Delimiting+the+Prospect+of+Openness+An+Examination+of+Initial+Student+Approaches+to+E-Learning

=John Roder [|"Delimiting the Prospect of Openness: An Examination of Initial Student Approaches to E-Learning"]=

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Vol. 12.2 February - 2011

=Abstract.=

When converting from a paper-based distance mode to an online mode of teaching, certain expectations arise that students may engage not only in the development of extended research activity but that the quality of discussion and thinking will change. With access to open-ended discussion within the online forum the opportunity is afforded to students to share ideas and in turn develop their shared knowledge, a facility denied to them when in the paper distance mode. However, in a recent study conducted in New Zealand, it was shown that despite having access to online forums students moving to an online platform refrained from participation in this social exchange. A possible explanation for this indifference was thought to be the students realizing that the online exchange made no impact on their assessment. Hence, the collaborative rhetoric of Web 2.0 made little impact when the summative evaluation remained unchanged from previous paper-based assessment. This paper reports on the introduction of online learning at a private tertiary college in New Zealand and describes the response of students who found difficulty in reconciling a community of learners and openness within what was perceived as an evaluation that remained individualistic and competitive in nature.

=Argument.=

The introduction of Web 2.0 and open-ended learning presents a formidable array of challenges to traditional teaching. When changing from a paper-based correspondence mode to an online mode, the scope of the educational institution has many important implications that they must pay close attention to. At present (early 21st century,) students seem to have little concept of a learning community.

When creating a course that utilizes 2.0, it's imperative that the instructor tell the students initially that their grade and performance will be judged based on their participation in online group work as opposed to the narrow scope of their own work, this way students pay attention to one another, learn together, grow together, and receive multiple perspectives on respective course material.

=Key Passages.= "This paper arose from a two-year longitudinal study of staff and students as they changed from a correspondence, paper-based course to an online provision." (104)

"I think it would be a good thing. I think it's all very easy (as it's not part of the assessment) not to do it. To sit back, and take all that other people have said and think, "Yes I'll use that," and not actually put your input into it. I think if it was part of the assessment that you would then look at it in a different light and think, "Well actually I need to contribute, this is part of my assessment, and I need to think about what I'm going to help the others with." (Student, 2009) (113)

"It is always easier to look in hindsight and make suggestions on how to improve the effectiveness of such a big undertaking as switching from class-based and correspondence distance learning to an online learning mode. Many more factors come into play beyond the logistics of making a new system work. Students in an online mode can have access to a far wider learning experience, particularly those who previously studied by traditional correspondence learning. The ease of communications and the combined knowledge about learning through peer group interaction has meant that the concept of what it is to learn and develop your own knowledge base has changed dramatically." (116)

"Despite the potential richness of the learning environment arid the educational opportunities that online discussion can provide, the difficulty remains of assessment practices not being in alignment with the online context. The logic of the strategic learner defeats sharing and engagement practices when the assessment scheme is summative in nature. If the assessment were processual and the learning outcomes valued the process of learning, then further engagement by the strategic learner would be validated. The current alignment between learning tasks, experience, conditions, and assessment criteria that are summative removes participation in a learning community to the periphery of the learning process, reinforcing a strategic approach for both tutor and student." (118)

=Works Cited.=

Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for

online instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. London: Blackwell.

Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning process really measure? A theoretical

review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 3-19.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK:

Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 507-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Retrieved from

http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-ascurriculum/

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downes, S. (2010). Stephen's Web: A series of questions. Retrieved from htto://www.downes.ca/cWi-bin/laae.cgi•ost=5270 1

Driscoll. M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dysthe, 0. (2007). Dialogic postgraduate supervision - characteristics, constraints and affordances. University of Bergen, Norway. Retrieved from http://cc.msnscache.comicache.aspx?q=dysthe+2007+dialogic+postgraduate&d=75921804192776&mkt--en-NZ&setlang--en-NZ&w=8300lcbd,c5d12701

Entwhistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational

psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester UK: John Wiley.

Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of research and projects. Bristol, UK: FutureLab. 119Delimiting the ProVpeet of Openness: An Exandntoion of Iniial StudentApproaches to E-Learning

Naughton. Roder, and Smeed Goodyear, P., & Yang, El. (2008). Patterns and pattern languages in educational desig&. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies (pp. 167-187). Hershey PA: Information Science Reference.

Gulati, S. (2004, April). Constructivism and emerging online learning pedagogy: A discussion for formal to acknowledge and promote the informal Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Universities Association of Continuing Education, University of Glamorgan.

Illich, 1. (1971/2000). Deschooling society. St. Paul MN: Marion Boyars.

Kress, G., & Pachler, N. (2007, October). Thinking about the 'm' in mobile learning. mlearn

2007, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.mleam2007.org/

Lankshear, C. (2003). Wide open spaces: Wilds, ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 36-48.

Retrieved from httn://www.educause.edu/ir/librarv/odf.ermO452.odf

LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. NM (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marton, F., & Sf1j6, T. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome as a

function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 46, 115-127.

McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 1-11.

O'Reilley, T. (2009). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved from http://elearnsnace.orglArticles/svstemic imRact.htm

Roder, J., & Hunt, T. (2009). Web 2.0 in the curriculum of the future: Exploring the educational potential of new development in Web-based digital tools. In C. M. RubieDavies & C. Rawlinson (Eds.), Challenging thinking about teaching and learning.

New York: Nova Science Publications.

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.orgLArticles/svstemic impact.ht