Discussion Area for INLT Post-IGC Workshop paper on e-learning
read paper - eLearning at the interface
For the discussion to work we need people to engage with it. We hope therefore that you will plan to visit the Web site every few days during the discussion period and contribute your views. Above all we should aim for the discussion to be stimulating and enjoyable.
In making your comments, please phrase the majority of them as discussion points, expressing viewpoints, and raising questions to encourage other colleagues to respond. These comments should be addressed to all the delegates and not just the authors. You may also like to make some suggestions to the authors about additional points and references that they might consider including.
Authors are encouraged to join in the debate of their own papers by responding to issues raised and clarifying their own views.
To join the discussion simply send your comments by email to Mike Sanders (masanders@plymouth.ac.uk) who will add them to the appropriate area of this webpage. Here are some guidelines when submitting comments.
- If responding to a comment please remember to indicate which comment you are responding to in your email (e.g. you may wish to use "Re: subject")
- If you are posting a new comment please give your comment a title or subject
- We will not display your email address with your comments unless you indicate in your email that you are happy for us to do so
Many thanks for your input
Comments / Threads So Far
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Karl Donert)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Juliana Mansvelt)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Audrey Mohan)
- Comment on e-learning paper - in relation to Audrey's comments (from Juliana Mansvelt)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from James Derounian)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Susan Hardwick)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Teresa Connolly)
- Comment on e-learning paper (from Brian Chalkley)
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Karl Donert ,Liverpool Hope University, UK
Date: 11th June 2006
Posting:
A really interesting start - could one of the aims be to look at how Geography could be enhanced through elearning? What does elearnig bring that F2F and for example fieldwork does not bring?
elearning is a confused and confusing term, so a clear definition ought to be made to avoid confusion. The danger would be that the paper focuses on e-teaching rather than e-elearning. The student perspective is essential. Not to focus on the difficulties of academic faculty!
An analysis of what tools elearning offers might be of value. For example, the use of discussion and debate to encourage critical thinking. collaborative writing, communication across frontiers, tolerance for others opinions, citizenship and responsibility for your own llearning. finally, Geography is about communicating our understanding of the human-environmant interface spatially. How can elearning skills encourage this? I think a deeper debate on the benefits of neing an elearner would be interesting.
The idea of flexibility and open-ended courses however is hard to envisage in Geography as we are a very content-rich subject area. My research has shown that few Geographers are engaging in real elearning. Most are just doing computer-enhanced teaching.
Is elearning a critical component of future Geography professionals? And why? Perhaps cases from other professions can be used to illustrate what we ought to be doing (Nursing, Medical, Pharmacy, Law, Engineering etc. etc.)
I think you could look at the HERODOT Torun publication where there are several case studies of what is happening in Europe and the US. Donert K and Charnzynski P (2005), Changing Geogrphies in higher education.
My paper at the CGE-IGU proceedings might also be useful.
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Juliana Mansvelt ,Massey University, NZ (j.r.mansvelt@massey.ac.nz)
Date: 12th June 2006
Posting:
The paper raises some really interesting points, and one which Karl has also commented on, is to reflect on the difference between e-teaching and e-learning.
Certainly our institution has encouraged e-learning, but often the emphasis does seem to be on the mechanics of e-teaching. The two are obviously connected, as much of the hesitance of staff to become involved in e-learning appears to revolve around the need to invest time in developing technical skills to initiate and run web courses. There has also been some debate around whether it is appropriate to provide skilled personnel/ and or financial support to employ individuals to mount courses, leaving academics to spend time on concentrating on developing e-curriculums in relation to learning objectives and outcomes, and managing their courses once online.
