Emergent Learning, learning ecologies, web 2.0

To do


Sharpe, R., Beetham, H.,  & de Freitas, S. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking learning for a digital age:  How learners are shaping their own experiences. London: Routledge.

Siemens, G., & Cormier,  D. (2010). Peer assessment. Online course on futures in  education. Retrieved from http://edfutures.com/blogs/davecormier/accreditation-and-assessment-open-course-opening-proposal

Siemens, G. (2009). Complexity,  chaos, and emergence. Retrieved from http://docs.google.com/View?docid=anw8wkk6fjc_15cfmrctf8

Siemens, G. (2009b). Different  social networks. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2009/07/30/different-social-networks/#respond


Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 12(3), 39-59. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/883/1686


Now to the article.

A good starting pint for me – institutional anxieties about technology assisted learning, and the necessity to understand and implemet –

“e-learning can no longer be viewed as a purely  institutionally based or narrowly defined set of activities….Yet technology-enhanced  learning remains a source of concern for institutions…[and] suggests a need  to understand better how to design and support learning involving technology.  Access, especially to the internet and social software, may have increased, but  this does not mean that technology is always used to its best advantage, either  by teachers or learners. ”

In the cMOOC context, the aim is to engage educators with the technologiues they need to understand in the manner in which they need toi implement them in their own classrooms. More needs to be done here in terms of my own understanding of exactly what this means, but that’s the rough outlinbe of my project.

“Specifically, De Freitas  and Conole (2010, p. 29) write that “the main challenge lies in the real  transition to a less tutor-led approach to learning…content will not be  delivered to learners but co-constructed with them”.

Laurillard talks about this too, a framework where learners are engaged, and constructing their own learning with an instructor. A key pint here is, when is this more, or less desireable (if that’s the case) and is that related to prior knowledge, educ. experience, subject matter and the type of learning, resource availability….


“The expanded range of  teaching and learning possibilities, such as e-books, e-journals, the  incorporation of blogs and wikis into standard virtual learning environments  (VLEs), Skype, virtual conferencing, and recently Twitter (Malik, 2010), seems  to have been welcomed” there’s reasonable substantial evidence to indicate that ebooks have not been welcomed by the students themselves. Technology that connests, yes, but students are stating preferences for treeware ( they own it outright, it can;t be altered, changed, deleted or access denied subsequently, it’s easir to annotate and find notes, it;s less distracting than a connected device, it is seen to cause less fatigue and therefore support longer, deeper study, it’s easier to share notes on, and it can be resold.

In addition, Malik’s paper is based on 13 respondents – it’s a case study, and not enough to base the assertioon that ” blogs and wikis into standard virtual learning environments  (VLEs), Skype, virtual conferencing, and recently Twitter seems  to have been welcomed“. Indeed, Malik’s paper mentions elogs, forumns, Twitter, and wikis, but has no mention of ebooks, Skype, VLE’S and virtual conferencing. This appears to be quite unsupported (there’s no sense in which this is a criticis of Malik’s paper, it’s intended as a criticism of how Malik is used innappropriately).

“Most students embrace the  digitalised world of social networking (Barnes & Tynan, 2007″ It’s difficult to very this (a page number would really help here). The paper quoted does not appear to have any evidence that support’s this as the case. It may well be, but why quote a paper that has no evidence supporting your claim, as evidence that supports you claim. The Barnes and Tynan paper references other papers that make claims regarding tech owebrship, but little mention is made of 2.0 engagement, and the figures are small – 24% using their phoines for social networking, 38% for file sharing. This is a minority 9INS OME CASES A LARGE ONE), not a majority.- ”

Students were also engaging with emerging technologies, including: blogs (reading

38%, commenting 27%, maintaining 21%), file sharing (music 38%, photos 31%),social networking (24%), VOIP (19%) and web-conferencing (19%). (Kennedy 2006, p. 3)”

I think I’ll abandon this paper. I haven’t the time to check the references, and the ones I have, are not promising.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s