Open Context Model of Learning & Craft of Teaching

Nigel Ecclesfield – BectaFred Garnett – London Knowledge Lab

Learner Generated Contexts is a Co-Creation Model requiring;

Learners who develop new collaborative and personal literacies for learning

Teachers who develop learners’ abilities to create and manage their own learning

Organisational leaders and policy makers who facilitate and sustain the use of multiple contexts for learning

2iPED 2010 - Open Context Model of Learning and the craft of teaching

• Learning is seen as the acquisition of desirable employment skills with the needs of employers prioritised at policy and delivery levels in recent UK Government announcements in 2009 and amplified by the new Government in July and August

• Change is seen as being primarily in response to the demands of globalisation, with other issues such as climate change not influencing educational policy and therefore practice e.g. Leitch without Stern

• Educational policy not seen as having relevance in the context of teaching and learning by practitioners – policy is seen as dealing with system and organisational issues – Jephcote and Salisbury (2008)


A requirement for adaptive institutions working across collaborative networks able to move away from mainly reactive stances to policy and become more responsive to learners, staff and communities

Institutions developing dialogic systems of communication and policy formation

The use of a Public Value model as a test of relevance to needs, requiring filters to help establish the utility and relevance of policy and knowledge

Developing dynamic targets that can be negotiated and adapted to circumstance

New conceptions of professionalism

Genuine participation and effective feedback loops in policy development and implementation – “Policy Forest”


In these “turbulent” times for teachers and institutions can we find evidence for learner-generated contexts (lgc) in post-compulsory and other sectors in education?

What are the characteristics of “teaching” in an lgc?

How do these answers relate to the Open Context Model of Learning described in 2009?


• Pedagogy– Understanding the subject matter of learning activities in a way

that enables the production of learning resources

• Andragogy– Supporting the collaborative processes of the learning group

such that communications around shared work amplifies participant understanding of the subject and can lead to group work for formative assessment

• Heutagogy– Enabling the development of original responses to the learning

being engaged with and original ways of presenting work for summative assessment

– This is seen as a continuum in the paper from Luckin et al 2010 – shorthand - PAHPAH


The craft of teaching becomes; The ability to use the framing device of subject delivery to;

Encourage participative group Encourage participative group communications; andcommunications; and

Offer the possibility of offering new Offer the possibility of offering new ways of presenting the resultant ways of presenting the resultant learning for assessmentlearning for assessment


A better learning to learn process

The need for appropriate digital literacies◦ Web 2.0 technologies offer many tools for the

creative development of work for both formative and summative assessment and they can be shared through learning and teaching support units/services and with learners


How do we know our teaching is making a difference and is that difference meeting the needs of learners in their personal and social contexts?

How do we move from engagement with the formality of current learning to participation in the ecology of learning?


How do practitioners engage learners in ways that move them beyond their role as consumers of information in specific curricula?


Curriculum of everything – school of everything

Three phases of development Brokering – joining

◦ AssessmentAssessment◦ NegotiationNegotiation

Learning literacy


1. Deliver as is2. Correct the errors3. Deconstruct and

rebuild for learning

Sennett argues that craft skills reach maturity after 10,000 hours of practice and our proposals would work best as the basis for CPD, three years into professional practice

Criteria for the CPD can be elaborated from the elements of the PAH continuum


Work by Thomas Cochrane reported in ALT-J – July 2010 on BSc in Product DesignBSc in Product Design

◦ Pedagogically designed learning contexts using the PAHPAH continuum

◦ High level of pedagogic integration◦ Lecturer modelling of the pedagogical use of tools◦ Regular formative assessment◦ Choice/use of appropriate technologies in each

context◦ Technological and pedagogical support



The central aim of the programme is to equip you with a thorough grounding in the methodologies of film and digitally-based photojournalism and documentary photography, as well as the creative and analytical tools and knowledge to establish and develop individual vision and practice.

The course will provide you with a framework in which to locate, analyse and reflect on your own practice within a critical and historical context. This will encourage a more deeply involved, informed, critically aware and challenging approach to the medium. The theory element will also enable you to articulate your personal practice within the various marketplaces and contexts you choose to operate in.

The course also encourages you to develop a wider vision of the practice and potential of the medium of documentary and reportage photography — of its uses and outlets from the classic editorial/magazine spread, to published portfolios, digital portfolios, gallery exhibitions, books, web or CD-based productions, television and other media. The main concerns of photojournalists and documentary photographers are with the real world — exploring and recording the wide range of human experience. Therefore, you may decide to take a journalistically-focused approach. You may also look at other strategies for dissemination, including galleries, books and multimedia presentations.

