· Importance of an activity-driven rather than a content-driven approach
· Importance of student motivation
· The need is for tools to support joining communities not gaining information
· Students don’t do what we ask (they do strategic learning) – tools only work if students use them in the way we intend. We have got to think how students will actually use this tool, and build tools which cope with strategic learning.
The panel on day 2 didn't get to address all the questions posed. Use comments to add any thoughts you may have on these. The questions from the breakout discussions included:
Enrico’s question: Is the Semantic Web for learners feasible? Is it “superior” to a learning object approach?
Who defines “structure” for Sem Web? How do we deal with multiple vocabularies on Semantic Web. e.g. my “home page” v your “web address”. We still need standards (and/or statements of equivalences?)
Enrico’s linguistic mapping front-end to map “home page” to has-web-address.
c.f. Google as text-based. Maybe linguistic mapping + Google will be sufficient?
Sem Web places emphasis on collective, distributed responsibility, community involvement. Cf. Laurillard’s bottom-up approach: if it is to work, needs input of teachers.
Oleg’s question: What do teachers really want?
Refine the question: What do teachers want out of technology? What do teachers want and how can technology support?
Challenges not only of teaching and learning but also of control, especially in schools – perhaps more pressing interest in solving control problem!
Teachers have different levels of control of technology. Some teachers don’t know how to use Web. Reality of working across different classroom environments means having to ask others for help! Admitting you don't know does introduce status/authority issues. Compare yesterday’s discussion re live IRC/weblogging, and whether presenter keeps control or not.
Need to separate resources from delivery technology. Teacher wants to use multiple resources flexibility; but in practice need multiple backups of just one resource to cope with potential delivery problems.
Can get caught out by new technology. Never enough time for teacher to exploit properly – end up using lowest common denominator for security! Conversely, some go for new tech for sake of it – appear impressive but content weak. Some good teaching based on (physical!) blackboard.
Technology does support variety of approach.
Question for panel: Is technology transforming learning? Or is it business as usual? Is learning fundamentally to do with human interaction?
Expectations/requirements of assessment. Teachers are judged by results: huge pressures on teacher to deliver results. How to “relax” and allow students to “become researchers” in this context?
Technology is becoming easier to use. Younger generations are familiar with tech, take it for granted. Cannot be avoided. But teachers need to be able to choose technologies to meet pedagogical requirements. But much valuable work not yet accessible in digital form e.g. Online journals only available from circa 1980
Children are good at certain ICT tasks (e.g. circumventing filters to play games!) but can’t work Google.
Children can’t put knowledge together. Getting info is easy bit. Separate getting knowledge from creation of meaning – need to discuss what found, teacher provides “scaffold”. Sem Web may assist making connections by meaning rather than simple association.
If technology provides metadata, will children ever learn? Is there a risk of technology doing too much for students? Need to transform pedagogy (e.g. issue of teaching spelling). Skills – research, evaluation, analysis – are needed. Must be taught. Not solved by teaching HTML! Sometimes better not to use computer!
Compare spelling with critical thinking. Yes, some basic level of spelling needed. But can use tech to take care of basic levels, leaving opportunity to concentrate on “higher” level skills
Meaningful connections essential. Example of (MSWord-based) mini-Sem Web of Syllabus – Learning objects relations, as “guidebook to conceptual space”, including links to external resources. Build in terms of answers to questions (Wendy’s unresolved relations).
Mobile technology in schools: dealing with challenges/problems. Can’t ignore very real community concerns re e.g. inappropriate use of mobile photography.
The questions posed by speakers on 23rd March (Wendy Hall, Oleg Liber, Enrico Motta)
------------------
“What do teacher’s really want?”
“To what extent is it realistic to use semantic content in delivering Learning Objects” or “the feasibility of the semantic vision?”
“How does one predict the unpredictable?”
------------------------------------
The group thought of other possible questions “What are the connections between these speakers”, “Who would we like them to meet”. We eventually posed:
“How might we bring together the bits of the jigsaw” the various disciplines and groups that need to get together “Who should be at the party”?
How do we close the gulf(s) between, say, AI and Web practitioners and also the Engineering and Social Science communities? An example - researchers unaware of pedagogical developments that have taken place outside her field? What about the Concept mapping work of Novak in 1980’s? Common Language between disciplines does not exist. “We have a 5,000 piece jig-zaw and most of it is blue.”
The compartmentalisation of research funding in UK is not conducive to finding answers.
Research into Pedagogical Content Knowledge – Learning Objects don’t (can’t?) approach address this.
Reductionism – the danger of LOs. AI to replicate full knowledge of real world. Tensions between AI (reductionism) and how do we enhance our day-to-day practice.
What about a trans-disciplinary research programs with all the Research Councils? Probably not realistic? At least one problem would be there would be no label to apply to the field of research!
