Metaphors for describing the digital world.

These little things crop up all over the place. When is a Metaphor not a metaphor?

(Well my other half thinks that the ‘network’ metaphor for technology is not a metaphor as the internet is a ‘network’ and it’s too closely related.)

There is some interesting stuff out there on this, some of which is a bit out there but you may find interesting to broaden the context (if you have the time).

Making sense of the web

This is a paper that looks at research on conceptions of internet.

“The way we describe something can affect the way we perceive it and way we perceive it can affect the way we use it”

The key message here is about finding out how users describe the online environment, and why they describe it this way.

“Metaphors from novices often bear a sense of confusion, complexity or frustration while experts are much more anchored in reality.”

Metaphorik “What can Internet metaphors reveal about the changing perception of the Internet?” Is an interesting look at metaphors and in summary how internet is now part of the world rather than different world

Six metaphors This is a left-field entry, with an interesting take on looking at the metaphors we could use for the internet. (Shank 2001) Thought-provoking stuff!

 “To our knowledge, none of these metaphors have ever been used before to describe the Internet or Internet Culture”

Albatross  “We talk about the soaring potential of the Internet to teaching and learning. The future promises to be a graceful one.  Bringing it down to earth, apply in to the classroom and we’re witness to the potent structure stumbling along its way in the present.”

When developing our learning theories we should look at where they have to land.

Chiaroscuro (use and interplay of light and dark) “…out of the darkness at the edge where the network of connections emerges the Internet is taking on its new form. Between the time we access a web page and the time we finish reading it, someone somewhere in the world has uploaded yet another web page that will change the nature of what we have just read.”

When teaching we are reminded to give up our search for absolutes. We should seek the yin to the yang of each and every one of our theories and findings on teaching and learning using technology.

Diadem -   “If the Internet is a diadem, then it is a crown designed by M.C. Escher and crafted by Moebius.  It is a crowning adornment of culture but there is no centerpiece, no privileged spot……as the Internet has grown, and as various branches of Internet Culture have taken form, then the formlessness of the Internet has oscillated into branches of hierarchical structure and order almost inevitably…..There are sick people, and crazy people, and misguided people, and stupid people, and hate-filled people out there making web pages and chatting and posting messages that mimic the trappings of civilized thought”

“When teaching and learning we must define which people can wear the crown and how to find the and we must make it clear to our young learners that the diadem they reach for is poised on the top of thorns.”

Saprogen (organism living upon nonliving organic matter and capable of causing it’s transformation)

“The Internet is spreading its influence nourished by the decaying methods of didactic information….although shaped by literacy, the Internet manifests the "other" of literate behavior”

“Staying current requires the actions of teachers and learners to recognize and become familiar with the saprogenic nature of the Internet.  It is a simple concept with complex consequences.  It is scalable, malleable and all very adaptable.”

Shibboleth (something that reveals group identity).

“The Internet is a shibbolethic sea, a medium where use virtually signifies access, class, cultural identity, and profession. On one level it is a way to transform impressions into stereotypes; it used to be that you could tell what someone was like by their record collection, but now all you have to do is look at their bookmarks. And yet, the concept of the shibboleth goes well beyond the idea of just places and passwords. Its very intonation is whispered, speaking of private access to those inner circles characterized not only by privilege but also by committed belief.”

“The distinction between teacher and student based on authority over content is blurred and those that are part of a learning community cannot belong in the same way as before. It begs the question, what is a student or a teacher?”

Zebra

“The most interesting things about the zebra are those things that it is not.  It is not a type of horse, even though it looks like one. Why is it, even though we realize that the zebra is not a horse, do we persist in thinking of it as a horse? It is not white with black stripes.  It is black, with white markings.  How is it that these white markings, which accentuate the zebra, take over and define its basic color as a form of markings?”

“The zebra is our metaphorical marker on the persistence of appearance and tradition, and how these factors can interfere with understanding what it is that we see right before our eyes…education must accept what technology is and not what it’s thoughts to be.”

Shank ends by telling us that he is leaving us with a sense of incompleteness.

“ We need to leave the reader with a sense of incompleteness in our resolution of the metaphors…. you need to work with the tensions in meaning created by our lack of resolution.  How have we not understood, or misunderstood, Internet Culture from your vantage point?”

