Research questions

Kevin Walker

2006/09/27 22:50

table of contents - start of thread

How can learning content be transformed by adaptive systems that can take account
of the social and cultural contexts of learners? 

What are the social and cultural affordances and constraints for the embedding of
digital technologies in learning and teaching? (D2.1.6 p6)

How might digital technologies afford pluralistic possibilities [?] in
epistemology (what might be learned and how) and equity (by whom can it be
learned and when)?

In what ways can digital technologies be deployed to foster more open and
accessible routes for learners throughout their lives?

Can we design methodologies for exploring more productive learning, which is
more successful and efficient in achieving its intended outcomes? [Isn't this a very
broad question...?]

again, 'hows' without 'whats' or 'whys'

Yishay Mor

2006/10/01 03:57

table of contents - start of thread

Implicitly, the text suggests that we value:

* Respect for learners' diverse social and cultural background.
* Access for all, inclussion across abilities, learning styles, location and life style.
* Eficciency and availablity of learning.

but I haven't seen these mentioned explicitly as our goals, nor seen any justification. To play devil's advocate, diversity can conflict with cohesion, inclussion with excelence, and efficiency with depth and creativity. We need to construct our agenda top-down.

responses

1. Diana Laurillard, 2006/10/05 01:17 - Re: again, 'hows' without 'whats' or 'whys'

Re: again, 'hows' without 'whats' or 'whys'

Diana Laurillard

2006/10/05 01:17

table of contents - start of thread - in reply to

Or you could argue that these are political values that inform the education policy and strategy
that it is not in our gift to decide.
But we can show how to use technology to help achieve the political goals that society decides it
wants.
We can make the case that technology can support inclusion. We can equally well make the case
that it can support excellence. And we can also make the case that it can support excellence for
all.
I like to argue that technology can support 'every learner achieving their learning potential', rather
than trying to choose between the values you suggest here.

>Implicitly, the text suggests that we value:
>
>* Respect for learners' diverse social and cultural background.
>* Access for all, inclussion across abilities, learning styles, location and life style.
>* Eficciency and availablity of learning.
>
>but I haven't seen these mentioned explicitly as our goals, nor seen any justification. To play
devil's advocate, diversity can conflict with cohesion, inclussion with excelence, and efficiency with
depth and creativity. We need to construct our agenda top-down.

responses

1. Yishay Mor, 2006/10/05 10:54 - Re: again, 'hows' without 'whats' or 'whys'

Re: again, 'hows' without 'whats' or 'whys'

Yishay Mor

2006/10/05 10:54

table of contents - start of thread - in reply to

then perhaps:
"How can technology be used to support every learner achieving their learning potential?"

should be on the list?

affordances include constraints

Yishay Mor

2006/10/01 04:00

table of contents - start of thread

'affordance' is a problem word, as we all know. If we use it, we need to be careful. one can talk about 'potentials and constraints', but an object's affordances are what it makes possible, as a value-neutral description.

learning and teaching

Vincent Jonker

2006/10/01 08:29

table of contents - start of thread

a research program on 'technology enhanced learning' should spend enough time on the role of the teaching by the teacher (and peers) and the process of 'negotion of meaning'

Making the change happen? We, the teachers.

Denis Bouhineau

2006/10/09 14:00

table of contents - start of thread

OK, for the network we are researcher, and that's the reason why we belong to the network. But, that's not all. Most of us are teacher too. So:
* did we have changed our practice?
+++ (yes, we did) why, how, benefits, colleagues (do we convince them to change)?
--- (no, we didn't) why not?
* what could be the global effect of a change of the teachers of our community?

Denis B.
(Teacher in Computer Science)

responses

1. Denis Bouhineau, 2006/10/09 14:16 - Re: Making the change happen? We, the teachers.

Re: Making the change happen? We, the teachers.

Denis Bouhineau

2006/10/09 14:16

table of contents - start of thread - in reply to

Yes I use computer with my students,
Yes my students use computer to work,
but TEL? I wouldn't says so for 90%.
Yes I'm pro TEL.

I've tried to change my practice (and use TEL):
* most of the times my colleagues (not in KAL) were cons, I didn't succeed convincing them, and the final choice was for paper-pencil env.
* sometimes, I've succeed.
Some times, I don't even try.

I do not know why it is easy or difficult to change the way we teach (individually or within a teacher's group). We change very often one thing or an other in our teaching and we almost never teach twice the same thing. But sometimes change are almost impossible (feel unsecured with regard to certain TEL, technical reasons, time reasons, group reason, ...)
It would be interesting to work on that aspect: why and why not, ... do teachers freely change their practice.

