Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Conceptual Structures in STEM education


Published on

Keynote presentation at ICCS2013 and epiSTEME5 in Mumbai 11 Jan 2013
abstract of accompanying paper

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Conceptual Structures in STEM education

  1. 1. Mumbai7-12 January 2013
  2. 2. Su White @suukiiWeb Science: Expanding the Notion of Computer Science Whiteand Vafopoulos
  3. 3. University of SouthamptonFounded 1862, Charter 195225,000 FTE StudentsRussell Group, Top 15 UK, WUNExcellence in: (Opto)Electronics, Computer Science,Oceanography, Engineering (esp. Nautical and Aero) Acoustics Electronics and Computer Science Excellence in teaching and research Opto Electronics Nano Electronics Computer Science Web Science (and others) ~110 academics ~200 research staff ~300 PhD ~800 UG, ~350 MSc
  4. 4. Web Science at Southampton —  Web and Internet Science Group —  20 Faculty Members (subsuming Learning Societies Lab) —  Doctoral Training Centre —  Research areas include —  Open Data —  Semantic Web —  Memories for Life —  Trust, privacy and provenance —  Learning with the Web
  5. 5. Specialisms – me and myimmediate colleagues 6
  6. 6. Conceptual Structures for STEM data:linked open rich and personal
  7. 7. Conceptual structuresThinking Knowledge and andlearning representation
  8. 8. epiSTEME 5ICCS2013 Socio Politico Dimensions Nation State Universal education Equality, diversity, change
  9. 9. Conceptual Structures for STEM data:linked open rich and personal Thinking and Learning and Knowledge and Representation STEM Education Educational Processes Change-> Beliefs->Experience -> Practice ->
  10. 10. Conceptual Structures Teachers (instructors and Curriculum Designers) Researchers (Theorists, Evaluators)Learners (young, adult, CPD, independent, informal ++) Classroom Lab What? Where? Wild Why? How? Change-> Beliefs->Experience -> Practice ->
  11. 11. acknowledge
  12. 12. The world is changing…
  13. 13. The world is changing… Our beliefs, actions and behaviours are shaped by our experiencesOur beliefs actions and behaviours are shaped by our (vicarious) experiences Culture, tradition, popular culture, texts, books, cinema, TV, mass media, web
  14. 14. The WebThe most successful information architecture in history Nigel Shadbolt
  15. 15. The Webexponential growth and impact
  16. 16. Internet in India and the world
  17. 17. Perhaps 121 million of India’s 1.2 billion population on internet 2012c.f.China 38% 513mUS, 78% 245 mIn, 10% 121 m
  18. 18.
  19. 19. The two magics (Tim Berners Lee, 2006, 2007)
  20. 20. The Webexploiting emergent networks emerging new business models
  21. 21. Emergent/open content andcollective intelligence
  22. 22. The new web landscape Context Shop mobile Vehicle window texts ebay, video amazon Platform Searching citizen Information science Meme machine Digital creation apps and apps literacies blogs From rent a coder, to wikilogia, from flikr to Pinterest, itunesu to Tedxsharing, ownership, micro-charging, new models, Tripit meme machines
  23. 23. Educationally…Situated cognition, peer instruction, informal learning, digital literacies,self efficacy, social construction, co-creation – but these are not mobiles…
  24. 24. —  How many devices can you buy for the cost of a teacher —  Diversity, not instead of, but as well as? —  Example: syria wikilogia, facebook informal learning, digital literacies —  Texts, campaigns, employment? —  Models: co-creation, deduction, application memes —  Informal and accidental learning —  Blogging for reflective journals, collaborative texts via wikis We can still use flashcards, and social games, learn from texts etcBut…powerful affordances may emerge, evolve…’games’ as vehicles for learning
  25. 25. Open and linked data Text and links were not enoughVia social web “software that supports group interaction” Web 2.0, perpetual beta Consumers and producers? The read write web Machine and human readable Lightweight and heavyweight modelling
  26. 26. Open Data Big DataStudents might contribute to collecting assembling open data e.g. vocabularies geographic data, plant census, open mapping, disease and health markers opportunities for authentic activities, situated learning, reward, contribution
  27. 27. ASBOs, Dentists and TubesAnd Haitia citizen open map in two weeks… with millions of usersthe Indian context will emerge
  28. 28. Open Access: ePrints10 years old
  29. 29. EdShare – Repositories meet Web 2.0Learn from the success and methods of collections in the wild
  30. 30. Semantically Driven Web Sites (ECSWeb Site)
  31. 31. Crowd sourced open data map—  Mashup of crowd sourced data plus official data—  Amateur effort—  Useful and visible—  Interrogate the data points interactively
  32. 32. We want to climb over the walls… With apologies…. Adapted from image used by tbl, originally from the economist I think
