Blended Learning Australia 2013

1,264 views
1,143 views

Published on

Designing for Learning in an Open World: Pedagogies, Social Models for Blended learning

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,264
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
75
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • A learning technology, by definition, is an orchestration of technologies, necessarily including pedagogies, whether implicit or explicit.
  • Transmission model, often augmented with some tutor interaction
  • B adges: . A “digital badge” is an online recordof achievements, tracking the recipient’s communities of interaction that issued the badge andthe work completed to get it.
  • http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know
  • Blended Learning Australia 2013

    1. 1. Designing for Learning in an Open World: Pedagogies, Social Models for Blended learning Terry Anderson, PhD Professor, Athabasca University
    2. 2. Values • We can (and must) continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, appeal, cost and time efficiency of the learning experience. • Student control and freedom is integral to 21st century life-long education and learning. • Continuing education opportunity is a basic human right.
    3. 3. Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada * Athabasca University 34,000 students, 700 courses 100% distance education Graduate and Undergraduate programs Master & Doctorate Distance Education Only USA Regionally Accredited University in Canada *Athabasca University
    4. 4. Theory!
    5. 5. communitiesofinquiry.com
    6. 6. The Social Aggregation makes a Difference • Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (in press). Teaching crowds: the role of social media in distance learningAthabasca University Press. • Available open access Spring 2014
    7. 7. • “Nothing so practical as a good theory” Kurt Lewin
    8. 8. Proposition #1 The Learning Evolves From and With Past Technologies
    9. 9. Proposition #2 • Different Social Structures/Pedagogies/Technologies, determine most effective use.
    10. 10. Learning as Dance (Anderson, 2008) • Technology sets the beat and the timing. • Pedagogy defines the moves.
    11. 11. Understanding Online Pedagogies and Fitting them into our social boxes
    12. 12. Outline • Generations of Online Education Pedagogy – Cognitive Behaviourist – Social Constructivist – Connectivist • SOCIAL FORMS TO MATCH PEDAGOGY • Beyond the LMS – Athabasca Landing boutique social network
    13. 13. Three Generations of Online Learning Pedagogy 1. Behaviourist/Cognitive – 2. Social Constructivist – 3. Connectivist Anderson, T., &Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. IRRODL, 12(3), 80-97
    14. 14. Gagne’s Events of Instruction (1965) 1. Gain learners' attention 2. Inform learner of objectives 3. Stimulate recall of previous information 4. Present stimulus material 5. Provide learner guidance 6. Elicit performance 7. Provide Feedback 8. Assess performance 9. Enhance transfer opportunities Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
    15. 15. Enhanced by the “cognitive revolution” • Chunking • Cognitive Load • Working Memory • Multiple Representations • Split-attention effect • Variability Effect • Multi-media effect – (Sorden, 2005) “learning as acquiring and using conceptual and cognitive structures” Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996
    16. 16. Technologies of Ist generation • CAI, text books, One way Lectures, Video and audio broadcast with advancements??
    17. 17. Social Focus of Ist generation - Individual Learner
    18. 18. Behavioural/Cognitive developments • Self directed learning • Adaptive Learning – Machine adapts to past answers – Learner adapts by choosing content • OERs and MOOCs • Trace Mining, Paths and Learning Analytics • Digital Badges
    19. 19. Open Educational Resources Because it saves time!!!
    20. 20. Kyungmee
    21. 21. Learning Analytics - Dashboard
    22. 22. New Forms of Accrediting Challenge Exams for Credit
    23. 23. Behavioural/Cognitive developments • Self-paced • Adaptive Learning • Trace Mining, Paths and learning analytics
    24. 24. 1st Gen Cognitive Behavioural Pedagogy Summary • Scalable • Few requirements, or opportunities, for social learning • Works most efficiently with individual learning models • Effective and efficient for some types of learning • Have we taught learners to succeed with this type of learning?
    25. 25. 28 2nd Generation Constructivist Pedagogy • Group Orientated • Membership and exclusion, closed • Not scalable - max 50 students/course • Classrooms - at a distance or on campus • Hierarchies of control • Focus on collaboration and shared purpose group
    26. 26. 2nd Generation - Constructivist • Online Learning Current model – continued strong growth in US and globally • Major employer of adjuncts 32% of US higher education students now take at least one course
    27. 27. Constructivist Learning in Groups • Long history of research and study • Established sets of tools – Classrooms – Learning Management Systems (LMS) – Synchronous (chat, video & net conferencing) – Email, wikis, blogs • Need to develop face to face, mediated and blended group learning skills Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.
    28. 28. The Power of Synchronous • Immediacy • Pacing • Comfort level for student and teachers, but DON’T fall into classroom lectures • Social Modeling
