on to suggest ways in which the use of such technologies can help strengthen the links between informal and formal learning in higher education. The recommendations are grouped under four areas – pedagogical, socio-cultural, organisational and technological
Assessing a Collaborative Online Environment for Music Composition
The current pilot study tested the effectiveness of an e-learning environment built to enable students to compose
music collaboratively. The participants interacted online by using synchronous and asynchronous resources to
develop a project in which they composed a new music piece in collaboration. After the learning sessions,
individual semi-structured interviews with the participants were conducted to analyze the participants\u2019
perspectives regarding the e-learning environment\u2019s functionality, the resources of the e-learning platform, and
their overall experience with the e-learning process. Qualitative analyses of forum discussions with respect to
metacognitive dimensions, and semi-structured interview transcriptions were performed. The findings showed
that the participants successfully completed the composition task in the virtual environment, and that they
demonstrated the use of metacognitive processes. Moreover, four themes were apparent in the semi-structured
interview transcriptions: Teamwork, the platform, face-to-face/online differences, and strengths/weaknesses.
Overall, the participants exhibited an awareness of the potential of the online tools, and the task performed. The
results are discussed in consideration of metacognitive processes, and the following aspects that rendered virtual
activity effective for learning: The learning environment, the platform, the technological resources, the level of
challenge, and the nature of the activity. The possible implications of the findings for research on online
collaborative composition are also considered
Collaborative Development of Open Educational Resources for Open and Distance Learning
Open and distance learning (ODL) is mostly characterised by the up front development of self study educational resources that have to be paid for over time through use with larger student cohorts (typically in the hundreds per annum) than for conventional face to face classes. This different level of up front investment in educational resources, and increasing pressures to utilise more expensive formats such as rich media, means that collaborative development is necessary to firstly make use of diverse professional skills and secondly to defray these costs across institutions. The Open University (OU) has over 40 years of experience of using multi professional course teams to develop courses; of working with a wide range of other institutions to develop educational resources; and of licensing use of its educational resources to other HEIs. Many of these arrangements require formal contracts to work properly and clearly identify IPR and partner responsibilities. With the emergence of open educational resources (OER) through the use of open licences, the OU and other institutions has now been able to experiment with new ways of collaborating on the development of educational resources that are not so dependent on tight legal contracts because each partner is effectively granting rights to the others to use the educational resources they supply through the open licensing (Lane, 2011; Van Dorp and Lane, 2011). This set of case studies examines the many different collaborative models used for developing and using educational resources and explain how open licensing is making it easier to share the effort involved in developing educational resources between institutions as well as how it may enable new institutions to be able to start up open and distance learning programmes more easily and at less initial cost. Thus it looks at three initiatives involving people from the OU (namely TESSA, LECH-e, openED2.0) and contrasts these with the Peer-2-Peer University and the OER University as exemplars of how OER may change some of the fundamental features of open and distance learning in a Web 2.0 world. It concludes that while there may be multiple reasons and models for collaborating on the development of educational resources the very openness provided by the open licensing aligns both with general academic values and practice but also with well established principles of open innovation in businesses
Student-Centered Learning: Functional Requirements for Integrated Systems to Optimize Learning
The realities of the 21st-century learner require that schools and educators fundamentally change their practice. "Educators must produce college- and career-ready graduates that reflect the future these students will face. And, they must facilitate learning through means that align with the defining attributes of this generation of learners."Today, we know more than ever about how students learn, acknowledging that the process isn't the same for every student and doesn't remain the same for each individual, depending upon maturation and the content being learned. We know that students want to progress at a pace that allows them to master new concepts and skills, to access a variety of resources, to receive timely feedback on their progress, to demonstrate their knowledge in multiple ways and to get direction, support and feedback from—as well as collaborate with—experts, teachers, tutors and other students.The result is a growing demand for student-centered, transformative digital learning using competency education as an underpinning.iNACOL released this paper to illustrate the technical requirements and functionalities that learning management systems need to shift toward student-centered instructional models. This comprehensive framework will help districts and schools determine what systems to use and integrate as they being their journey toward student-centered learning, as well as how systems integration aligns with their organizational vision, educational goals and strategic plans.Educators can use this report to optimize student learning and promote innovation in their own student-centered learning environments. The report will help school leaders understand the complex technologies needed to optimize personalized learning and how to use data and analytics to improve practices, and can assist technology leaders in re-engineering systems to support the key nuances of student-centered learning
- …