Bruce Nightingale :: Blog
Today finally saw the last of the 11 groups of approximately 18 students arranged, and emailed out to said students. The wiki is now populated with 200 logins - thank goodness for CSv files. Thats the configuration side taken care of. In his book “Knowing Knowledge” George Siemens (2006) has suggested Connectivism as the learning theory for the new Digital Age. "Connectivism asserts that knowledge - and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. And another part of this thinking is centered around the new, and the newly empowered, learner, the member of the net generation, who is thinking and interacting in new ways. These trends combine to form what is sometimes called 'web 2.0' - an approach to learning that is based on conversation and interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or workflows." http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html The virtual schools project anticpates that the participants will start networking in there groups - indeeed early emails suggest just such action. Will these micronetworks interconnect to form a larger network and intriguingly will they in turn generate external (to NTU) networks?
The virtual schools project starts tomorrow - I shall introduce the project to nearly 200 students. The students are to be grouped to work together on a specific virtual school hosted on a wiki. This project aims to place core professional studies within a simulated ‘real’ context. This project has three stated main aims: to enable trainees to engage in more meaningful learning about whole school/professional issues; to link disparate areas of work; and to be a powerful learning tool in linking the university professional studies course to work-based work.
The students will be told that this is an 'action research' project and as participants they will be able to identify the relevance of this mode of learning to your own practice and to contribute your ideas to the further development of the ‘virtual schools’. The 'mode of learning'is not singular, but will, in all probability,entail the students using a full range of web 2.0 technologies, f2f meetings with lecturers and school mentors. The results of the research will be fed into the virtual school creating an identity shaped by the students understanding of the EPS sessionsand how the theory has been implemented within there host schools.The project will be steered by students after initial priming, building on Dave Cs concept of RE. See earlier comments regarding DavidNicol and assessment. The students will assess the value of the project and shape it for future delivery- if it gets there ultimate approval.
An approach to developing the Virtual Schools at Nottingham Trent: The rhizomatic model of learning is an approach to curriculum design that is not driven by predefined inputs from experts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, and reconstructing itself and the subject of its learning in the same way that the rhizome responds to changing environmental conditions. Dave Cormier has written an excellent paper (IMHO) that explains rhizomatic education in greater detail. Prof. David Nicol has researched assessment at HE level over a number of years culminating in the publication of the REAP project. The key assumption of the REAP project is that if we wish to enable students to develop as self-regulating learners they must be given a more active role in assessment processes. Can you see a link between Nicol's research and the rhizomatic model of learning?
Keywords: assessment, CCK08, nicol, rhizomatic, simulated, virtual
The distinctions between the two terms can be simplistic. This is my view for instance:- Information is data in context - contextualized data. Information provides an understanding of data. Knowledge isn't contextualized information, and it is certainly distinct from information. I think of knowledge as the basis of what you can or might do with information . And in all cases we express our levels of knowledge by the way we act on the information (or lack there of) at our disposal. Recent online discussions with colleagues at Manitoba University, Canada has been very enlightening. I am still internalising what I have read. Have a look for yourself.
Following from the readings, I find myself returning back to Vygotskian theories of social constructivism. This is probably a result of earlier research into 'networked learning' and following the work/writings of David McConnell (know at Lancaster University). Vygotsky noted that a problem with individual constructivist theories like those of Piaget and Kolb is that they seem not to take account of the fact that learning takes place in a social context. Learners are social beings, trying to make sense of the learning situation, to meet (or perhaps to challenge) the expectations of their teachers and peers. As someone attempting to implement ideas of social constructivism, I am interested to see that my students have the opportunity to negotiate the meaning of their learning with myself (their tutor) and their peers. This does not mean that there are ‘opportunities for discussion’ but that the learning experience is built around social interaction and shared tasks. This also relates to formative feedback on which Dylan Williams (IoE) et al have researched so extensively. I am using Ning at the moment but may adopt Elgg alongside - feedback from students is positive (so far!)