    29. 29. Web Conferencing • Recordable • Clickers • Student screen control • Video • Animations • Shared Screen
    30. 30. Immersion ??
    31. 31. Social Constructivist Social forms • Group • Limited in size – Dunbar’s Max ~150 for a tribe • Mutual awareness of each other
    32. 32. Group Management • Need good tools to allow group to work effectively and build trust at a distance • Use Face-to-face (blended) time to do this.
    33. 33. http://www.collaborativelearning.org/scien iology.html
    34. 34. Generation 3 Connective pedagogies • Stephen Downes
    35. 35. • McLuhan “We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us” • “When physical spaces for learning go online (distributed, non-hierarchical, networked, digital), new, more effective pedagogies emerge”. George Siemens
    36. 36. 3rd generation Connective Pedagogies • Heutagogy– Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From Andragogy to Heutagogy. • Chaos Theory • Activity Theory &Actor Network Theory (ANT) – “systemic interactions of people and the objects that they use in their interactions.”
    37. 37. Connectivism • “connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks.” Stephen Downes 2007
    38. 38. Connectivist Learning Persistence Accessibility Network Effects “Connectivying” your course http://terrya.edublogs.org/2012/12/18/connectivy-your-course/
    39. 39. Connectivist Knowledge • Is created by linking to appropriate people and objects • May be created and stored in non human devices • Is as much about capacity as current competence • Assumes the ubiquitous Internet • Is emergent George Siemens
    40. 40. Disruptions of Connectivism • Demands net proficiency and presence of students and teachers • Openness is scary • New roles for teachers and students • Artifact ownership, persistence • Too manic for some
    41. 41. The Social Aggregation makes a Difference • Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (in press). Teaching crowds: the role of social media in distance learning Athabasca University Press. • Available open access Spring 2014
    42. 42. http://www.slideshare.net/jondron/revealing-the-elephant-in- the-online-classroom
    43. 43. The Social Aggregations of Gen 3 Connective Pedagogies • Networks • Sets
    44. 44. Social Networks • Facebook, Linked In, • Academia, • Twitter • Blogs • Listservs • Private – NING – ELGG – Drupal, Word Press
    45. 45. Personal Identity Professional Identity University Identity Net+ Identity
    46. 46. Applying Social Network Analysis to High School Students 2012 The Network Roundtable LLC
    47. 47. Sets • Aggregation of all people sharing a particular interest, area. • Set of all graduates of X • Usually curated with social involvement limited to votes, comments, links • Possibility of developing into networks or groups.
    48. 48. PInterest
    49. 49. Sets (Example)
    50. 50. Classic Set: Those editing (or reading) a Wikipedia article
    51. 51. Case Study : Athabasca Landing landing.athabascau.ca
    52. 52. Landing Stats (Sept. 2013)
    53. 53. Number of Groups
    54. 54. Individual Control (PLE)
    55. 55. Groups
    56. 56. Nets
    57. 57. Sets
    58. 58. • Empowering students to create their own interaction opportunities – OERs, P2P University, Learnist, meet ups
    59. 59. Shameless Plug and Giveaways! Issues in Distance Education Series http://aupress.ca
    60. 60. Conclusion: • the best part of Blended Learning – is eclectic allowing student exploration of their own learning needs and gifts. • Need to matching pedagogy, technology and the learning outcomes • Empowerment, lifelong learning and smart (not more) work for teachers
    61. 61. Terry Anderson terrya@athabascau.ca Blog: terrya.edublogs.org Your comments& questions most welcomed!
    62. 62. Which Works Best? • Interaction Equivalency Theory
    63. 63. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem by Anderson (2003) • Thesis 1. Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student– teacher; student–student; student–content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. • Thesis 2. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, although these experiences may not be as cost- or time effective as less interactive learning sequences. http://equivalencytheorem.info/ 69
    64. 64. Business Web presence http://fiverr.com/
    65. 65. Our identity (“digital” identity?) • Do we create it? • Is it created and/or structured for us? Authentic Identity Fragments (Kimmons & Veletsianos, under review)  Intentional web presence Lowenthal& Dunlap (2012) George Velestranos
    66. 66. • “If Google cannot find a faculty scholar's work or the work of the scholar's colleagues, department, or institution, then it is essentially irrelevant — even nonexistent — because people will not find, read, apply, or build on the work if they cannot locate it via a quick Google searchLowenthal & Dunlap (2012) Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2012). Intentional Web Presence: 10 SEO Strategies Every Academic Needs to Know. Educause. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10- seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know.
    67. 67. Personal Identity Professional Identity University Identity Net+ Identity
    68. 68. Pereira, R., Baranauskas, M. C. C., &da Silva, S. R. P. (2013). Social Software and Educational Technology: Informal, Formal and Technical Values. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 4- 14. http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_1/2.pdf

    ×