Learning in social networking

New learners, new pedagogies, new technologies?

Gráinne Conoleg.c.conole@open.ac.uk

Library workshop, Open UniversityLibrary: Towards 2013

7th October 2008

Focusing on the learner:Learner experience research

Focusing on the tools:Web 2.0 research

Focusing on the learner:Learner experience research

Focusing on the pedagogy:OER and learning design research

Evidence baseSurveys

Perceptions about & use of tools

InterviewsCurrent practice, design process

WorkshopsTools and

resources in use

Automatic dataand web stats

Patterns of online user behaviour

Audio/video logsUser perspectives

and reflections

Learner voicesLearning in

the digital age

Communication & networking

Concerns

BenefitsExpectations

JISC Learner Experience programme and publication ’in their own words’

Learning processes

Attitudes & approaches

Task orientated

Experiential

Cumulative Social aspects

Multi-faceted

Engaging & relevant

Netgeneration, Digital Natives.... (Oblinger, Prensky, etc.), Ecar reports, Kennedy survey, Chris Jones, Personal Inquiry project

Learner Experience ResearchSocial Network

http://elesig.ning.com/

Function Pre-2005 Web 2.0+

Text & data manipulation Word, spreadsheets Google docs

Presentation Powerpoint Slideshare, YouTube

Info seeking & handling Search engines, portlas Search engines+wikipeadia, RS feeds

Communication Email, forums, chat Blogs, Twitter, Skype

Visualisation Mindmapping tools Compendium, Cohere

Store & manage Bibliographic tools, e-journals, repositories

Social bookmarking, blogs, wikis

Conole (2008), Stepping over the edge... in Lee and McLoughlin

Co-evolution of tools and practice

Shift from Information to Communication

Synergies between Web 2.0 and modern educational thinking

Change +ve impact -ve impact

Free resources Specialised niche use Literacy skills

Ubiquitous accessTechnology as core tool for

learningNarrower, but

deeper digital divide

Many communication channels

Increased peer dialogue Fragmentation

Free tools Personalisation Lack of institutional control

Media rich representations New forms of sense making Lack of digital literacy skills

Instant & multiple distribution

Information repurposed to meet different needs

No centralised repository of knowledge

User generated contentVariety and acknowledging

individual contributionsQuality assurance issues

Social profilingKnowledge sharing and

community buildInappropriate descriptions

Pros and cons

Conole (2008), Stepping over the edge... in Lee and McLoughlin

Implications

Strategy & policy

Roles & structures

Changing learning & teaching paradigms

Staff & learner skills set

Web 2.0User generated content,

openness, distributed knowledge, collective value

Good learningPersonalised, experiential, collaborative, reflective, cumulative, reflective

Conole, (2008), `research methodological issues with researching the learner voice, in Hin & Subramaniam

Key questions

• Students and teachers - personalised environment of tools vs. institutional tools?

• Implications of immersive 3D-worlds such as SecondLife?

• Students increasingly digital – demands on institutions?

• Digital divide smaller, but deeper for those who can’t or won’t use technologies?

• What is the evidence that the students can use these technologies for academic purposes?

• Many argue that to ‘get’ web 2.0 you need to do it - is there a widening chasm within our institutional of those who ‘get’ it and those who don’t?

Issues• Transformation not as great as hoped

• Echoes of past failures... Electronic page turning, unused repositories of good practice

• Danger of technological determinism

• Sustainability beyond funding

• Changing practice is complex

• New metaphors and meaning making needed

Education (individualistic, objective) vs. Web 2.0 (social, subjective)

Strangeness vs. familiarity

Slow vs. fast time

Free loaders vs. reuse

Expert view vs. mutual negotiation

Participation vs. acquisition

Knowledge as static vs. participation

Web 2.0/Education

dichotomies

Jones et al. (2008) Networked Learning Conference

Making sense of it all

• Can we articulate a “web 2.0 pedagogy”?

• What schema might be useful?

• How can such schema be used?

• Do we need new metaphors to describe new interactions of learning + technology?

Schema

Guiding design

MappingDeconstructing

Validating

Thinking &reflection

Communication & interaction

Experience & activity

Evidence &demonstration

Four inter-connected facets of learning

Dyke, Conole et al., (2007)

Can we use this as a framework for mapping

different forms of Web 2.0 pedagogies?

Principles Thinking & reflection

Experience & activity

Conversation & interaction

Evidence & demonstration

Reflect on experience and

show understanding

Frequent interactive exercises & feedback

Provides support for independent

learning

Supports collaborative

activities

Conole, 2008, New Schema for mapping pedagogies and technologies, Ariadne article

Aggregation of learning

achievements

Mapping learning activities

against goals

OpenLearn SociaLearn

Different set of principles

Different mapping to pedagogies

Blog as reflective diary

Mapping activities to pedagogy

Individual

Social

Passive Active

Information

Experience

Conole, Dyke et al. (2004), related framework Warburton (2007)

Blog collective class resource

Reflection

Structured guidance

Accumulate

Peer support

Dynamic to do lists

e-PortfoliosSocial

brokerage

Mapping skillsto resources

& tasks

Navigation paths

Structure dialogueDynamic

recommendations

Expert ratings

Putting it all together - OLNetA vision for a participatory network of producers, users and researchers of

OERs...

Design

Guidelines on selection

OER repository

Learning environment

Monitoringtools

Design cycle Use

Select

Evaluate

Design tools

Design repository

Data representation tools

Data analysis tools

OL-Net network

People/networks

Tools, methods, approaches

Meta-analysis/synthesis

Designs, evaluations, case studies

Changing practice

Representing & visualizing

Aggregating & meaning making

Finding & sharing

New specialised tools

23

CompendiumLD

Cohere

Cloudworks

CloudworksFind and share designs

Web 2.0 principles: tagging, profiles, user generated

Clouds

Stormclouds

Resourcebank

Tools

People

Learner navigation and sense-making

Function Specialised tools Generic tools

Design CompendiumLD Mindmaps, authoring tools

Select OpenLearn Cloudworks

Google, Library catalogues, User generated content

(Slideshare, Flickr, Youtube)

Use

Institutional Learning Environments (e.g. Moodle),

Knowledge forum

Personal learning environments

(blogs, wikis, social bookmarking,

to do lists, social networks)

Evaluate “Learnanalytics” tool Generic research tools(SPSS, NVIVO)

References

• Conole, G. (2008), New schema for mapping pedagogies and technologies, http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue56/conole/

• Conole, G. (accepted), Research methodological issues with researching the learner voice, in Handbook of Research on New Media Literacy at the K-12 Level: issues and challenges, L. T. W. Hin and R. Subramaniam (Eds), IGI Global: Hershey, PA

• Conole, G. (accepted), Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education in M. Lee and C. McLouglin (forthcoming), Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching, ICI Global: Hersey, PA