The MA course is delivered as an intensive programme, with considerable emphasis placed on rigorous and demanding tutorials in which your personal vision will be challenged and developed. Tutorials will be accompanied by a series of lectures, workshops and seminars, delivered by course staff and visiting industry professionals. During the course there will also be a rigorous programme of photographic assignments.


Everyone has something to learn! Everyone has something to teach!

◦ Technology-based to bring individuals and groups together

◦ Focus on face to face learning in most instances, but e-learning options are starting to be available

◦ Think technology enabled learning exchange


Follows on from the Hole-in-the-wall studies 10-14 year old Tamil speaking children in a

remote location were encouraged to learn basic molecular biology (self-organised learning)

Outcomes compared with public and private schools

Stage 1 – without “mediator” Stage 2 – with “mediator” – “grandmother”

(in lgc terms a “more able person”) Stage 3 – principles applied in UK

iPED 2010 - Open Context Model of Learning and the craft of teaching 17

How do people work, learn and socialize together at a distance and through computer media?◦ Communication, Collaboration, Community

Studies : Online Learning Networks◦ Social networks / virtual communities◦ Distributed learners / e-learning◦ Collaborative research teams / distributed knowledge◦ Information sharing and learning / ubiquitous learning

Today: What kinds of interactions between people support learning and knowledge creation?◦ Explore social network perspective and results of social

network studies of learners and collaborative research teams


Learning as a relation that connects people◦ A student learns from a teacher; students learn together from a teacher;

novices learn from each other

Learning as production as well as consumption◦ An individual contributes content to a discussion, wiki, collaborative

artwork

Learning as an outcome of relations◦ A community holds a knowledge of its history, and information resources

for dealing with new situations

Learning spaces◦ Affinity spaces (Gee), third places (Oldenburg), geo-community spaces

(libraries, community centers, churches), online learning communities◦ Crowd and community spaces◦ Online and face-to-face spaces


Given the undoubted educational potential of web 2.0, we would argue that it is incumbent upon educationalists to seek ways to lessen the gap between informal practices and formal procedures, and encourage and engineer more extensive, expansive, imaginative and empowering uses of web 2.0 by learners and teachers.

Schooling is likely to remain the dominant form of learning in society, at least in the short to medium term. We need to seek to reconcile schooling with the challenges of web 2.0, and to explore opportunities for engineering re-schooling rather than de-schooling. The debate needs to shift towards how best to re-imagine the nature of web 2.0 technologies and the educational settings that they are used in.

“Education 2.0?: Designing the web for teaching and learning” Commentary of TEL – TLRP - 2009


Re-configuring the role of the teacher Re-configuring the role of the education

institution Re-configuring forms of assessment Re-configuring the curriculum Re-imaging web 2.0 technologies

◦ Stability◦ Interoperability◦ Integration of technology for lifelong learning

“educational technologists need to consider how web 2.0 can be shaped and designed along educational lines, and how education can be re-imagined in the light of new technologies.

Educators should now be striving to work with technologists to shape the learning technologies of the near future. Learners require web 2.0 technologies that are fit for purpose alongside pedagogies andpractices that are too.” p26


2009 – moving beyond 2009 – moving beyond boundariesboundaries

2010 - bridging learning 2010 - bridging learning contextscontexts◦Seeing subjects as literacies ◦Craft of teaching is engaging in and integrating literacies to extend learning (mastery?)



Pedagogy Andragogy Heutagogy

Locus of Control teacherLearner/teacher

dialoguelearner

Educational sector schools adult education doctoral research

Cognition Level cognitive metacognitive epistemic

Knowledge Production

ContextSubject understanding Process negotiation Context shaping

Becta. 2008a. The potential of ICT to engage NEETs. Becta – link at http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_vi_hi_03&rid=15547 - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Becta 2008b. Survey of FE learners and e-Learning. Becta – link at http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_rp_02_a&rid=14749 - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Cochrane T. 2010 Exploring mobile learning success factors, ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, Vol 18, No. 2: 133-148 Ecclesfield N. and Garnett F., 2006. E-Learning and Public Value, ITALICS 5, no4: 4-10 Ecclesfield N. and Garnett F. 2009. Learning from the Learners Experience: Policy Perspectives – University of Greenwich Foster A. 2005. Realising the potential: a review of the future role of further education colleges. DfES, London Garnett F. and Ecclesfield N. 2008. Developing an organisational architecture of participation, British Journal of Educational