While institutions such as my own promote e-learning as the way in which our courses should inevitably be moving, I also think it is critical to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning versus other learning mediums. I have only been involved in web-based teaching for a couple of years using my web-mounted course in conjunction with paper based study guides for extramural (distance) student and face-to face students, so have limited experience of this. During this time I have endeavoured to use the web to extend/supplement the range of learning experiences for the student without duplicating course material on line for example by experimented with assessment, by posting reading summaries online so that students can benefit from others' readings for different sections of the course. I have found also the web useful for providing students with choice (for example students may download a reflective learning workbook - in which they have tasks or exercises and personal reflections- working through it on their computers, or utilising the paper copy copy) but I still remain concerned that it can exclude some types of learners (eg. many of our distance students may be less computer literate, have older computers, not have broadband and some don't even possess computers). While on-line discussion groups provide opportunity for group learning, networking and interaction, if students are required to come on-line and perform tasks at specific times this can also restrict the flexibility of being a distance learner and provide a less positive experience of learning. Thus I do believe it would be useful to establish an inventory of ideas and to think what sorts of learning and what types of learning experiences and assessments can encourage active (deep learning) in web-based formats, and how this might complement or compare with other models of learning and delivery. Establishing how students experience web-courses and the web itself as a learning environment, and how this relates to different styles of learning (aural, visual, kinesthetic) would seem to be critical to this.
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Audrey Mohan ,Texas State University, USA
Date: 16th June 2006
Posting:
I would like to lend a student’s perspective to e-learning paper. I am currently a PhD student in geography education. I have an extensive background in e-learning as a student: 1 master’s class, an entire teacher certification online, and 2 PhD classes. I also use the online software (Blackboard) with my face-2-face class as a supplement to the lecture.
A previous comment about the distinction between e-learning v. e-teaching sparked my interest in examining my past experiences. As a student, I am on the e-learning side, but I feel the two cannot be separated. Faculty difficulties in e-teaching inherently affect the student’s e-learning. Lack of skill/motivation towards online teaching translates into less interaction in the class, and therefore a lower level of learning will take place. I have experienced a wide range of online teaching styles throughout the last several years (2002-2006) and my learning experience was very dependent upon the faculty’s skill in teaching “online”. Explicit expectations put forth by the faculty guide the students through the course. If faculty are not motivated to be interactive in the online format, then students won’t be either. In several classes I have taken, the instructor was essentially absent from the course- little participation, guidance, or teaching (in the form of discussion and powerpoint presentations). On the other hand, some faculty have been very demanding- with constant discussions and group projects. One instructor even required students to develop a teaching website and also mail videotapes of our classroom teaching so that our teaching could be critiqued. So my point here is that faculty e-teaching cannot be separated from the student e-learning- doing so would eliminate half the picture of e-learning.
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper - in relation to Audrey's comments
From: Juliana Mansvelt ,Massey University, NZ (j.r.mansvelt@massey.ac.nz)
Date: 20th June 2006
Posting:
I was interested in your insights as student and teacher involved in web based courses. When I completed my certificate in e-learning through this institution, two of the core modules made you learn as a student experiencing Web-CT. Trying to find my way around, and managing the smallest online tasks was definitely a challenge! I'm glad they made us learn this way, it certainly gave us insights into the atrributes of e-learning, but also into potential frustrations for learners, particularly those unfamiliar with this environment.
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: James Derounian ,University of Gloucestershire, UK
Date: 21st June 2006
Posting:
Hi Kenny - I think the title needs to accurately reflect exactly/the nub of the paper - might be good to write down a sentence on what the paper intends....from which a clear title should come!?
I have some papers on e-learning from Galway conference on 'T&L to reflect student diversity in HE'...call by to collect Kenny!
'betamax' of e-learning! Nice allusion....but equally suggest importance of small scale, ltd risk 'piloting' in order to test approaches in a controlled & ltd risk way....rather than going for 'big bang' provision.
The ref is:
DeLind L and Link T (2004) Place as the Nexus of a Sustainable Future: A Course for All of Us in Barlett PF and Chase GW (editors) Sustainability on campus: stories and strategies for change, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press
Thanks for the acknowledgement Kenny!
J
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Susan Hardwick, University of Oregon , USA
Date: 22nd June 2006
Posting:
This looks like it's going to emerge into a timely and very interesting paper. I especially like the way the authors have gone much more deeply into this topic than have the majority of prior contributions - by grounding their ideas in the larger body of conceptual literature in our discipline (e.g; the innovative way they discussed concepts like hierarchical diffusion etc.) and beyond. Well done!
Differentiating between learning and teaching and learners and teachers is key - and you've effectively laid the groundwork for expanding this discussion. I especially appreciated hearing from an E-learning Ph.D. student in Texas and I really think it's essential to discuss the student perspective more expansively in the final paper.
