|
|
You need to be a registered member to post to this forum.
Register now.
| Author |
Topic |
|
|
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-19 02:13 PM
Dear Cecilia,
You refer to the flip chart notes taken in Pontypridd. We are not able too to read them from the pictures (under meeting photos). But the positive story is that we have the original flip charts! Wilfried took these with him 
cheers
Ineke |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
4 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
•
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-19 01:15 PM
Dear Wilfried (;-)), Cecilia and Fritz,
Talking about social learning. Earlier, May 19th, Klaus posted a messgae to the discussion titled, a model for evaluating social learning. I printed this message but cannot find it again in the environment. I disappeared in cyber space. The main point he put forward is: is Kirkpatrick's model (four-level evaluation model) a valid starting point? What changes/additions would we have to make? Limitations/possibilites of an improved/enriched model?
I have my doubts about the model for our purposes (:-O) what about you? Do you share my point of view or not? Looking forward to your reply.
cheers,
Ineke
(By the way, Klaus if you read this message, do you have a copy of the message I refer to? If so, please, can you post it again in this thread?) |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
4 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
•
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-12 05:46 AM
Dear Cecilia,
it is currently (technically) not possibly to reply directly to your messages since I always get an error message. I also cannot view the replies given. However, concerning your statement "..but I suppose our task right now is to state criteria for when a tool could be said to encourage/support social learning. A few examples would be:
An ICT tool supports social learning when it encourages students to interact with each other and with a tutor (teacher, moderator, etc)
... when it encourages discussions .." I wonder if we can limit the reflection to the evaluation of TOOLS as you proposed. That would limit the scope, however, that would also make our lives easier.
Best wishes,
Fritz |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
•
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-11 03:56 PM
 To elaborate a bit more on my first input, these are also some dimensions that could be considered:
Support and encouragement for social feedback
Support and encouragement for social networking
I recommend http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/dec2003/kaplan.htm
Are we on the right track?
:: Cecilia |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-11 12:17 PM
 Hello again,
Do you remember that there were some flip-chart notes on the social learning model taken in Pontypridd? They may be viewed under meeting photos. If you're able to read them, they might help our discussion.
::Cecilia |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
•
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-08-11 11:49 AM
Hi, I just wrote an reply, but it seems to have disappeared.Oh, well I just have to try and remember what I wrote and write it again. I first reflection is that it should be possible to find criteria of social learning in the literature. From the sociocultural perspective all learning is social, but I suppose our task right now is to state criteria for when a tool could be said to encourage/support social learning. A few examples would be:
An ICT tool supports social learning when it encourages students to interact with each other and with a tutor (teacher, moderator, etc)
... when it encourages discussions
Aspects of ICT tools supporting social dimensions could be their use of forums, the use of feedback, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
6 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
•
Re: social learning model
posted on
2004-07-21 09:58 AM
Hi Wilfred,
what kind of variables are you looking for? Can you give an example?
Variables for the model in terms of views or parameter what it consists of??
Variables for coding collective learning, such as:
"Category of argument :
÷ Accept: the argument provided supports the option selected, e.g. "I choose option 2 because it
makes the learner autonomous".
÷ Discard: the argument rejects another option, e.g. "I choose option 2 because option 3 is too heavy
to implement".
÷ Condition: the argument states some conditions for the option selected, e.g. "I choose option 2 if
the learner is very young".
Degree of elaboration of argument (solo and duo):
÷ Justification: the argument contains at least one idea not present in the phrasing of the selected
option.
÷ Reformulation: the argument does not contain an idea not present in the selected option.
Semantic relation between solo arguments and duo argument:
÷ Union: the duo argument contains the ideas stated by both solo arguments.
÷ Victory: the duo argument contains the ideas of one of the solo arguments.
÷ New: the duo argument contains an idea which is not present in either solo arguments."?
did you see this discussion: http://www.mblog.com/soulsoup/028334.html ? This might help to identify variables....
As soon as I have got a clearer idea of what is needed in general in terms of models I am willing to contribute actively...
As far as I know from literature, collective learning can be treated from at least 4 different perspectives. In "social terms" we might need to deal with motivational and stimulating factors as well the interaction process and the outputs.
Fritz |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
5 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
|
social learning model
posted on
2004-07-09 09:08 PM
One of the models in this project to be developed is a social learning model of evaluation. This means that we want to develop a model and a tool in order to evaluate ICT supported learning from a social learning perspective. What kind of variables have to be included if you look at the collective learning process of, for example, students in higher education? Help to start up a discussion on this! Wilfried Admiraal Utrecht University the Netherlands |
|
|
|
|
Posts:
15 |
[E-Mail]
|
| |
|
Discussion Forums
Public Forum
