Saturday, November 29, 2014

Entry 41 IDT1415 McLoughlin and Lee 2008 Future Learning Landscapers: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software & McLoughlin and Lee 2010 Personalised and Self-regulated Learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.

I found McLoughlin and Lee's 2008 and 2010 articles engaging and informative. Richardson's (2006) 'read-write web' is a clear description of the interactive Web where the user no longer consumes but also produces and becomes a 'prosumer' (Sener 2007 in McLoughlin and Lee 2008) with the recurrent idea that learner empowerment comes about through a closer focus on what the student can do: customise, personalise and network and take an active part in through collaboration in the creation of their own knowledge and skills. I personally like the concept of Pedagogy 2.0 and its relation to Web 2.0 as I see Cousin's dynamic interaction between technology and pedagogy (2005:118) take shape through the concept of learner autonomy, agency and personalisation, essential triggers in motivation, as described by McLean's (2003) three A's of motivation (agency, autonomy and affiliation) via tools like blogs, wikis, media sharing apps, and social networking sites. Another concept I found interesting was that of generativity and connectivity and how they are changing how learners see content: from static, in the form of institutionalised, set, rigid tutor created content to a more dynamic learner-controlled role in the process of its creation. In my own experience, I can see how exploration of resources available through the different courses I have taken online have led to a more creative and fruitful approach to my own learning and the sharing of this learning with my peers and learners alike for instance through the creation of a series on my YouTube channel called Methodology Pills for Induced Reflection thus opening new ways of engagement with peers, tutors and the community at large 'in creating and sharing ideas, creative authorship (Flickr, MySpace, YouTube) or personal publishing (Downes 2004:18 in McLoughlin and Lee 2008)'. In turn, this experience allows me to have a better understanding of how to implement and replicate the same conditions within my context while being a tangible example of how Pedagogy 2.0 transcends the walls of the institution (O'Reilly 2005 in op.cit.).
As far as the 3 challenges presented in the article, I would argue, based on my own experience of having seen my Facebook page mutate from a personal realm to a hybrid now predominantly populated by my professional life, that Prensky's (2001 in op.cit.) digital and generational divide between Digital Natives and Immigrants does not apply across all contexts. I would also argue that while Facebook may be 'mainly trafficked by students and teachers may not be welcome' I have not seen my credibility diminished but, on the contrary, reaffirmed through my association to different groups without necessarily portraying 'a different self online' from that F2F as reported by Mazer, Murphy and Simonds (2007 in op.cit.).

Also, in my own experience both as an online and F2F tutor, I agree with Katz & Mcklin's (2007) claim that students 'lack competencies to locate and assess resources for objectivity, reliability and currency' while being especially true in today's sharepocalypse ('a new era of social  networking insanity caused by social overload) where being selective is requirement more than option. I believe these competencies and skills can only be developed by informed educators and find pertinent McLoughlin and Lee's quoting of Kind 1993 and Doolittle 2003: 'Web 2.0 allows recognition of the role of the teacher an expert guide-on-the-side as opposed to sage-on-the-stage.

Their 2010 article sees the concept of 'active learning experience that is social, participatory and supported by rich media' (p28) repeatedly addressed with a focus on the design of activities with a central pillar, that of scaffolding to support the learner. The agency afforded by social software tools takes again a leading role as it allows the much sought after 'autonomy and engagement in social communities, s-centred self-directed and self-regulated learning'(p29). PLEs are said to be essential to the integration of learning outcomes such as lifelong learning, informal learning and self-directed learning and my personal experience as a learner fully supports this claim. Firstly, because lifelong learning becomes a possibility at one's fingertips and this comfort not only fosters but encourages my continued professional development and learning. Informal learning which I would say also takes place incidentally whenever I am in the process of exploring resources and is not intentional through the serendipity effect (Merton & Barber2003; Moskaliuk & Kimerle 2009 in Moskaliuk et al. 2009:550), and  also thanks to the fact that recourses are no longer linear by way of hypertext (lost in hyperspace phenomenon Edwards and Hardman 1999 in op.cit.). Last but not least, self-directed learning which I see as agency incarnated. In Downes words: 'PLEs affirm the role of the individual in organising, customising and shaping his/her own LE (2005), which again resound the concept of agency above and define how I learn, a clear example being the organisation, customisation and shaping of the content I create and share via my YouTube channel, my Powtoons visble through my YouTube channel, my resources curation through Pearltrees, my Blog, and Glogster amongst others.

Although I agree with the two interpretations of PLEs offered in the article in which the first one sees 'personalisation as the need to embrace a s-centred but provider-driven approach to education' and the second one where a 'wholly learner-driven approach transcends the walls of the classroom' (p30), I believe that the first one is and will continue to be provider-driven while the second one although already a reality for the self-directed learner is still in cyberspace, that is, not institutionally tangible yet as alluded too by Sener (2007 in McLoughlin and Lee 2010) with student produced content (essays and reports) still being used for assessment purposes. Again, the ideal scenario where I want to be both as a tutor and elarner being that where student created content is central to learning and they are seen as 'prosumers of knowledge and curators of the community's knowledge and artefacts' (Esutace & Hay 2000, Lee et al 2005 in op.cit.).


McLean, A. Journey to Excellence - The Three As of Motivation. [online]. Last accessed on 16 November 2014 available at:

Mcloughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W., 2010. Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2 . 0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. [Online] Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), pp.28–43. Last accessed on 25 November 2014. Available at 

Mcloughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W., 2008. Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software. [Online] Innovate, 5(4). Last accessed on 25 November 2014. Available at:

Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J. & Cress, U., 2009. Wiki-supported learning and knowledge building: effects of incongruity between knowledge and information. [Online] Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), pp.549–561. Accessed November 13, 2014. Available at:
Sharepocalypse Now: Why Social Media Overload Means New Opportunities for Startups, 2011. [Online] Last accessed 28 November 2014 at:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.