Summary

Metaphors also come with their own conceptions and perceptions. When using them we need to know what are learners and teachers get from them – do we need to be explicit about them? But does that explicitness negate the mystery and personal exploration of the metaphor? Do we need to construct our metaphor, as with the learning environment to guide people.

For me some clear points stand out:

• How we describe something may affect how it is used
• Understanding personal metaphors may help us understand motivations and feelings about technology
• When developing learning theories we need to be grounded
• We need to recognise the changing nature of the internet and what that means
• We need to accept what technology is and what it can do

Web 2.0: Education 2.0 Other reading

Engeström, J. (2008) ‘Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-centered sociality’ [online], Zengstrom Blog, http://routes.open.ac.uk/ ixbin/ hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=routes&_IXSPFX_=g&submit-button=summary&%24+with+res_id+is+res19995

'object centred sociability.' 'social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object'

It's the objects that mediate the ties between people (very activity theory!) and not just the people.

A quick interesting blog post, that helps to reflect back on my earlier musings about participation. Being there isn't the same as participating. There needs to be something binding it together.

 Grosseck, G. (2009) 'To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?' Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1. , pp. 478-482, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087

"Specific technologies and services contributing in higher education include blogs, microblogs, wikis, syndication of content through RSS, tag-based folksonomies, social bookmarking, mediasharing, social networking sites and other social software artifacts."

" The reason these social technologies work is because teachers can foster collaborative work not only among their own students, but with colleagues, students, and community members from around the world. It is quite clear that the Universities need to act to ensure that it makes best use of such tools. Still, careful thinking and research are needed in order to find the best way to leverage these emerging tools to boost our teaching and learning activity."

Grosseck gives some great example of how 2.0 technologies can be used in HE, and a summary of the pros and cons. Grosseck also suggests that new technologies need to be introduced to the curriculum properly -ie. teacher must prove they work first. Grosseck however points to learners being an explicit part of the process - partners in the act of learning.

Price, K. (2006). Web 2.0 and education: What it means for us all. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian Computers in Education Conference, 2-4 October, Cairns, Australia.

• provision of software tools is often in response to demand from teachers (based on their understanding of the potential in educational setting)
• education tends to pick up technology after it has reached maturity else where.
• education systems are cautious in adopting new technologies (finance, risk, security/privacy/protection of students)
• unlikely that education system can compete in developing web applications for themselves
• young people are already using technologies

" A difficult situation has developed. We have a range of new and potentially valuable services, but education systems are not likely to be able to respond rapidly enough to provide them"

2 responses

1. ignore or prohibit use of web 2.0 applications until schools can provide them in a controlled manner.
2. look at ways to capitalise on the informal learning elements they could afford

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:

Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for

learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

(Another Australian paper.)

• social software enables choice - learners make decisions on what suits them
• social - constructivism - effective learning is conversational in nature
• social software can be integrated into scaffolding - multiple forms of support
• active participation - affordance of social software
• active participation, learner self-direction and personal meaning construction - learning to learn

"However, in order for these goals to come to fruition, there is a need for careful

planning, as well as developing a detailed understanding of the dynamics of Web 2.0 and social software tools and their affordances. The limitations of the medium and the importance of risk management cannot be ignored."

Lim, Wei-Ying, Hyo-Jeong So, and Seng-Chee Tan. 2010. “eLearning 2.0 and New Literacies: Are Social Practices Lagging Behind?,” Interactive Learning Environments 18(3): 203-218.

• web 2.0 extremely effective in supporting online community building
• Web 2.0 applications are easy to create, combine, publish and share, thus empowering  people to participate as content producers
• integrating Web 2.0 technologies necessitates the fundamental reconsideration of the culture of higher education institutions for teaching and learning (HE is not Informal learning
• could you lose the character of 2.0 by embedding into institutions?
• New literacy mindsets - evolved from acquisition of skills for reading and writing, into multiplicity of illiteracies as community based social practices. " Production and productivity no longer hinges on a single party but increasingly leverages the participation and intelligence of the collective
• " From both learners’ and teachers’ perspectives, the use of social software may be perceived as disruptive technology due to the clash between working alone versus working collaboratively and between fixed teaching frameworks versus open learning opportunities (Anderson, 2007; Thompson, 2007)."
• In the emerging Web 2.0 eLearning paradigm, the focus of learning shifts from content-centric to learner-centric, and from what we are learning to how we are learning.
• Transitory issues - must consider dimensions - cultural belief(what learners and teachers believe about learning, identities, power); practice(learning activities - from receiving to dialectic);socio-techno-spatial(what influences the interactions - changing from end product to process); interaction with outside world

Collis B, Moonen J. Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives. Educ Media Int. 2008;45(2):93–106.

