Presentation kneu blayone mykhailenko
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•124 views
IBECON 2016
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to Presentation kneu blayone mykhailenko
Similar to Presentation kneu blayone mykhailenko (20)
More from Olena Hrebeshkova
More from Olena Hrebeshkova (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Presentation kneu blayone mykhailenko
- 1. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization IBECON 2016 | November 2016 Olena Mykhailenko & Todd Blayone University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, Ontario, Canada Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization
- 2. What is “democratized learning”? 1. Focused on processes of learning 2. Addresses an educational paradox 3. Positioned within the discourse on “deepening democracy” A boundary construct 4. Constructivist epistemology 5. Construes digital technology as amplifiers of learning Communication Deliberation Freedom Negotiation CommunityCulture Collaboration Trust Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT
- 3. What is Democratized Digital Learning? Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT
- 4. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT Construing Context: Culture and Digital Learning Measurable predispositions Vygotsky and Dewey Values as the core of culture, and predispositions for behaviour
- 5. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone, EILAB, UOIT Canada-Ukraine Pilot, Learning and Research Project
- 6. Findings: Digital Competencies Frequency of activity measured on 5-point scale with 1=“never,” 2=“few times a year,” 3=“few times a month, 4=“few times a week,” 5=“daily.” Activity related confidence measured on 5-point scale with 1=“do not know how to use; not confident,” 2=“not confident, require assistance to use,” 3=“confident, can solve some problems, 4=“fairly confident, can use with no assistance,” 5=“very confident, can teach others how to use.” Italicized items are those identified as relevant to social constructivist online learning and fall below the “few times a month” threshold. Informational Dimension Analysis Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT
- 7. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT Findings: Cultural Values
- 8. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT Findings: Student Feedback Key Themes
- 9. Post-Industrial Learning: Digital Technology, Culture and Democratization Olena Mykhailenko, Todd Blayone EILAB, UOIT Next Steps, Future Opportunities
Editor's Notes
- 2: What is Democratized Learning? (Todd) “Democratized learning” is a loose, boundary construct with only scattered presence in current academic literature. As Lowey (1990) notes, such constructs: 1) emerge through cross-disciplinary, collaborative research, and 2) often play vital role in scientific innovation, even though they may remain ill-defined throughout their entire scientific life span. As a boundary concept, we offer five general boundary markers for “democratized learning.” It is focused on processes of learning not on learning or teaching about democracy—as is often the case, for example, with citizenship education. It functions as a response to a fundamental educational paradox—namely, that education is widely considered vital for the development of democracy and human rights, yet, at the micro-level of learning, education trends to be unrepentantly authoritarian and colonial—even in so-called developed democracies. As Bivens and Taylor observe, traditional learning is: premised on the assumption that students are empty vessels that need to be filled up with information. The flow of information is one way, from teacher to students. The teacher controls the educational experience, while the role of the student is to receive knowledge passively (2008, p. 282). Levin offers an even sharper assessment, suggesting that education offers a history of doing things to other people, supposedly for their own good. Each level in the hierarchy of education believes it knows best what those at lower levels need to do, and has little shyness about telling them or, just as often, forcing them (2000, p. 155). “Democratized learning” can be set within academic discourse of deepening democracy—as opposed to the discourse on the 20th century ascendency of electorally democratic nation states. As Gaventa (2006) notes, “deepening democracy” challenges a neoliberal paradigm which tends to reduce citizens to consumers who express preferences through market choices rather than through empowering action, critical deliberation, and emancipatory praxis. “Democratized learning” gains strength from a social constructivist epistemology, which foregrounds the positive, constructive power of individual experience and culture. In or research group, “democratized learning” seeks to leverage digital technologies as potential amplifiers of human empowerment and learning, recognizing the need to address inequalities in relation to access and competency. Within the space defined by these conceptual markers, sets of elements (functioning both prescriptively and descriptively) recur in our research and educational praxis in relation to idea of democratized learning. Open Communication Deliberation Freedom Experience Nonhierarchical Autonomy Equality Negotiation Empowerment Emergent Culturally responsive Community Cooperation Collaboration Social These elements should not be viewed as defining characteristics of democratized learning. Rather, they are best viewed, following Wittgenstein, as a set of family resemblances. No single set of elements are likely to characterize any particular context of democratized learning. Indeed, some (e.g., freedom/autonomy and collaboration/community) may stand in tension—and one of our proposed research studies seeks to compare the dynamics of a community-centric, collaborative learning model, and individual-centric, cooperative freedom learning model in relation to educationally meaningful outcomes.
- While the creation of ‘democratized learning’ environments is somewhat like searching for the Holy Grail, over the past several decades there have been several attempts. Initially in WWWI environments such as the development static web pages and hypercard stacks, a wide variety of conceptual information was made accessible in ways that allowed individuals for search and sort information in ways that are not possible with print documents. The arrival of content management systems (cms) and their close cousins, the learning management systems (lms), allowed academics and other educational leaders to curate vast private collections of content material, simultaneously creating new ways of publishing textbooks (now called course packs), as well as putting pressure on traditional textbook publishers to find new business models. The content, when combined with rudimentary lms tools such as email, discussion boards and the like, can become a platform, such as MOOCs, upon which limited discourse regarding ideas can be conducted by individuals who are widely dispersed from each other. Recently, new models intended to provide for rich discussion and interaction by large groups of individuals are beginning to appear in the literature. The Fully Online Learning Community, FOLC, model is one of these. Derived from the Community of Inquiry, CoI, model which preceeded it, the FOLC model integrates a Problem Based Learning (PBL) orientation situated in a fully online environment and serves as the basis for fully online programs in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. From a technology perspective, FOLC construes the digital space and enabling technological abilities as integral to the online learning experience. Furthermore, from a communications modality perspective, FOLC does not recognize asynchronous, text based discussion as necessarily better serving the goals of collaborative inquiry. Rather, it draws attention to the evidence-based strengths of both synchronous and asynchronous technologies in relation to sociocultural contexts and learning goals of particular online communities. Moreover, FOLC recognizes the profound strengths of synchronous video-conferencing technologies for allowing members of an online community to experience community members as embodied human beings. This supports key facets of the social presence (SP) aspects, including the building of mutual respect for the identity and cultural differences among community members; the development of trust among community members; and the useof emotionally rich and responsive communication via intonation, facial expression, and body language. Additionally, FOLC engenders a democratized and emancipatory control orientation, coupled with a constructivist, epistemological perspective. This has significant implications for FOLC’s operationalization of teaching presence (TP) and cognitive presence (CP). With respect to TP, FOLC distributes leadership responsibilities, and collapses facilitation dynamics into the broader functioning of social and cognitive presence. This implies that all members of a community share power, control, and responsibility respecting the nature and direction of collaborative learning; including elements such as selection of relevant information sources, choice of preferred digital devices and learning environments, negotiation of outcomes, and participation in processes of assessment. Within this democratized context, the professional educator, like a servant-leader, pursues the functional responsibility of empowerment, and replaces directive communication with communication that promotes mutual exploration, questioning, and challenge. With respect to CP, FOLC does not privilege any particular model of inquiry. Given that the existence of a canonical “scientific method” is highly contested, in FOLC, the establishment of credibility criteria for judging knowledge claims becomes a collaborative community endeavour. Consistent with this epistemology, FOLC fosters cognitive development through individual knowledge construction and collaborative discourse, rather than through the development of cognitive outcomes established by professional educators’ direction and control.