TMA02

Part 1
There was no personal experience of wikis prior to participating in the activity; a posting and a comment were made, but virtually no interaction took place. This would imply that learning was independent – learning as a personal construction of knowledge (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). This appeared to be at odds with my comprehension of a potential strength of the wiki, that it could enable learning from a socio-cultural perspective (Cobb, 1994), through knowledge sharing. Was there, then, a lack of motivation to complete this task?

If, as many suggest (Roschelle, 1992; Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 1999), learning is achieved through some form of social collaboration, a number of theoretical positions support this; for example, the observation of learning as a social activity is the foundation of Activity Theory (Vygotsky, 1974), with the focus of learning being creating over time, through tasks. This theory is explicit in its use of cultural tools (whether through language or use of physical tools), which may have implications for who has access to the learning space, if it is technological determined. However, it is made clear that it is the activity, which contributes to learning, not merely the presence of others; more recent suggestions have also viewed that this is activity and collaboration is a key aspect of on-line learning (Salmon, 2000). There are, therefore, a range of issues to consider from an activity theory perspective.

Some may view the wiki as a Community of Practice (Lave and Wenger, 2002), but I would oppose this analysis, due to the lack of interaction, little evidence of ‘learning from masters’ and the fact that ‘situated opportunities’ did not occur; additionally, as Wenger suggests, Communities of Practice (CoP) cannot be created as such, but are developed from the practice itself. The wiki could, however, be seen as correlating more strongly with the Jones and Preece (2006) concept of ‘Communities of Interest’ (CoI). While I do not necessarily agree with their assumption of CoP being more organisationally-led, the view of the wiki being a CoI may prevail, as it has the valid component of a common interest (in carrying out the course task), whether or not the learning goal occurs. In opposition to this, though, the wiki did not fit other suggested criteria of a CoI, as it did not develop in an organic way and was not ‘open to all’, but determined by an educational institution’s constraints. Jones and Preece (2006) also discussed ‘usability’ (p118) - the ‘features and functions’ of technological access - and this may have particular relevance to the wiki issues, where the level of IT cognition and the accessibility issues may have determined the low level of participation, rather than the task itself.

The Tolmie (2001) research on software prompts was of interest; an initial view was taken that the software part of the technology tools was not part of the learning process. In the case of the wiki, participants may have had to negotiate a learning path with new technological tools; learning to use these would be very much a part of the learning experience as a whole. Some participants may have learned much from this, although these would have been unintended outcomes, more concurrent with the usability of learning tools and collaboration through IT (Jones and Preece, 2006).

Another key matter is narratives, which is raised regularly in educational research and appears to be a crucial component of learning; from Bruner’s tenets (1996), where narratives were a way of explaining things, (how they happened); to more recent discussions of narratives in a non-linear form (Laurilland et al, 2000). This may be one component that is missing from the wiki and possibly why it was found difficult to ‘learn from’; there appeared to be no narrative thread, no order, nor any method to easily follow a narrative line of a particular topic. To use the idea of Crook and Dymott (2005), in comparing reading practices between page and screen text, the wiki does not afford the opportunity to easily reflect on the narrative thread; as Greeno et al (1999, as cited in McCormick and Paechter) suggested, readers use many ‘repair strategies’ to aid comprehension and these may not be as accessible in an on-line format. Additionally, as these technological tools did not support this ‘narrative thread’ facility and, being a fairly visual learner, it was difficult to create an overall picture of a topic; perhaps diagrams such as a concept map would have aided knowledge construction.

If using the wiki for educational research purposes, one would need to be clear on which aspect was being presented; for example, if the wiki was viewed purely as a technological tool, then this would involve very different research to the view of a wiki as an activity system, as Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) discuss. Using any of the socio-cultural theories in education would imply designing the learning structure to aid the construction of knowledge through interactions and activity, but this would also be dependent on the context (Tolmie, 2001), in which the learning is set. Crook and Dymott (2005), state that ‘…computers are a technology for collaboration…’ (p106); in linking this with activity theory, wikis could be identified as a meeting point of the technological tools and theories of learning through collaboration.

