Session 1: Theoretical Frameworks and Representations (Gráinne Conole)
Cloud created by:
2 October 2011
Chair: Gráinne Conole
Rapporteurs: Gemma Corbalan Perez, Marcelo Maina
This cloud is a nexus for the "Theoretical Frameworks and Representations" session at ASLD 2011. It includes the papers accepted for that session, and notes of the discussion around them.
- Daniel Burgos: IMS Learning Design next move: extensions and improvements on personalisa-tion and interoperability
- John Cook: Two Cases of Design Research that Explore How Mobile Devices and Social Media Mediate ‘Informal Learning’ to Drive the Debate: Can Learning Design Hack it?
- Donatella Persico and Francesca Pozzi: SUSTAINING LEARNING DESIGN AND PEDAGOGICAL PLANNING IN CSCL
- Luis Pablo Prieto, Yannis Dimitriadis and Sara Villagrá-Sobrin: Representing learning design and classroom orchestration through atomic patterns
- Susan Mckenney: Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation
This paper reviews some foundational issues that we believe will affect the progress of CSCL over the next ten years. In particular, we examine the terms technology, affordance, and infrastructure and we propose a relational approach to their use in CSCL. Following a consideration of networks, space, and trust as conditions of productive learning, we propose an indirect approach to design in CSCL. The work supporting this theoretical paper is based on the outcomes of two European networks: E-QUEL, a network investigating e-quality in e-learning; and Kaleidoscope, a European Union Framework 6 Network of Excellence. In arguing for a relational understanding of affordance, infrastructure, and technology we also argue for a focus on what we describe as mesolevel activity. Overall this paper does not aim to be comprehensive or summative in its review of the state of the art in CSCL, but rather to provide a view of the issues currently facing CSCL from a European perspective.
14:28 on 11 October 2011
Some indentified clusters
PROBLEMS and REASONS
1- Why hasn’t IMD LD worked?, not real perceived need, too technical, disconnected the real practice, lack of visual tools
2- Methodology and evaluation. ADDIE does not translate into LD- DBR better responds to LD (practice must be taken into account for any solution)
3- Support and training: what king of teacher training? Not limited to “courses”. Tools needed for training. A “believe” LD approach. How we share practice.
4- How to develop design expertise: ZPI, early adopters and techies. Design is part of teaching practice, teachers learn from practice and from others.
5- Represent practice (IMD LD not familiar to teachers).
6- How learning design can be represented. How can we use representation to support teachers design. Pedagogical patterns and pedagogical planners.
7- Designing in different context.
8- To what extent design taking into account the need for learner autonomy. LD granularity and avoiding “overscripting”.
Marcelo Fabián Maina
15:37 on 13 October 2011