What are the conditions in which serendipity might produce an answer? Does it need to be market-driven? Was the Web market-driven, was text –messaging market driven. Will the need to deliver to more and more students provide the market force behind elearning?
Are cultures and organisation in HE too resistant to change? Is HE too rigid? Exeter experience = no inherent resistance from individuals but a major organisational resistance. The benefit unlikely to outweigh the investment – will this always be so?
Award schemes for teachers in adopting eLearning. How do you provide them with the time and motivations to adopt? (time is the crucial factor)
Are we looking at context rather than objects Are the communities there to share context and practice. Learning Objects may prove counter-productive?
1. Question: What do teachers really want? (How do we find out).
School Teachers don't have time, yet materials exist on the net. Therefore they want someone to find information relating to corriculum, put into an easy to use format, safe (controlled) to involve no marking. In time, they would love to be able to modify it.
In HE they want the time. They want to be free from constraints of copyright and IPR issues. As soon as material goes on the web, there are extra issues, e.g. actors in videos charge more as soon as material goes on the web.
There is a move towards open source for copyright in the states. The owner of the materials grants permission which is embedded in the material. This has the potential to help overcome this problem. There are however differences in subjects (science easier than Arts for example.
Don't want pre-packaged materials (want pictures, videos and articles).
In both schools and HE, they want some way of relieving administrative burden. It is easier for schools with the curriculum than in HE where only some have set objectives.
In schools DFES provide lesson plans and recommended resources but don't insert media into the lessons.
Conclusion: Need ability to find resources and copyright and IPR needs streamlining. Still not sure about learning objects.
2. Question: What are the possibilities for the semantic web?
Has the potential to help with problems above. Question, how do we make sure the cataloguing is done properly. This is then met tag problem over again. Frameworks, templates are needed (VLEs or Macromedia contribute). Could services be the answer in the wider context? Could 'somatic librarians' add value, just as librarians do in physical librarians? Probably not. The authors need to do it, but it needs to be extremely easy to do or largely automated (semantic passport). It is the extra really useful description that it will be hard for people to do.
Do we need the semantic web when google works as a search engine? It may offer more efficient retrieval. Partly depends on whether freely accessible Internet material will grow or be locked behind passwords. Can we really get what we need instantly from goggle? Do we need to know how to search goggle and will semantics make it harder.
Semantic web used as a research tool to find links and patterns, but is this relevant to 8 year olds. Do they need a lot of knowledge and direction from the teacher before children can benefit from the semantic web? Conclusion: depends on your pedagogical beliefs.
Will semantic web help to create networks of information? Can we do this without semantic tagging?
3. Can we predict the unpredictable? We can't predict where technology will go so how do we plan ahead.
Are we at a stage where we believe technology can do almost anything? Should we not just be able to say what we want and assume that the trench will soon be able to do it?
Examples: Use of technology to record what people do and where we are? Voice control would be useful. Computer understanding what we are saying and putting into the context of where we are (nearest place to find a good or information about a service). What we want is 'more time, more sleep, more sex' but technology is doing the opposite. In reality, can we shape the future to give us what we want? Possibly not. The leisure industry will invent what they can sell, and we may have to work with what they invent. Maybe we need to try to predict the leisure industry
Question for panel?
How can the research into learning technology impact on teaching practice to create more time for teachers.
Chaired by Simon Price
How do we predict the Unpredictable?
New learning possibilities for the Semantic Web? What is possible and practical?
What to teachers really what?
Questions for the Panel
Oleg. What are the first step that Oleg wants Learning Objects to deliver to do what teachers want?
Does the panel think that the Sem Web can answer more complex questions e.g. organising theoretical relationships more than factual relationships?
Does the panel think that asking teachers what they really want the wrong question?
What do teachers really want?
We found the question overboard but considered various aspects of how to answer it. At what level is this considered? It is very different for schools in comparison to HE/FE. Teachers want a large range of materials for supporting their teaching methods. In particular, they want to work in their way, and would appreciate support for being worked with. However there is a range of responses - some want to do what they have always done, some want to do what they have always done, and some don't want to be dictated to.
Ownership of the process of creation of this content, and ownership of the content itself has to be clear and agreed with the participants. Only then can a proper community be generated. There are also issues with the HE/FE reward structure with respect to such teaching development.
Is my vision feasible? Enrico Motta
It is feasible if the trust and authenticaion issues are sorted out. It is important that if the machine technology is making content, gathering and aggregating adaptive content that the provenance and quality is assured, given that there is no human involvement.
How does one work around one's routed-ness in today's techology? Wendy Hall
Predicting the unpredicatable - tricky! Do take account of things that seem fanciful, such as science fiction. People are put off by long term horizons, wheras looking 3-4 years ahead is a lot more feasible.