" Openness is a main differentiator of the current uses of these processes compared to their earlier manifestations. The processes represent new ways of making, sharing and consuming digital documents where traditional gatekeepers of quality are being overlooked by mass user opinion."

"it can, unfortunately, be predicted that the empowerment offered by Web 2.0 tools and processes will

not be able to overcome the inertia in higher education institutions when it comes to the mainstream uptake of new views of learning facilitated by new technologies."

• primarily being used to support logistical processes (De Boer, 2004)
• 'filing cabinet' attributes

Perceptions of quality

relates to:

• mobility from country to country(skills/learning frameworks)
• acceptability to employers and accreditation agencies
• international recognition of research
• learning resources, curricula or experts/reputations
• for students - understandability and clarity

"For Web 2.0 tools and processes to become embedded in mainstream practice in higher education, they must be seen as bringing added quality to instructional processes."

AM - Quality from an acquisition perspective places an emphasis on how effectively pre-selected learning materials are prepared or selected, transmitted, explained, and clarified. The burden for this quality rests partly on the textbook and study resources selected to support acquisition and partly on the teaching skill

of the instructor.

(Sfard tells us to align to PM metaphor before considering web 2.0 tools)

Need to focus on instructional quality, institutional quality and technology quality

Moving to learner control.(instructional quality)

• Zurita (2006) - approach did not fit with learner expectations. 'students perception of quality was different from those who designed the course'
• more learner led - more scaffolding, more work for instructors
• “the unwillingness of highly goal-directed students to engage with what was seen as a frivolous activity not directly related to assessment”.Cann et al (2206)

Institutional quality

accreditation frameworks, expectations from external stakeholders, quality concerns relating to learning resources and experiences endorsed by the institution, and issues relating to intellectual property.

Technology quality

possible strain on IT infrastructure and support services

IT policies may be barrier

Other interesting resources

Learning 2.0

Redecker, C. et al. (2009), Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations in education and training in Europe, Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education

Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in

Higher Education. York: Higher Education Academy.

Week 17 activities

Noble

• administration against faculty
• removal of intellectual property rights
• automation and digital mills
• monopoly over knowledge
• paying more and getting less

Hara and Kling

• learner frustrations
• lack of understanding between student and teachers
• caution in promoting virtues of online learning
• it cannot be wholly the instructors fault

Cuban

• main teaching vehicle still the lecture
• adoption of technology by few - but use of technology personally to make faculty lives easier
• changes too fast paced to be in policies

Brabazon

• teachers biggest losers
• administration relying on good will of teachers
• students expectations of a 24/7 culture/ laziness of learning
• did we forget to tell students how to learn?

Do you think these issues are representative of the broader picture of technology adoption in universities?

I think that the issues raised resonate with those of any adoption or change in the status quo. There will be the few who quickly adopt, and then the majority who lag behind. The difficulty in a university setting is that the faculty are often part of a larger machine. And often it is those outside of the influence, or the early adopters that who are pushing for change. It is therefore of no surprise that those that shout the loudest get the best breaks.

I was reminded of the interview I did for my second TMA in H807. Here I interviewed a small company who had broken away from the publishing industry to utilise what the internet could offer. Because they created a small organisation, they could be innovative and adapt to new technology a lot faster than larger organisations because they were small. At the latest web browsers, they could integrate and utilise them fairly fast.

What issues would you personally identify as problems associated with the use of digital and networked technologies in education (either in your practice or more generally)?

Within my own context, we are working with volunteers that will own their own technology. This brings different problems. We have to accept that if we are using technology for learning, it has to be an option , among others, and not the only form of learning. We have to use programmes that are easy to use, and give support to volunteers in using them. We also need to up skill our trainers and training mangers so they are confident in using them. We know from research that training managers are wary of online learning because they have less control over it.