As we continue to develop two hybrid courses here at the University of Oregon that are providing students with a combination of 'seat time' and online instruction - I'll look forward to seeing more 'real world' examples of E-learning in geography education at the college and university level discussed in your article. This will encourage us all to push on with the development and dissemination of new courses and programs online.
So sorry I am unable to attend the meetings in Brisbane as I had hoped,
Susan
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Teresa Connolly, Kingston University, UK
Date: 24th June 2006
Posting:
Being honest now (and probably thick too) wasn’t entirely clear what the overall message was? eLearning strong theme; need for change to embrace the net generation; exploration of different learning delivery models?
For title – how about ‘Expanding the ‘e’ in eLearning’? The three e’s:
education
eLearning
everywhere?
employment?
In relation to ‘managing social networks’ (near bottom of page 1) - BUT certain institutions e.g. OU are embracing this by developing open learning projects, making materials available to Joe Public as well as looking to grow new communities of learning. Check out http://oci.open.ac.uk/. Its quite enlightening regarding a fresh approach to exploring/developing knowledge based communities. Also acknowledges that this net generation learn in a different way to us!
Near top of page 2 – “Graff’s (2003) idea that academics get excited about their research at the interface of their disciplines, while teaching their students at the core. In many ways it is no surprise when only the brightest manage to ‘get it’.” - Er, doesn’t delivery and learning styles have an influence here too???
Under Aims – bullet point 2 – instead of ‘interfaces’, how about ‘blends’?
And a third bullet – Embracing the net generation’s need/expectations of e everything?
The ‘super-iPod idea reminds me of Jack Dangermond, CEO of ESRI stating “soon there’ll be a Cray computer as a wrist watch” at the Palm Springs conference in the last century. ..
Under Distance/Blended/Flexible Learning – “friends in the chat areas” - Gilly Salmon’s 5 step eModdie course always starts with socialisation and participants often ask for more opportunities to socialise
Near bottom of page 4, mention of OU initiatives - Careful OU are still developing - not gone live yet!!
Last para. P. 4 mention of work/life balance - Life: eHouses are de rigeur and organisations sponsor families to live in them to test out the high tech gadgets. Can’t remember where I’ve read this (magazine probably!)
And same para. – mention of ‘how we prepare students’ Also informed by A level teaching – students not able to cope with current tchg methods as they are so different in schools/colleges e.g. no essays, fill in the blank. Ian Kinchin at Kings has written about this:
Kinchin, I.M. (2005) The changing philosophy underlying secondary school science teaching in England: implications for teaching in higher education. Education Today, 55(3): 16 – 23.
Kinchin, I.M. (2005) Preparing students for study in higher education. Education Today, 55(2): 29 – 32.
He gave a seminar here recently – fascinating and shocking at the same time!!
Mention of High street travel agent closures - BA are closing all their High St travel stores as we speak.
Top of page 5 models of ‘business’ 1st bullet point change ‘will adopt’ to ‘are adopting’
3rd Bullet point – “extending the sphere of influence of an institution” - but only with eLearning or franchising or local contacts to maintain QA procedures
Opportunities – 3rd bullet point – underrepresented forms of learning - how?
End of first paragraph on p. 7 - the idea that the model of eLearning doesn’t suit the modern world - You could quote OU approach here: the repository and depository. Set space to collect and donate materials. Re-use, share and improve.
P 8 Models of eLearning - Check out EPIC’s (http://www.epic.co.uk/) website – many white papers to consider in this area. “Ear learning” for examples!! M learning too.
Under Successful eLEarning Strategies – you could add:
Accessible technology
‘Cool’ technology – the iPod must have street cred argument
Teresa
Subject: Comment on e-learning paper
From: Brian Chalkley, University of Plymouth, UK
Date: 29th June 2006
Posting:
- Its good to see a paper on e learning included in the INLT series – it somehow seems especially appropriate for an international group such as ours.
- The aims as currently set out are perhaps rather broad and ambitious and could possibly be more focused on Geography. Indeed quite a lot of the existing text operates at a general level and could be more targeted at our discipline.
- How will this paper take advantage of the international potential of the INLT group?