Keywords: CCK08, connectivism, MOOC
I shall be using this blog to record thoughts and notes relating to a course I am studying at the University of Manitoba in Canada. It is titled Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, exploring the concepts of connectivism and connective knowledge and their application as a framework for theories of teaching and learning. George Siemens and Stephen Downes are facilitating the course and the number of particpants is ... substantial!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19877671@N00/1476693312/ brckngh posted a photo:
Half way up Tryfan looking down onto lyn ogwen
A recent flurry of blogs on the topic of Leicester LEAs apparent 'blackballing' of Moodle for non compliance with BECTAs newly published specifications (Its a PDF file) generated quite a bit of 'type' on the topic. Rightly so (IMHO). I had not been concious of debate/discussion surrounding the DfES desire to have ePorfolio's configured for EDI purposes until I attended a conference (8th May 2006) at Nottingham University. I arrived at the conference expecting at least some of the days proceedings to address pedagogical topics relating to use of ePorfolios by learners. This did not happen. Instead, what unfolded was an intriguing look at an interoperability project on progression for lifelong learning(Its a PDF file) The focus on back office data exchange is hugely significant, and when you take into account BECTAs specifications (see above) it starts to make sense as to why Moodle is perceived as being "incompatible with other systems for exchanging information." (The inaccuracy of this view need not be corrected in this article).
It appears to me that the term 'ePortfolio' is being used in UK educational quarters to refer to quite different activities with stored data - albeit the data can be derived from a common source. The exchange of data between 'third parties' would be better served using different terminlogy such as EDI - which has an established meaning. With the use of 'ePortfolio' being retained in the context of teaching and learning.
Trying to understand why institutions choose one CMS system over another seems to be a bit like asking a Man U fan why they dont support Liverpool or vice versa - because there s*!t, there no f'@@n use or words to that effect. The loyalty of the fan base and there individual club's actual achievements are substantial. And it seems to me that is the case with WebCT, Blackboard, Moodle, Boddington etc. They have a loyal fan base and each product has achieved a deserved reputation. That said, where do we go for unemotional analysis and comparison if we wish to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these tools? Our neighbours (across the pond) at British Columbia Campus in Canada have been doing some extensive comparisons through the availability of a large research grant, and have made the results available for all to see. The final report and project recommendations; along with documentation on each of the ten distinct objectives - plus documentation to migrate WebCT 4.1 courses to Moodle. Unless your loyalty to your institutions CMS is similar in emotions to football fans 'blind' loyalty; you might find yourself switching sides and supporting the opposition! Who do I support ? Fulham of course ...
Keywords: CMS, moodle, webct
Helen Barrett identifies a tension between two views of portfolios: “Some people think the primary purpose of a portfolio is for summative assessment (a culture of compliance or a checklist of skills). Others think the primary purpose of a portfolio is assessment for learning and to tell the learner's story (a culture of lifelong learning/professional development). These two purposes are often in conflict with each other.”
Given that people who need to assess student work are the same people with money to spend on technological tools to streamline and organize student assessment, it’s not surprising that the development of whats come to be considered ePortfolios shifted toward meeting institutional needs, as opposed to student needs. Ironically, the rise of distance learning has helped cloud the vision of what an ePortfolio could be. A well-organized online course provides students the opportunity to drive the content of the class, and to reflect upon that content over time. Good online course software provide students with the tools for collaborative learning, and, at the end of the class, students will have assembled something that resembles an ePortfolio. Then, of course, the class ends, and this accumulated content faces an uncertain fate. In the model Jeremy Hiebert lays out in his blog, he emphasizes the role of collecting content into an ePortfolio. Given that an ePortfolio can be used most effectively when it follows the learner through and beyond educational institutions, learners must be able to pull content from class sites into their own ePortfolios, or to put content from their ePortfolio into their class site. Recently, Elgg has taken a nice step in this direction by allowing users to import rss feeds into their blogs. Recently, we have been visited by a new acronym, the PLE (Personal Learning Environment). Some people might question whether a personal learning environment is the same as an ePortfolio. Personally, I don’t care. The buzzwords can cause us to lose sight of the educational potential: we can use existing open source products to provide students with a way to take control and ownership over their learning.
A student-centered learning environment can only exist if the student controls what gets included. As Helen Barret argues, the needs of a student ePortfolio don’t always reconcile with the needs of educational institutions. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Learners and educational institutions have different needs. For all the obvious reasons, they co-exist, and in the best learning situations, they are mutually supportive. But, their needs will diverge at a certain point. This becomes a problem only when the needs of one group are met to the detriment of the other. In the case of ePortfolios and class sites, this doesn’t need to be the case. This article is reproduced (almost entirely) from http://www.funnymonkey.com/online-class-eportfolio
<< Back
|
|