To organise these ideas, two classifications from Conole et al (2004) have been used; ‘Activity based’ and ‘Socially situated’ theories (see appendix 1 for a personal knowledge construction of this).
Activity based theories appear to imply that the use of methodologies which analyse the social interactions during tasks and/or the resultant changes in independent knowledge, would be appropriate, suggesting some statistical analysis. However, the activities are bound in with the context in which the learning takes place, as Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) suggest, and therefore qualitative methods would be just as appropriate.
As socially situated theories are generally dependent on selected variables, specific not only the learner, but also to the artefacts, setting, culture, etc.; taking this theoretical stand could assume that qualitative methods may be more appropriate, gather the depth of data.

Wiki research raises such questions as
Are some learning subjects more fitting to wiki use?
How often are specific artefacts used; when and where?
How could usability features be assessed?
Did learners find it easy to negotiate the material/course?

Considering the first two questions, if quantitative methods were used, this could be in the form of analysing statistical results from previous research, gathered from a range of faculties and institutions; or tracking the level of usage of different artefacts. While Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) suggest a qualitative approach is required to analyse activity theory, numerical data on, for example, the number of interactions in a particular subject’s collaboration space, would be of value in assessing trends of usage. One could also look at tracking how often the various parts of courses were used (such as case studies) and this could feed forward to future course design. A clear disadvantage in using these methods would be the lack of context; a loss of any temporal significance and the nuances of group dynamics, which may be a part of the learning development. Using quantitative methods to research what is viewed as a collaborative learning theory, would need to be taken from the perspective of addressing a need for a stakeholder to have ‘real evidence’, in the form of numerical data.

From the perspective of socially situated theories, the most appropriate research methods would be qualitative, to analyse existing teaching and learning structures and to gain insights to the thoughts of learners; for example, Laurilland et al (2000) saw ‘real learning’ observations and transcripts of the dialogue as crucial to their investigation. Ethnographic observations and transcribing are, of course, time consuming activities; however, a key benefit would be in using results to identify what could be better supported, much as suggested by Conole et al (2004), when using a framework such as the learning design model, to analyse current practices. There may be limitations of this approach, as the researcher has great influence in making assumptions and objective analysis; there may also be pressures of an institutional or organisational nature. A key weakness may be in the narrowness of any conclusions drawn and the problem of trying to make theoretical ideas or models ‘fit’ the evidence; for example, in using the PCGE case and fitting this to their framework, Conole et al did not appear to have considered the vital issue of how important it may be to have external input to this course and what perhaps needed to be changed were the tasks in relation to this visit, not the entire component.

It would be appropriate to state that any theoretical perspective and any methodology could be used in research, providing that this was explicitly stated and clarified within the context of the investigation or evaluation being carried out. The wiki use overall raises too many questions; the research questions would, therefore, be ultimately determined by what and who wanted the answers.



Part 2

Laurilland’s (2002) Conversational Framework (CF) was a model developed to make the process of learning, through teacher and learner interactions, more transparent. These ‘narrative lines’ were seen as operating discursively and interactively, suggesting two levels; however, the process appears cyclical in nature, much as any system with a feedback loop mechanism (Fleming and Levie, 1993).
A strength of the CF is that it is a clear, simple model, applicable to almost any learning landscape; this may be one reason researchers have appropriated the framework as an introductory point, to emphasise the role dialogue has in building knowledge through interactions (for example, McAndrew et al, 2002). A weakness of the framework is the difficulty in viewing the quantity and quality of the interactions; a three dimensional model would be necessary to analyse this depth. Another weakness, cited by researchers (such as Lee, 2006) was the incompleteness of the research; this was then used as a platform to extend the framework to their specific area of interest, particularly in the use of technological dialogue.

Conole et al (2004) introduced the CF as a model of learning and suggests that such models support specific theoretical views; this is used as a starting point to consider how most pedagogical theories are not designed to deal with e-learning. In an attempt to highlight theory features and match these to appropriate e-learning methods, a range of theories were categorised, with the CF allocated as literature of ‘socially situated’ learning, which is dependent on language and culture; as these variables are very closely aligned with conversations, this seemed appropriate. However, Conole et al suggests that all aspects of their model are used, except ‘non reflection’, so this appears to indicate that the CF is a ‘good’ theory for online e-learning.
McAndrew et al (2002) used the CF to suggest a change in the power dynamics of learning, but it was not clear if the statement of ‘…weakening the image of a teacher in the system…’ (p155) was a positive reinforcement of increasing facilitative skills, which are perhaps more greatly needed in online communities; or referring to a general move towards a greater level of collaboration in learning environments.

