Presentation on theme: "Learning beans as a content and context free framework for learning object deployment Fintan Culwin London South Bank University"— Presentation transcript:
Learning beans as a content and context free framework for learning object deployment Fintan Culwin London South Bank University E-Learning HEA/ICS May 2006
Learning Beans time learning starting space ending space naïve instructivist pragmatic constructivist LO1 LO2 LO1 LO2 Learning bean
Learning Theory Design Influences Cognitive Constructivism learning is an active process which involves doing not passively watching (Jonassen 1994). Deep learning requires active engagement, passive engagement encourages shallow learning (Marton & Säljö 1976). Learning is a skill and so proceeds from unconscious incompetence towards unconscious competence, via conscious incompetence & conscious competence (Purnell 2002). This passage has resonance with Vygotskys concept of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1962). Brunner proposes spiral learning, where learners revisit topics, each time in Paigetian terms assimilating a little more and accommodating what they already have visited (Brunner 1974). Brunner also emphasises the distinction between bridges and scaffolds in learning environments (Brunner 1974). To which Culwin adds the concept of skeletons (Culwin 2004).
Technology Design Influences Dalziel 2003 notes that the current generation of Managed Learning Environments do not manage learning and would be better described as (Learning) Content Management Systems with some on-line learner interaction capability. He proposes, and has produced, Learning Activity Management Systems (LAMS) which provide a content free environment where instructors can manage learning activities. However this has a very large granularity and so cannot be recognised as a Learning Bean. Culwin (2004) proposes Learning Beans as a low granularity environment where a content free behavioural framework can have different content plugged into it.
Beans – design issues content free framework, into which topic specific material can be placed. context independent (promiscuous!), even when content specific. progressive disclosure, allowing cyclical revisiting formative & summative use separation of activity management from content management philosophically and pedagogically neutral (promiscuous) challenging challenges (i.e. non repetitive) appreciation of different roles...
Beans – roles involved The learner – will interact with an instance of a bean to do some learning; will revisit the same or similar places at different times. The instructional designer – will locate, evaluate, configure, support, explain etc. a bean instance; will place this instance somewhere along the learners possible path(s). The learning bean designer - designs & builds a learning bean that can be plugged into the bean framework to produce a bean from which instances can be obtained.
Bean Configuration Utility Used by the instructional designer to configure the content independent bean behaviour.
Imperative Bean Configures the content specific bean behaviour.
Subject Independence – The Piano Bean
References Bruner J. S. (1974), Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press ISBN Culwin F., Campbell P & Adeboye K (2004), A bridging, scaffolding or skeletal initial OOSD learning object, Proc. 6th Annual Confernce for the Higher Education Academy Subject Network for Information & Computer Science (HEA/ICS). Galway, August Culwin, F. (2004). Beyond learning objects: Towards learning beans. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp ). Perth, 5-8 December. Dalziel J (2003). Implementing Learning Design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). In G.Crisp, D.Thiele, I.Scholten, S.Barker and J.Baron (Eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide, 7-10 December 2003 Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), Marton F. and Säljö R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I - Outcome and Process, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, pp Purnell, L. D. (2002). The Purnell's model for cultural competence. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 13(3) Vygotsky, L. S. (1962), Thought and language. MIT Press ISBN