Online distance learning Practical applications for personalised learning Andy McGarry.
CDE personalised learning
-
Upload
james-ballard -
Category
Education
-
view
82 -
download
0
description
Transcript of CDE personalised learning
Personalised LearningA Framework for e-Learning
James Ballard
CDE Lunchtime Session
Overview
• Background: Personalisation Agenda
• Discussion: Ownership
• A Pedagogy for Personalisation
• A Framework for e-Learning
• What Next?
Personalisation
‘The logic of education systems should be reversed so that it is the system that conforms to the learner, rather than the learner to the system. This is the essence of personalisation’.
Personalisation and Digital Technologies
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Personalisation_report.pdf
Ford
Any colour as long as it’s black
McDonalds
Anything you like as long as it’s on
the menu
Amazon
We have a recommendation
for you
Consumer Personalisation
Personalisation as Choice
Choice of Provider
(social institution)
Choice of Learning
Opportunity
(learning experienc
e)‘Mass customisation’ gives users have a degree of choice over standardised modules.
‘Personalised timing’ allows individual timings of a user’s trip through a standard curriculum.
Contradictions?
Applying market consumerism to education may compromise the principles of equity on which it is based
Values such as self-motivation, self-regulation, and educational progress, are not equally distributed among cultures
Disadvantaged learners are least likely to seek help
Poorly structured choice may actively reduce the scope for the collective action
Personalisation & e-Learning
‘e-learning is ideally centred on the set of student tasks’- Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2000
Learning activities can be classified by who is principally
directing the activity:Self-directed
Peer-directedTeacher-directed
- Biggs, 2003
Ownership
Developing empowering cultures requires skill, thought and a commitment to valuing and exploring processes,not just focusing on the ‘product’- Haigh, 1999
Attachment (belonging)
Containment (safety)
Communication (openness)
Involvement (citizenship)
Agency (participation)
Ownership introduces the understanding of both product and process and explores the extent to which ownership can be transferred.
Ownership Matrix
Workshop Activity (15mins)
Where does a volcano get its power? In groups of 2-3 design a personalised learning activity for this topic.
Adaptive
• Modelling• Simulation
Assimilative
• Listening• Reading• Viewing
Communicative
• Debating• Discussing• Presenting
Experiential
• Applying• Experiencing• Exploring• Investigating• Mimicking• Performing• Practising
Information handling
• Analysing• Classifying• Gathering• Manipulating• Ordering• Selecting
Productive
• Composing• Creating• Critiquing• Drawing• Producing• Re-mixing• Synthesising• Writing
Conole and Fill, 2004
21st Century Learning?
‘It is a world in which knowing what and how to learn the next thing is as important as what has already been learnt.’
Jackson and Ward, 2004
Personalisation
Personalised e-Learning
Professional
Social
National
Institutional
Personal
VLEPortfolio
PLP
Assessment
2009 – Discourse based framework
Portal
Implications
Data Integration
•Data integration and user interaction with choice must be accessible;
•The framework should seek to optimise needs-satisfaction rather than offer choice for its own sake;
Collaborati
on
•The framework must facilitate communication and collaboration, not for their own sake but in the context of learning dialogues
Independence
•The framework must allow appropriate expression of spontaneous and scientific concepts with both seen as aspects of the same developmental process
Assessment
•The framework should emphasise the importance of the self and capable peer as an assessment parameter.
Process and Ownership
Complexity Matrix - Process Customisation Matrix - Ownership
Stacey, 2002 Gilmore and Pine, 1997
Assessing learners’ achievement and learning needs
Portfolio
Formative
Dynamic
Summative
Intelligent Measurement (Generation 4)
Continuous Measurement (Generation 3)
Adaptive Testing
(Generation 2)
Computerised Testing
(Generation 1)
Martin, 2008
E-Assessment PyramidAssessment Approaches
Expanding the FrameworkVLE
Supports instructional delivery with rational process monitored against well defined learning outcomes. Dynamic assessment identifies learning needs and transparent customisation allows the teacher to differentiate activities to meet these needs and account for different learning styles.
Individual Learning Plan (ILP)
Formative assessment tool providing scaffolding to heighten learner awareness. Dialogue creates shared vision for future development which can only be judged in relation to that vision. Adaptive customisation affords learners standard tools (e.g. target setting, progress review, etc.) to create a unique learning path.
E-Assessment
Summative assessment requires objective progress against standardised external criteria. This process is political with outcomes requiring negotiation to ensure they are shared by the learner. Customisation is cosmetic where the same product may be presented in different ways but is not fundamentally altered.
E-Portfolio
A collaborative space where learners participate in the design stage exploring ideas involving complex processes representing creativity, reflection, and new modes of operating. The portfolio assessment framework is useful for transdisciplinary projects such as enquiry based learning
A Framework for e-Learning
Tool Process(Decision Making)
Ownership(Customisation)
Assessment
VLE Rational Transparent Dynamic
E-PLP Judgemental Adaptive Formative
E-Assessment Political Cosmetic Summative
E-Portofolio Complex Collaborative Portfolio
A Framework for e-Learning
• Impulses for change do not arise from privilege but from underprivilege - the learner voice may increasingly become a platform for transformationCommunicative
Action
• Online learning may hold the potential to transform the current monolithic education system to one based on individual student needsDisruptive
Innovation
Transformative?
Conclusion
• Personalised learning may provide the context for assessing the capabilities of e-learning systems
• The framework does not proscribe particular software but instead positions technology as a cultural tool representative of complex processes