Weller et al (2005) appropriated the CF to analyse audio conferencing and it was shown that this was a useful model to clarify the interactions of the narrative lines. However, it would be debatable if the discussions taking place were actually ‘……in Laurilland’s (2002) conversational framework….’ (P.70); this is where the researcher has placed the dialogue, but is not a known fact.

Lee (2006) is keen to use the CF to highlight the issues of both cyclical learning and the use of activity-based theory framework. This is taken further to suggest the model also distinguishes between academic and experiential knowledge, but his analysis may only be valid against particular learning contexts.

It is accepted that assessment of the CF here is very brief, due to time constraints and further research would have allowed much greater depth of evaluation.
(Word count 2000)

Appendix 1

(Unable to load the diagram here - apologies)
C:\Documents and Settings\Carole\Desktop\Educational technology research Management\H809 TMAs\H809 TMA02 diagram.mht
(Needs to have link with subject matter
Dependent on cultural context; changes over time
Which subject or discipline is most appropriate?
No of times different tools used; where and when?
Collect quantitative data; primary statistical methods, secondary references to surveys
Usability factors (such as access)
Requires clear structure and navigability
How could usability features be assessed? Was it easy?
Did learners make sense of it; was it logical?
Collect qualitative data; observational, dialogue analysis
Either could be an evaluation of previous research)

Reference list
Bruner, J. (1996) The culture of education, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Cobb, P. (1994) ‘Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development’, Educational Researcher, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 13-20 American Educational Research Association.
Cole, M. (1996) Cultural Psychology: a once and future discipline, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004) ‘Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design’, Computers & Education, vol. 43, nos. 1–2, pp. 17–33. Available online at http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.018 (Accessed 5 February 2008).
Crook, C. and Dymott, R. (2005) ‘ICT and the literacy practices of student writing’ in Monteith, M. (ed.) Teaching Secondary School Literacies with ICT, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Fleming, M. and Levie, W.H. (1993) ‘Instructional message design: principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences’ (2nd edition), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Greeno, J.G., Pearson, P.D. and Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999) ‘Achievement and Theories of Knowing and Learning’ in McCormick, R. and Paechter, C. (eds) Learning and Knowing, London, Sage Publishing.
Jonassen, D. and Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999) ‘Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments’, Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 61–79. Available online at http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477 (Accessed 5 February 2008).
Jones, A. and Preece, J. (2006) ‘Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: a framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest’, International Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no. 2–3, pp. 112–37.
Lave J. and Wenger E. (2002) ‘Legitimate peripheral participation in community of practice’ in Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A., Clarke, J. (eds.) Supporting Lifelong Learning Volume 1 Perspectives on learning, London, RoutledgeFalmer in association with the Open University.
Laurilland, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies (2nd edn), London, RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurilland, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L. and Taylor, J. (2000) ‘Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME), vol. 2. Available online at http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2/ (accessed 1st April, 2008).
Lee, N. (2006) ‘Design as a learning cycle: A conversational experience’, Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development [online], vol. 3, no.2, pp. 12-22. Available at http://sleid.cqu.edu.au (accessed 5th April 2008).

McAndrew, P., Mackinnon, L. and Rist R. (2002) ‘A framework for Work-Based Networked Learning’, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 151-168. Available at
http://kn.open.ac.uk/document.cfm?documentid=6503 (Accessed 9th April 2008).
Rogoff, B. (1999) ‘Cognitive Development through Social Interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget’ in Murphy, P. (ed.) Learners, Learning and Assessment London, Sage Publishing.
Roschelle, J. (1992) ‘Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 235–76.
Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online, London, Kogan Page.
Tolmie, A. (2001) ‘Examining learning in relation to the contexts of use of ICT’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235–41.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London, Falmer Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1974) Mind in Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Weller, M., Pegler C. and Mason, R. (2005) ‘Use of innovative technologies on an e-learning course’, Internet and Higher Education, vol. 8, pp. 61–71.