Affordances of VLE and teaching presence


Published on

Presentation in IFI research seminar 23.Nov 2011

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Affordances of VLE and teaching presence

  1. 1. Affordances of VirtualLearning Environmentsand Their Impact toTeaching PresenceMart Laanpere, martl@tlu.eeHead of the Centre for Educational TechnologyInstitute of Informatics, Tallinn UniversityPresentation at research seminar of the Institute of Informatics, 22.11.2011
  2. 2. Evolution of VLE• 1960: educational software • Content integrated with software, replacing teachers, linear• 1990: computer-supported collaborative learning • Content is not important, learning is about communication and collaboration, teacher as facilitator/moderator, scaffolding• 1995: virtual classroom • 3D-imitation of traditional classroom, blackboard, lecturing• 2000: learning management systems • WebCT: a set of existing publication/communication tools• 2005: personal learning environments • Blog-based PLE as alternative to closed, institutional LMS • Privacy issues, poor tracking and analytics, few activity types• 2010: EduFeedr, LePress, Dippler, learning ecosystem
  3. 3. Pedagogy-driven design of VLE• Questioning pedagogical neutrality imperative for VLE: ICALT 2004 paper “The Second Thoughts on Pedagogical Neutrality”• Pedagogy-driven design principles: • Structure: based on pedagogical / instructional design model • Vocabulary: metaphors instead of pedagogic terms • Workflows: pedagogical activity patterns• Pedagogy-driven design of IVA LMS: • Structure: Jonassens’s 3C model • Vocabulary: webtop, bookshelf, workshops… • Workflows: 6 Thinking Hats, Progressive Inquiry, Peer review• How to measure impact of the design? ICWL 2009 paper “Evaluating pedagogy-driven design of IVA LMS with activity pattern analysis”
  4. 4. Affordances• My principles of pedagogy-driven design are actually hints for affordances• Initial concept of affordance (Gibson 1979): direct perception without cognitive modeling, holistic relationship between environment and perceiver, not physical properties nor their mental representation, overcoming objective-subjective dichotomy• Cognitive turn (Norman 1988): real vs perceived affordances• Embodied semiotics (O‘Neill 2008): pure experience > tight coupling > Embodied schemas > Internalisation > Semiosis > Expression > Mediation > Molar content• Magnani & Bardone: affordances, cognitive niches and chance-seeking
  5. 5. Affordances of VLE• Golden rule of design “Don’t Make Me Think” does not always apply for VLEs – Learning Environment should invite or even force you to think (metacognition)• Focusing on the structure should be based on instructional design models and only on teacher’s side, as we do not want to trade off self-regulation on the student side• Vocabulary/metaphors should be replaceable by users, but this is already implemented in Moodle – not interesting• It leaves us workflows or learning flows, learning paths, learning patterns, learning trajectories as the main lever for designing pedagogy-driven affordances of VLE• Current study: comparing IVA with Moodle and BlackBoard using ontology of learning activities
  6. 6. Categories:- Effective expression- Open communication- Group cohesion Categories: - Triggering event - Exploration - Integration - Resolution Categories: - Design - Facilitation - Direct instruction
  7. 7. Impact on teaching presence• Indicators: • Design & organisation: setting curriculum and methods • Facilitating discourse: sharing personal meaning • Direct instruction: focusing discussion• Mainstream approach: exploratory, qualitative, coding• Rourke & Anderson: quantitative content analysis• Built-in learning-related semantics: learning outcomes, domain ontology, tagging, assignments• Assignment types: reflection (unstructured/structured), product (file upload), peer review, scaffolded discussion (6 Hats, Design Thinking, Progressive Inquiry), self-test
  8. 8. Discussion