So there are similar issues - access, acceptance, quality, training trainers and learners

What are your personal thoughts on the relationship between technologies and educational reform? (For example, is technology itself a cause of reform or an instrument used to encourage reform?)

Is technology a cause of reform? It may be. Traditionally reform seems to come about through the need of levelling - of reducing the inequalities across poverty, gender, class. One could say that there is a levelling of technology needed and thus Technology drives reform. This could also link to the, long standing push for education to provide citizens that are useful to society. (Victorian times schools were designed to teach useful topics to society - grammar schools formed to teach grammar and bookkeeping so people could go into business and Brabazon picked this up in the education reforms in Australia). There does seem to be evidence that technology can be an instrument in changing education, because of the approaches to learning it afford.

Reform however, is ultimately driven by people, whether individuals or organisations.

What influence do you think the producers and developers of technologies and services have on university decisions about introducing new technologies?

Producers and developers play a huge part in this. If they worked alongside or even within universities then a huge step would be taken to adopting technology.  Maybe it would be more beneficial to include them as members of staff than to buy in the services?

Activity 3

Does the evidence regarding online tuition in Price et al.’s paper fit your own experience of online communication in general and your own experience of online tuition on H800?

The big question in this for me, is not so much does it fit my experience, but more about peoples conceptions. We I think back to my university days, I think that I saw my tutor about four times in three years. I had no idea what the role of a tutor was.

However if I think on some of these examples of how other see tutors – pastoral care, enthusiasm, leadership – it evokes memories of g my teachers in school. Form tutors were much better at this connection between enthusiasm, professionalism and pastoral care.

What I love about MAODE is that each tutor brings different insights and experiences with them. Each is challenging and supportive in their own way. Mostly they have been challenging in one way or another and the biggest plus for me has been the excellent feedback that I get from work. It is positively challenging and focused on ways that I can improve my work and reflection. Naturally, this may be different because we are on a Masters course of study.

Do you agree with Price et al. that online tuition is a pastoral activity and not a purely academic activity?

Yes. I think that this is an important aspect within online/distance education because you don’t see people. It’s harder to know what is going on. I always let my tutor know, if I am going away, or having time out, and try to let others know on the forums too. But that two way communication doesn’t always exist. Therefore not all students push, and tutors need to do more pulling.

Do you agree that the absence of what the authors call ‘paralinguistic cues’ in an online environment can limit the effectiveness of online tuition?

No. I think that Price et al’s premise that more work is needed on helping to teach both teachers and students how to communicate online is more pertinent. I think, and my experience is that both forums and conferencing and email can be just as emotive as face to face, and sometimes more so because of the physical distance between people. I think that we can become comfortable with communicating online and develop behaviours that allow us to pick up alternative ‘cues’. In fact I think that I communicate more in an online environment that I do in face to face environments.

Richardson - Activity one

1.      Do you think the innovations described in Weeks 8/9 as ‘learning design’ would induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of the students?

I would firstly dispute what ‘desirable’ approaches are. I am not sure that I would agree that a surface approach is bad and a deep approach is good, which seemed to be the subtext in the article. It really does depend on what is being learnt, how and why. There are times when memorisation is important.(and to be fair to Richardson, he is talking about University students)

At my supervision today we were also discussing how some people are concrete learners and some prefer abstract or problem solving approaches. This may be because of their environment or disciplines or personalities or it may be because they don’t have to think that way in their day to day life. For me, this means adopting a variety of approaches in the learning I design, because the audience are so varied. (hence why I like the hybrid model in the design tools).

Richardson seems to place some importance on the interplay between students and teachers, and so working with teachers to use learning design tools, could be very beneficial in them thinking about how they interact and the roles that they play. Back in Block 1 we looked at a number of different commentaries about how different pedagogies might need different approaches. However, as to whether this would help change learners? Most learners would probably not need to know about learning design – and often are with teachers for a finite time. Can a teacher in that time change perceptions?

I think this is why it’s interesting that all the research tools ask students about their whole experience. It’s very hard to separate the good from the bad when you do this. We all remember our great teachers and our bad teachers – so if asked about our overall experience, it may be very middle of the road.

2.      Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.

Sfard’s discussions about acquisition, participation and identity change noted that one couldn’t package them up – that learning at times is a mixture all of them. If you investigate more about Marton’s discussions on deep and surface learning, you find that he also, doesn’t suggest that the two are independent of each other. However Marton’s approach is more about motivation – the why, whereas Sfard emphasised that the metaphors were the mechanisms for learning – the how.

There are also some links in all of these papers back to Salamon, and thinking about the way we perceive things. Although we were thinking about mediums – this also applies to students understandings of learning and teachers understanding of teachers. We don’t know what we don’t know.

Conole et als mapping tool to pedagogy does reflect Martons ideas of deep and surface – in separating the Active and passive, information and experience, and Individual and Social – although this has more dimensions.

3.Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in my paper fit your own experience as a learner?

As an undergraduate (and in my a-levels) I think I adopted all of these approaches. There were some things that I just had to memorise because I wanted to remember names and dates in order to create some structure in my exams. There were some topics I loved and some that didn’t really engage me – so I chose which approach I would adopt – and that tends to bear out in my results.

Surface learning – tends to be adopted when I need to know something or have been made to do something. I need to ‘suss out’ how much of my time I give to it. It may not be because I am not interested – it may also be because I have so many other things going on, that I don’t have time to give it the attention it deserves. There are also times when you have to be passive.

Deep learning – what interests me now is how much deeper many things have become. So often even in the passive learning environments, I will try and find some level that ties other things together – to find some meaning. The question as to whether this comes from age and experience is a difficult one.

Strategic learning – who hasn’t?! Often if there is a test at the end of a course – I just ask if I can do it first?!! I think it’s also worth noting that some things are designed that way. The theory part of Prince2 Project management is like a logic puzzle game. You need to know some things, but you need to know the right things to be able to answer the questions. For that I mostly did the practice papers over and over, so that the terms and environment sunk in. I did very well in that exam, but I am not sure that I would say my theoretical knowledge of the subject was on parr!

I also find the approach of surveys interesting. I hate filling in surveys as I find that the general tick boxes and happy faces don’t allow me room for manoeuvre. Do any of us ever fill them in correctly? Often there is a fear that this is another test that I need to get right. Again, today in supervision we talked about the culture of feedback, and that in the UK, people find it difficult to give honest feedback. This is true of other cultures too. Can we tryst the feedback we get from students? I think I would find some masters students more reliable than say GSCE students.

The idea of phenomenography is interesting to me, as I am always keen to understand what people think and why – where their ideas come from. I still have a niggling doubt about it as a research method, as it needs experts to exert their understanding and interpretation. Most people really don’t spend a lot of time understanding why they think the way they think.

4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?

"Learning is the process of defining and redefining my knowledge skills and behaviours to the internal and external world around me. It helps me to understand who I am, what I do and how and why I do it. It can change the way I think or feel or do. It is a continual cycle"

My initial definition in week 3 probably leans mostly towards number 5 on the Saljo scale, however I hold my opinion that each of these happen at different times and for different reasons, and not necessarily through a hierarchy. There is some merit in the Bloom approach of needing to develop certain levels of understanding to move to the next ‘level’, but it is very much based on context, and I would be careful of labeling this as a step by step process.

5.  If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in my paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?

I have a vague recollection of several theories from H807 about teacher development that echo this. I think that for some, the more confidence and experience they get helps them to develop different approaches to teaching. It’s is surely human nature that you learn a new skill and want to show off a bit. I like facilitating. I don’t like stand in front of people and telling them stuff. I like to help people come to their own understand, as mentioned in my blog earlier. How I teach depends on my audience – but at some point it always slips into a facilitative process!

I think it’s also useful to remember some of the things already mentioned about teacher experience. Mason (2012) in the module resources challenged us with the fact that if teachers are the only resource, then the teaching will be teacher centred. And Weisman (2001) explained that the approach that teacher takes often depends on the institution, it’s approach and flexibility and the power relationships within and Travers and Decker (1999) Indeed, teachers may not have an option of how they teach. Our tutor has already mentioned that some activities can’t be changed, as it would give a different learning scenario, or may affect the learning that takes place. Are we rigid in both on and off line environments?

6.Do you find my argument convincing?

