1. Designing for Learning in an Open World:
Pedagogies, Social Models for
Blended learning
Terry Anderson, PhD
Professor, Athabasca University
2. Values
• We can (and must) continuously improve the
quality, effectiveness, appeal, cost and time
efficiency of the learning experience.
• Student control and freedom is integral to 21st
century life-long education and learning.
• Continuing education opportunity is a basic
human right.
3. Athabasca University,
Alberta, Canada
* Athabasca University
34,000 students, 700 courses
100% distance education
Graduate and
Undergraduate programs
Master & Doctorate
Distance Education
Only USA Regionally
Accredited University
in Canada
*Athabasca
University
6. The Social Aggregation
makes a Difference
• Dron, J., & Anderson, T.
(in press). Teaching
crowds: the role of
social media in distance
learningAthabasca
University Press.
• Available open access
Spring 2014
12. Outline
• Generations of Online Education Pedagogy
– Cognitive Behaviourist
– Social Constructivist
– Connectivist
• SOCIAL FORMS TO MATCH PEDAGOGY
• Beyond the LMS
– Athabasca Landing boutique social network
13. Three Generations of
Online Learning Pedagogy
1. Behaviourist/Cognitive –
2. Social Constructivist –
3. Connectivist
Anderson, T., &Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of
distance education pedagogy.
IRRODL, 12(3), 80-97
14. Gagne’s Events of Instruction (1965)
1. Gain learners' attention
2. Inform learner of objectives
3. Stimulate recall of previous information
4. Present stimulus material
5. Provide learner guidance
6. Elicit performance
7. Provide Feedback
8. Assess performance
9. Enhance transfer opportunities
Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
15. Enhanced by the “cognitive
revolution”
• Chunking
• Cognitive Load
• Working Memory
• Multiple Representations
• Split-attention effect
• Variability Effect
• Multi-media effect
– (Sorden, 2005)
“learning as acquiring and using conceptual and cognitive structures”
Greeno, Collins and Resnick, 1996
16. Technologies of Ist generation
• CAI, text books, One way Lectures, Video and
audio broadcast with advancements??
27. 1st Gen Cognitive Behavioural
Pedagogy Summary
• Scalable
• Few requirements, or opportunities, for social
learning
• Works most efficiently with individual learning
models
• Effective and efficient for some types of
learning
• Have we taught learners to succeed with this
type of learning?
28. 28
2nd Generation
Constructivist Pedagogy
• Group Orientated
• Membership and exclusion, closed
• Not scalable - max 50 students/course
• Classrooms - at a distance or on campus
• Hierarchies of control
• Focus on collaboration and shared purpose
group
29. 2nd Generation - Constructivist
• Online Learning Current model – continued
strong growth in US and globally
• Major employer of adjuncts
32% of US higher education students now take at least one course
30. Constructivist Learning in Groups
• Long history of research
and study
• Established sets of tools
– Classrooms
– Learning Management
Systems (LMS)
– Synchronous (chat, video
& net conferencing)
– Email, wikis, blogs
• Need to develop face to
face, mediated and
blended group learning
skills
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.
31. The Power of Synchronous
• Immediacy
• Pacing
• Comfort level for student and teachers, but
DON’T fall into classroom lectures
• Social Modeling
38. • McLuhan “We shape our tools and thereafter
our tools shape us”
• “When physical spaces for learning go online
(distributed, non-hierarchical, networked,
digital), new, more effective pedagogies
emerge”. George Siemens
39. 3rd generation Connective Pedagogies
• Heutagogy– Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000).
From Andragogy to Heutagogy.
• Chaos Theory
• Activity Theory &Actor Network Theory (ANT)
– “systemic interactions of people and the objects
that they use in their interactions.”
40. Connectivism
• “connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is
distributed across a network of connections,
and therefore that learning consists of the
ability to construct and traverse those
networks.” Stephen Downes 2007
42. Connectivist Knowledge
• Is created by linking to appropriate people and
objects
• May be created and stored in non human devices
• Is as much about capacity as current competence
• Assumes the ubiquitous Internet
• Is emergent
George Siemens
43. Disruptions of Connectivism
• Demands net proficiency and
presence of students and
teachers
• Openness is scary
• New roles for teachers and
students
• Artifact ownership,
persistence
• Too manic for some
44. The Social Aggregation makes a
Difference
• Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (in
press). Teaching crowds:
the role of social media in
distance learning
Athabasca University Press.
• Available open access
Spring 2014
50. Sets
• Aggregation of all people sharing a particular
interest, area.
• Set of all graduates of X
• Usually curated with social involvement
limited to votes, comments, links
• Possibility of developing into networks or
groups.
66. Conclusion:
• the best part of Blended Learning – is eclectic
allowing student exploration of their own
learning needs and gifts.
• Need to matching pedagogy, technology and
the learning outcomes
• Empowerment, lifelong learning and smart
(not more) work for teachers
69. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem
by Anderson (2003)
• Thesis 1. Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported
as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–
teacher; student–student; student–content) is at a high
level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or
even eliminated, without degrading the educational
experience.
• Thesis 2. High levels of more than one of these three
modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational
experience, although these experiences may not be as
cost- or time effective as less interactive learning
sequences.
http://equivalencytheorem.info/ 69
71. Our identity (“digital” identity?)
• Do we create it?
• Is it created and/or structured for us?
Authentic Identity Fragments (Kimmons &
Veletsianos, under review)
Intentional web presence
Lowenthal& Dunlap (2012)
George Velestranos
72. • “If Google cannot find a faculty scholar's work
or the work of the scholar's colleagues,
department, or institution, then it is
essentially irrelevant — even nonexistent —
because people will not find, read, apply, or
build on the work if they cannot locate it via a
quick Google searchLowenthal & Dunlap
(2012)
Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2012). Intentional Web Presence: 10 SEO
Strategies Every Academic Needs to Know. Educause.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-
seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know.
74. Pereira, R., Baranauskas, M. C. C., &da Silva, S. R. P. (2013). Social Software and Educational
Technology: Informal, Formal and Technical Values. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 4-
14. http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_1/2.pdf
Notas del editor
A learning technology, by definition, is an orchestration of technologies, necessarily including pedagogies, whether implicit or explicit.
Transmission model, often augmented with some tutor interaction
B adges: . A “digital badge” is an online recordof achievements, tracking the recipient’s communities of interaction that issued the badge andthe work completed to get it.