Tuesday, March 04, 2008
E-Learning: flapping not fyling: banal and obvious
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.
The upside-down-world of e-learning
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)