Technology 39, no 3: 468-74 Hargreaves D. 2003. Education Epidemic, Demos, London Haythornthwaite C. 2010 Leverhulme Trust Public Lectures -

http://newdoctorates.blogspot.com/2009/10/leverhulme-trust-public-lectures.html - link operative on 14th September 2010 Haythornthwaite C. 2010 Learning networks – presentation to Open University - July 2010 Holden H., Azok A., Rada R., 2008. Technology use and acceptance in the classroom: Results from an exploratory survey

study among secondary education teachers in the USA, Interactive Technology and Smart Education 5, no 2: 113-134 Jephcote M., Salisbury J. and Rees G. 2008 Being a teacher in further education in changing times. Research in Post-

Compulsory Education 13 no 2: 163-172 JISC. 2008. Disruptive technologies disrupt progress? JISC Innovation Forum 2008 – link at

http://jif08.jiscinvolve.org/2008/07/15/session-2-disruptive-technologies-disrupt-progress/ - link operative on 3rd September 2010

JISC. 2009. E4L web page – link at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/e4l.aspx - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Leitch A. 2006. Leitch Review of Skills – Final report, Prosperity for all in the global economy: world class skills. HM Treasury, London

Luckin, R. 2006. Understanding Learning Contexts as Ecologies of Resources: From the Zone of Proximal Development to Learner Generated Contexts. In Reeves T.& Yamashita S. (eds.) The Proceedings of E-Learn 2006, pp 2196 – 2202. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Luckin R. 2008. The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers and Education 50, no2: 449-62

Luckin R. 2010 Re-designing learning contexts: technology rich, learner-centered ecologies, Routledge, London Luckin R. Et al 2010. Learner Generated Contexts: A framework to support the effective use of technology for learning in Lee

M., Sturt C. and McLoughlin C. (eds) WEB 2.0-BASED E-LEARNING: APPLYING SOCIAL INFORMATICS FOR TERTIARY TEACHING. IGI Global, Sydney


McPherson M. and Whitworth A., 2008. Editorial Introduction, British Journal of Educational Technology 39, no3: 411-21 Masterman L. and Manton M. 2007. Disrupt or co-opt?

The role of a pedagogic planning tool in promoting effective design for learning, Phoebe Presentation – link at http://phoebe-project.conted.ox.ac.uk/raw-attachment/wiki/ProjectPresentations/Phoebe%20Presentation%2027%20Mar%2007.ppt - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Mavin S. and Cavaleri S., 2004. Viewing learning organisations through a social learning lens, The Learning Organisation 11, no 3: 285-89

Mentis M. 2008. Navigating the e-Learning Terrain: Aligning Technology, Pedagogy and Context. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6, no3 - located at - http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i3/v6-i3-art-7.htm - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Reveel. 2008. How compelling is the evidence for the effectiveness of e-Learning in the post-16 sector? University of Sussex – located at http://www.reveel.sussex.ac.uk/files/Version4.2.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Salmon G. 2005. Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J 13, no. 3: 201-18

Saveri A., Rheingold H. and Vian K. 2005. Technologies of Co-operation. Institute for the Future – located at http://www.rheingold.com/cooperation/Technology_of_cooperation.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Sero. 2007. Baseline Study of e-Activity in Scotland’s Colleges: report to the Scottish Funding Council July 2007. Scottish funding Council – located at - http://www.sfc.ac.uk/information/information_learning/key_policy_areas/sero_e_activity_study.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Sharples M., Taylor J., Vavoula G. 2005. Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning, proceedings of the MLearn Conference 2005 – located at http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/sharplem/Papers/Towards%20a%20theory%20of%20mobile%20learning.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Sharples M. 2007. A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age, presentation – located at http://mlearning.noe-kaleidoscope.org/repository/TheoryOfLearningForMobileAge.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Shuler C. 2009. Pockets of Potential: using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning, Joan Ganz Cooney Centre, New York – located at http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/pdf/pockets_of_potential.pdf - link operative on 3rd September 2010

Stiles M. 2008. Policy Implications: enabling participative learning. Presentation to Staffordshire University, Technology Enabled Learning Conference, Staffordshire –located at https://crusharv1.staffs.ac.uk/cgi-bin/hive/hive.cgi - link operative on 3rd September 2010

TLRP/TEL 2009 Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning. TLRP/TEL, London Traxler J. 2010. Students and mobile devices, ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2: 149 - 160 Whitworth A. 2009. Informational Obesity. Chandos, London Wilson S., Griffiths D., Johnson M., and Liber O., 2008. Preparing for disruption: developing institutional capability for decentralized

education technologies, Cetis, