flex-e-bility

Tim Roberts provides a comprehensive examination of issues associated with self, peer and group assessment in e-learning environments. He concludes that 'It would seem that there are some compelling reasons for givingserous consideration to a far greater use of self, peer, and group assessment, especially within the modern world of e-learning. Any change tram tradition is always a risky business, of course, but sometimes the benefits are worth the risk' (14).

Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), INnovative assessment in higher education (pp. 64-77). London: Routledge.

Nicol and Milligan assert that 'The use of technology to support assessment practices has a long history. Yet the focus to date has largely been on developing online objective tests rather than on using technologies to address fundamental educational issues' (p.74). They describe the seven principles of good feedback practice that might help self-regulation of learners and express the view that technology has the ability to be consistent with these principles which that they should

• help clarify what good performance is
  
• facilitate the development of reflection and self-assessment in learning
• deliver high-quality information to students about their learning
• encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning
• encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem
• provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance
• provide information to teachers that can be used to help shape the teaching.

Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), INnovative assessment in higher education (pp. 64-77). London: Routledge.

Pratt and Collins provide a teaching perspectives inventory. Using a survey that takes 10-15 minutes, the inventory places respondents into one or more or five categories. Pratt and Collins propose that there are five primary perspectives: transmission; apprenticeship; developmental; nurturing; and social reform. Having completed the survey, a report is sent to your email address and it provides a useful means to reflect on one's strengths and limitations according to these categories.
The survey can be taken at http://teachingperspectives.com/html/tpi_frames.htm accessed 14 April 2008

In Flapping not flying: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions (Salmon, 2005) describes many institutional responses to e-learning implementation as ‘banal and obvious’ (Salmon, 2005, p.203). Examples include the use of powerpoint presentations and ‘minimum online presence’. Using the development of an e-learning strategy at the University of Leicestor, Salmon (2005) identifies the desirable characteristics as:

• a focus on innovative pedagogy
• concern for both core and peripheral technologies;
• a realistic approach to marketing and market development
• embeddedness of e-learning in the Universities overall aspirations
• the need to determine and make explicit the purpose of pedagogical innovation and the objectives of e-learning
• the importance of making existing values within the university
• consistency with wider national frameworks and ideas.

Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for pedagogic innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J Research in learning technology, 13(3), 201-218.

In The upside-down-world of e-learning, Gibbs and Gosper (2006) argue that commercial and technical concerns have taken precedence over pedagogical concerns in the development of e-learning systems.

In short, technological and marketplace concerns are driving e-learning, while educators remain in a subordinate position, adapting to the structures that presented with. These structures tend to invite and to conduct a narrow and restrictive view of education which leads to pedagogically weak designs for learning (Gibbs & Gosper, 2006, p.47).

Citing Bates and Poole (2003) they acknowledge the importance of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of knowledge, disciplinary norms, and how students learn only choice and use of technology for teaching and learning (Gibbs & Gosper, 2006).

In providing a critique of current learning management systems they observe that

A key enabling feature of these technologies is the tools they provide for developing, organizing and managing access to online content, but this strength tends to promote narrow pedagogies - the delivery of content- centric instruction via a transmission model of learning is a common practice. They do not readily allow for the creation of learning environments and sequences that provide opportunities for multi-user collaborative activities or the co-construction of knowledge – both representative of current learning theory. (Gibbs & Gosper, 2006, pp.47-48)

Using a set of learning principles loosely based on constructivist values the authors provide a useful table that describes the implication for learning systems. They also discuss operational and or operational issues in the learning identifying some of the major differences between universities, TAFE and schools in terms of policy priorities and culture as they relate to appropriate learning systems design.

Technical constraints, standardisation and interoperability are also discussed to conclude that

To right the upside down world at e-learning, and learning must be given the prominence it deserves when designing and developing learning technologies and systems. We need to find ways of developing e-learning technologies and systems to meet global standards, be interoperable with other systems, and is encouraged the pedagogical richness which reflects a full range of philosophical and epistemological perspectives. Fundamental to achieving this is a continuing dialogue between teachers and developers. (Gibbs & Gosper, 2006, p.52)

Gibbs, D., & Gosper, M. (2006). The upside-down-world of e-learning. Journal of learning design, 1(2), 46-54.

Constructivist instructional design models have emerged with more frequency within e-learning. These models offer guiding principles congruent with constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Although constructivist ID models share common principles, each model also offers a unique approach to e-learning based on its context of development (Farres & MacDonald, 2006, p.164).

