flex-e-bility

Published in the Knowledge Tree. An E-Journal for Learning Innovation this article argues that previous attempts to survey the use of technology in vocational education and training in Australia have been based on broad descriptors such as online learning and e-learning. These lack definitional clarity rendering the results open to wide interpretation. The article reports on the development, administration and analysis of a survey to determine the frequency of use of 21 functionalities by 116 vocational education and training teachers. As might be expected, some functionalities are used more frequently than others. The article explores the patterns of use frequency and proposes that the criteria of newness, complexity, compatibility and locus of control are influential in determining how frequently the respondents use e-learning functionalities.

Access at http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition-9/surveying-online-technology-a-matter-of-design-a-peer-reviewed-article-by-ian-robertson/

The terms Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0 have emerged in the lexicon of those who promote the use of technology to support teaching and learning.

It seems to me that Web 2.0 and E-learning 2.0 are related. That is, if there is a new version of the web then there must be a new version of e-learning.

However, there are both proponents and critics of the idea of a second version (generation) of the web. So one would expect the a second version of e-learning might also be a contested idea.

Wikipedia provides a definition of Web 2.0 as follows.

With its allusion to the version numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, Web 2.0 was a trendy way to indicate an improved form of the World Wide Web, and the term has been in occasional use for several years. [1]

As used by its proponents, the phrase refers to one or more of the following:

* The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a computing platform serving web applications to end users
* A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
* A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
* A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
* A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
* The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0, accesseed 21 May 2006)

So, if there is an E-learning 2.0 then what is it? How is it differentiated from e-learning 1.0?

In any case, if there is an e-learning 2.0 one would hope that it supports excellence in teaching and learning practice.

The Flexible Learning Toolbox project has recently launched a repository of learning objects which trainers can download for free use with their learners.

Learning objects are small ‘chunks’ of Toolboxes which have been ‘disaggregated’ or segmented for easy download and delivery. 1200 learning objects supporting a range of industries including Automotive, Security, Infection control and Panel Beating amongst others are currently available in the repository.

For more details go to:
http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/

Gardner described eight intelligences

1. Verbal linguistic
2. Logical methematical
3. Visual spacial
4. Bodily-kinaesthetic
5. Musical rhythmic
6. Interpersonal
7. Intrapersonal
8. Naturalist

Is this idea useful in vocational education?
How many do we generally use in teaching?
Can this idea contribute to the notion of flex-e-bility?

Based on experiences associated with 10 years working with the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project across the USA Sanholtz (1997) provides a model to describe 'a road map for teachers [school] just beginning to use technology in their classrooms'(p.34).

The model has five stages: entry, adoption, adaption, appropriation and invention.

Entry: Technology is used in combination to support existing practices. Setting up and overcoming technical problems associated with the technology. With an increased focus on instructional matters they move to the next phase.

Adoption:Teachers become more concerned with how technology can be integrated into their practice. The use of technology is interspersed between existing practices.

Adaptation: Whilst existing practices remain dominant the use of new technology becomes integrated into existing practice.

Appropriation: Characterised by a 'a change in personal attitude towards technology' (p.43), appropriation is described as 'less a phase in instructional evolution and more a milstone' (p.42). Technology is used 'effortlessly as a tool to accomplish real work' (p.42).

Invention: In this stage teachers experiment with 'new instructional patterns and ways of relating to students and to other teachers' (p.44).

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology. Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.