  33. 33. OERs, OCW and MOOCsopen educational resourcesmassively open online courses
  34. 34. Potential? —  Modelling (theory to practice) —  Shared curriculum design? or —  Emerging the curriculum from resources —  Learning environments —  Multi-faceted —  Automation – assembling, aggregating —  Collaboration for community enterprise —  Standardisation? Customisation?Remembering: face to face/social may be more important
  35. 35. The challenges—  Ride on the wave of change—  Empower learners to take charge of their destinies—  Craft a future for the citizens of tomorrow embracing diversity and mastering the whole spectrum of technologies—  Shape and craft the classroom for maximum mutual benefit – the citizen and the nation state
  36. 36. Thank You JDr Su WhiteElectronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of
  37. 37. ReferencesBecher, T. The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies In Higher Education 19, 151 (1994).Berners-Lee, T. The process of designing things in a very large space: Keynote Presentation. WWW2007 (2007).Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O. The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284, 34–43 (2001).Berners-Lee, T.,Weitzner, D J., Hall, W., OHara, K., Shadbolt, N., Hendler, J., A Framework for Web Science. Foundations andTrends® in Web Science 1, 1–130 (2006).Biggs, J. Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. (Open University Press in association with The Societyfor Research into Higher Education: Buckingham, 1999).Biglan, A. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal ofApplied Psychology 57, 204–213 (1973).Biglan, A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 195–203 (1973).Cabinet Office Open Data White Paper Unleashing the Potential Unleashing the Potential Open Data White Paper. 52 (London,2011).at, L. M. UK Learning Object Metadata Core Working Draft Version 0.3 1204. (2004).Cassel, L. N., Davies, G., LeBlanc, R., Snyder, L. & Topi, H. Using a Computing Ontology as a Foundation for CurriculumDevelopment. SW-EL’08 conjunction with ITS 2008 (2008).Davis, H. C. Carr, L. A., Hey, J. M. N., Howard, Y., Millard, D. E., Morris, D., & White, S., Bootstrapping a Culture of Sharing toFacilitate Open Educational Resources. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 3, 96–109 (2010).Hall, W., Davis, H. C. & Hutchings, G. Rethinking Hypermedia the Microcosm Approach. (Kluwer: Boston, MA, 1996).IEEE Learning Standards Committee (LTSC) IEEE P1484.12 Learning Object Metadata Working Group; WG12. at, R. Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective the pedagogical meta-model behind EML. (2001).
  38. 38. Laurillard, D. Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology.(Routledge: London, 1993).Long, P & Siemens, G. Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. Educause Review 46, 31–40 (2011). .O’Reilly, T. What Is Web 2.0 – Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software last accessed June 2010. (2005).O’Reilly, T. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies 1, 17–37 (2007).Shadbolt, N. R., Gibbins, N., Glaser, H., Harris, S. & m.c. schraefel CS AKTive Space or how we stopped worrying and learned to love theSemantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19, 41–47 (2004).Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T. & Hall, W. The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 96–101 (2006).Shirky, C. A group is its own worst enemy - A speech at ETech, April, 2003. Clay Shirky’s Writings About the Internet: Economics & Culture,Media & Community, Open Source, (2003).Shotton, D., Portwin, K., Klyne, G. & Miles, A. Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article.PLoS computational biology 5, e1000361 (2009).Siemens, G. & Downes, S. Connectivism and connective knowledge: Course delivered at University of Manitoba, September to November,2008. Available from (2008).Siemens, G. & Gasavic, D. Learning and Knowledge Analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15, 1–2 (2012).Siemens, G. Connectivism : A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,2, 1–8 (2005).Siemens, G. Learning Analytics: Envisioning a Research Discipline and a Domain of Practice. Second International Conference on LearningAnalytics and Knowledge (LAK’12) 4–8 (2012).Tattersall, C. “Comparing Educational Modelling Languages on a CaseStudy: An Approach using IMS Learning Design. “Sixth InternationalConference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 1154 – 1155 (2006).Tiropanis, T, Davis, H., Millard, D., Weal, M., White, S., Wills, G., JISC - SemTech Project Report. 28 (Bristol, 2009).White, S. & Liccardi, I. Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design. Frontiers in Education Conference, 36thAnnual 5–10 (2006).doi:10.1109/FIE.2006.322553Wilson, S. Community-driven Specifications: xCrI, sword, and Leap2a. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research8, 74–86 (2010).