Denis B.
(Teacher in Computer Science)

--- Version 2 pubished ---

Yishay Mor

2006/10/11 13:48

table of contents - start of thread

This comment is a marker to seperate between the disscussion on version 1 and that on version 2. The comments on version 1 are retained for reference below.

--- Version 3 published ---

Diana Laurillard

2006/11/03 17:02

table of contents - start of thread

The update of the hyper-document is published today for discussion in the Webinar on Monday 6
November at 10.00 GMT and 11.00 CET.

Two topics

Paul A. Kirschner

2006/11/06 08:59

table of contents - start of thread

I mis two topics that might be of interest to a future research programme. The first is research on awareness. What I mean is researh that will contribute to and enhance current knowledge and understandings of effective learning processes by exploring how ambient, particularly context-aware technologies for mobile use
can enhance collaborative learning by offering multiple and richer opportunities for social interaction. The research would particularly focus on how context-aware technology can enhance group awareness (representing the group members engaged in the various activities) and offer graphical and spatial information of group members’ learning goals, strategies and activities and how this affects individuals’ and groups’ learning processes. An associated, and equally important aim would be to gain knowledge of how collaborative processes are to be supported and how they are adopted by learners in different European cultures.
The second deals with social Web2.0 software and applications for community forming and building. See, for example, the following blog:
http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/2005/09/29/approaching-a-definition-of-web-2-0/

How does TEL support the role of teaching, by the teacher, and by peers?

Claudio Dondi

2006/11/24 12:50

table of contents - start of thread

By asking their advice
by involving them
by giving them a stakeholders role

Away from technology as the focus in research

Tim Neumann

2006/12/03 16:52

table of contents - start of thread

Diana Laurillard indicated that this section so far did not change that much despite a number of comments.

Jan Derry remarked that all of these questions are about "how can technology do X, Y and Z", but she is concerned about how much more do we need to understand about the nature of knowledge or the nature of context if we are to design technologies to be effective in learning. One of the frustrating things over the many years is that everybody tends towards the former questions without reaching a level of destillation that we would want to achieve. As a research question, this could be phrased along the lines of "what aspects of knowledge and context do we need to understand better" - in relation to technology. Also, what maps of historical and personal relationships do we have in mind when engaging in multinational and multidisciplinary research communities.

Diana Laurillard agreed that the TEL question always gets addressed from the technology viewpoint, so framing the question from a different angle, such as how can we a better understanding of learning, communities, etc., challenges the *technology* and enables us to use the technology better or more effectively.

Paul Davey raised the cultural aspects inherent in the running and management of multinational/multidisciplinary teams that would also need to be adressed. It almost would need a kind of meta-research to learn how people interact in different countries and cultures, especially in a network such as Kaleidoscope.

Diana Laurillard took that point forward and highlighted that understanding such aspects challenge that understanding what enables you to get beyond your cultural boundaries. The input of anthropologists and sociologists is therefore needed. We also do not have a robust enough theory of pedagogy to cope with the challenge of the technology that is there.

Agreement from Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld.

Diana Laurillard summarised that this angle (driving research from other viewpoints - not technological functionality as the focus) should probably brought in in all of the sections.

Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld highlighted that we should also put in a couple of concrete research questions for the future.

Sustainability

Tim Neumann

2006/12/03 17:00

table of contents - start of thread

Comments from the Webinar on 06 Nov 2006:

Paul Davey raised the issue of sustainability.

Lydia Montandon thought this fits in well in this section.

Diana Laurillard could see a sustainability statement in section 6 instead. This is to be discussed at the December meeting.

Notes from the Convergence Workshop

Allison Walker

2006/12/08 15:15

table of contents - start of thread

Following are some notes taken during Diana's presentation at the Convergence Workshop:

Sally Barnes: outcomes of some Kal sustainaibility discussions.

Mike Sharples: visionary programme. need some european grand challenges. Some exist in UK and other places. We are in the best place to determine what they are; they we can lobby our own countries, and then have them put on the agenda. He's inovlved in one lifelong learning. Relate these back to themes that we're involved in. We are being too reactive, perhaps, with FP7. This way we can set the European agenda.

DL: set 2 or 3 additional grand challenges and have people vote.

Barbara Wasson: Bologna Process and impact for mobility and higher learning.