I am not 100% sure what the argument was. Yes, research has given us lots of interesting things to ponder about how student and teachers may think about what they do within learning. It may also give us some idea about practical things we can do.

I do agree that we need to think more about the interplay between student and teacher. I think that I may believe a lot in activity theory – through living it – although I may not quite understand it when I see it on a page.

The methods by which Richardson tries to convince me are somewhat lacking. I am not quite confident in the purely quantative approach. I am not sure what the qualitative would be – but I do a lot of research on how our learners find their learning, and we try and integrate qualitative - from learners, trainers and managers with quantative data. This is never easy and it always has missing areas. But that, along with our experience in the field, and combined knowledge and gut feelings – tend to help to build a fairly accurate picture.

Week 2 Further reading....technology and learning

This week the further reading called to me, more than acticity 2c (which was labelled as optional if I did 2b)

Instructional Technology:Pedagogy for the Future

An interesting discourse in this paper about the role of technology, as related to pedagogies that already exit. In fact the paper points out that some pedagogies have already changed and we can use technology to enhance them in different ways.

Affordances come into play here (thank you H807!).Technology can afford a number of things.

Point one – the use of specific technology should match the learning approach.Computer assisted instruction, possibly some audio and some video can afford the presentation of facts and skills, drills and practice and maybe beneficial for the behaviorist approach, where learning is teacher centred. The constructivist approach, where the teacher and learner share responsibility for active learning, and where learning is also about developing metacognitive skills can benefit from technology that increases interactions and enables the learner to get more hands on. The use of the internet, email, audio and video can help to develop the metacognitive skills. The internet and conferencing technology have greater interaction and high reliance on the learner engagement – it is more learner centred – and thus more appropriate for the humanist approach, where the acquisition of knowledge is followed by the individual personalism of what that means in the context of oneself, others understanding and the world.

Internet and conferencing technology would be inappropriate for learners who demand more of a teachers time and some technology may push learners outside of their comfort zone, with too much focus on independent study. However audio only may be frustrating for the learner centred approach as there is no interaction.

Point 2 – Age and development does matter: the use of technology should match conceptual appraoch. Here the paper dicusses the fact that young people develop their ability to learn and  until about 12, they cope best with concrete examples when being presenting with information. IT could be used to excellent effect to do this. As ideas become more abstract, and the learners and their thinking mature, the use of conferencing, video and internet can increase the personal  interactionand shared experiences. Once again it is about teaching at an appropriate level. Too high a level of abstraction will frustrate those who need concrete examples. Those who need abstract examples, will be bored with concrete examples.

Some interesting things to ponder moving forward.

Radical Pedagogy.

I loved reading this paper – it was very enaging. This paper presents many of the views about the good and the bad of using technology in education and asks us to consider the approach. It remind us that traditionally pedagogical appraoches involve the teacher as the knowledge giver and the student as receiver.

Key points : Technology and pedgogy are interrelated – “no school can be better than it’s teachers”

The paranoia and promise are explored: zealots promising that technology will transform educationa nd critics warning of the ‘development of a generation of antisocial nerds’, or concerns that without technology society will fall behind. (I am sure these arguments surfaced in the paper about developing countries.) Technology can be presented as a trojan horse (reducing costs, improving teaching, providing evidence of excellence, helping upskill graduate) and there is a need to critical engage with with.

We are provided with an intersting insight from Postman:

“In introducing the personal computer to the classroom, we shall be breaking a four hundred year old truce between the gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word. Orality stresses group learning, cooperation, and a sense of social responsibility….”

 Are these not the same arguments that are being proposed in the opposite way for social learning using technology?!!

The paper makes it clear that what happens in the classroom is the responsibility, and later talks of the need for teachers to be rewarded for being good teachers, and the importance of upskilling them. (Again echoes from the developing countries paper).

“It is not enough for educators to provide students with a map of the information highway. There are critical questions to consider about highways in general, and how humans travel through their environment”

• Learning requires active participation of the student
• People learn in different ways at different rates
• Learning is both an individual and a group process

 Instructional technology: pedagogy for the future, The Journal, December 1997 (last accessed 16^th February 2012).

Travers, A. and Decker, E. (1999) New technology and critical pedagogy, Radical Pedagogy (last accessed 16^th February 2012).