Farres and Colla (2006) emphasise the importance of context in developing instructional materials that support constructivist learning. They propose activity theory as a framework that has the potential to provide a conceptual framework that offers a common language for discussion and description. The authors analyse two instructional design approaches (demand driven learning model and layers of negotiation model) as activity systems to demonstrate the application of activity theory.

Farres, L., & MacDonald, C. (2006). Activity theory and context: An understanding of the development of constructivist instructional design models. In A. Figueiredo & A. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context (pp. 164-181). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

Collaborating online. Learning together in community (Palloff & Pratt, 2005) is designed for faculty, designers and developers interested in using online technology to support learner collaboration. The authors acknowledge that the notion of collaboration can bring both opportunity and difficulty. Problems associated collaboratively activities are identified as little resistance to working groups, the difficulties associated with creating a equitable and productive teams, variations in participation and difficulties in assessment of group and individuals. Alternatively, collaboration assists with deeper levels of knowledge generation; promotes initiative, creativity, and critical thinking; allows students to create a shared goal for learning and forms the foundation of a learning community; addresses all learning styles and issues of culture (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, pp.6-7).

There is an assumption that the development of a community and the presence of collaboration are mutually dependent. And, that both are dependent on involvement or “social presence” (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p.7). Stages of team development are identified as normative, problem solving, disagreement or conflict, action and termination phases. That's a strong sense of community can assist groups in meeting through these phases more effectively.

It is the responsibility of the instructor to: set the stage; create the environment; model, guide and evaluate the process. These responsibilities can be assisted through clear communication regarding the reasons for collaboration, guidelines regarding participation and expectations, and assisting tends to agree on the rules of engagement. Despite all the efforts some learners may still resist working collaboratively. Instructors need to self-aware as well as monitoring the activities of the group.

Whilst this text provides useful advice on how to establish collaborative activities and stresses the importance of good planning and monitoring it fails to provide adequate guidance on what to do when things go horribly wrong. This criticism may be seen as unjustified as even experienced practitioners struggle with this issue. However, a second shortcoming of this book is that whilst difficulties associated with group assessment are acknowledged and chapter 4 is titled Assessment and evaluation of collaborative work the issue individual assessment of group work is not considered.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online. Learning together in community. San Fracisco: Jossey-Bass.

Engaged learning with emerging technologies (Wang & Kang, 2006) is an edited book of 12 chapters which addresses the question of ‘how learning, both in formal and informal setting, can be engaging or meaningful through the integral accomplishment of learning and educational technologies’. A premise that underpins all chapters is that engaged or meaningful learning occurs through learner-centered const that are consistent with the ideas of Vygotsky.

Engagement is described as a ‘blending of intellectual, affective and social relations’ (Wang & Kang, 2006, p.ix), that ‘truly engage learners are behaviourally intellectually and emotionally involved in and learning tasks’ (Wang & Kang, 2006, p.225 citing Bangert-Drawns & Pyke, 2001). ‘Engagement is a multidimensional phenomenon that varies from setting to setting: Time-on-task, self-regulated learning, intrinsically motivated involvement of integrated cognitive process, learning environment (quality of the dialogue), and production of tangible result (Wang & Kang, 2006, p.225 citing Bangert-Drowns & Pyke, 2002).

Meaningful learning is described as social, collaborative, intentional, authentic (in terms of the context and the problem) and active resulting in a cognitive residue (in the learner) in the form of a mental model These mental models take the form of ‘rich, complex, interconnected, interdependent, multi-modal representations of what someone or some group knows’ (Jonassen & Jonassen, 2006, p.1). Engaged learning is correlated with active learning where ‘learners take responsibility for their own learning … actively developing thinking/learning strategies and constantly formulating new ideas and refining them through conversational exchanges with others’ (Hung, Tan, & Koh, 2006, p.30). Authentic (problem and process) problem-based and situated learning are advocated (Hung et al., 2006) and differences between the workplace and educational institutions in respect to the availability of tools and conditions which support engaged learning are identified(Collis & Moonon, 2006)(Opperman & Specht, 2006).

The place computer supported collaborative learning technology in the classroom environment (Tan, Hung, & Scardamalia, 2006), user interface design to engage learners (Hedberg & Metros, 2006) and the use of online threaded discourse as an approach to knowledge building (Yuen, 2006) are explored. A model for placing engagement at the center of the learning transaction is proposed (Pritchard, 2006). Confusion about the use of technology in Australian schools is considered and suggestions for overcoming this confusion are provided (Romeo, 2006) with changes at the levels of the teacher, schooling environment and learning activities required if ICT enriched learner centered environments are to be created (Lee, 2006).

The term cybergogy is coined to represent ‘strategies for creating engaged learning online (Wang & Kang, 2006, p.225). This shows similarities with a model proposed by Garrison and Anderson (2003) but is not directly acknowledged.

The scope of this text is largely limited to the school environment (K-12). Although two chapters relate to workplace education there is no consideration of institutional education at the post secondary level. A strength of this book is that it begins to unpack the meaning of 'engaged learning'. A number of models and frameworks that are useful in conceptualising the use of e-learning are provided. However, the importance of such an approach is asserted rater than proven. Ultimately the general message in the book is summarised in the citation below.

For teaching to be effective, cognitive, in OT and social factors must work together. For online learning experience to be successful, students must have sufficient prior knowledge, you know device to an, and positively engaged in the learning process. In addition, they must also comfortable with the learning environment and feel a strong sense of community and social commitment. Finally, in emotive factors heavily affect students’ engagement in the learning. Thus, instructors must be sensitive to students’ emotional state and must take initiative to channel students’ emotions to the good “zones” such as the son of curiosity, design of the flow, and zone to a productive path. (Wang & Kang, 2006, p.247)

Hung, D., & Khine, M. S. (Eds.). (2006). Engaged learning with emerging technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

The central assumption of Interactions in online education. Implications for theory and practice (Juwah, 2006) is that interaction is at the centre of learning’ (p.xv). This book is designed to critically examine as well as contribute ‘to the debate on the important phenomenon of interactions in online education from the theoretical, pedagogical, design, educational and sociocultural perspectives’ (p.2). Educational interactions are categorised as mainly learner to learner, learner to tutor to and learner to content. Learning is theorized as a cyclical phenomenon of three stages: conceptualization (interacting with concepts); construction (interacting with tasks); and dialogue (interacting with people). It is claimed that ‘technological developments, sound pedagogical underpinnings and the effective use of a diverse range of media now make it possible for designers of learning to create a sophisticated modes of interaction which engage, motivate, stimulate and ‘delight’ the learner’ (p.2).

Divided into four sections: theoretical and pedagogical perspectives; design and learning environment; practice; and professional development this text provides a valuable contribution to an understanding of interaction and instructional/education design using online technology.


Juwah, C. (Ed.). (2006). Interactions in online education. Implications for theory and practice. London: Routledge.

The educational potential of e-portfolios (Stefani, Mason, & Pegler, 2007) notes a range of interpretations associated with the idea of e-portfolios and their application in an educational environment. The work provides practical advice on the implementation of e-portfolios to support teaching and learning. The authors suggest that ‘the technology is still immature; the uses are still fluctuating, and even the definitions, the concept of what an e-portfolio is, are hugely varied’ (p.9). The text provides some guidance in these matters.

Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios. Supporting personal development and reflective practice. London: Routledge.

This artticle published on the Knowledge Tree is authored by Barbara Ganley and Barbara Sawhill, teaching practitioners using new media and social software tools to build their learners’ digital and language literacies.

They posit that during the current period of change where 'everyone and everything is interconnected ... [we have] an opportunity to examine what it is we do with our learners, why we do what we do, and to question how we might be able to do it better'. The authors describe the article as an exploration of 'the classroom blogging adventures of two teachers participating in the metamorphosis of the learning experience; a shedding of the cocoon of antiquated, teacher-centric models of teaching and learning. We will demonstrate how an emergent learner-centric, community-focused teaching and learning model provides a boundary-less series of places where the teacher and the learner, the class and the community outside of the classroom, create and transform knowledge together'.

Questioning the net generation: A collaborative project in Australian higher education (Kennedy, Krause, Gray, Judd, Bennett, Maton, Dalgarno, Bishop, 2006) is a paper presented at the 2006 ASCILITE conference. It reports on a project that investigates the proposed gap betweenlearners’ and teachers’ use of technologies and identify the implications for higher education. The paper presents the rationale of the project, highlighting its critical stance on current notions of the ‘Net Generation’. The three phases of the project – Investigation, Implementation and Dissemination – are then described.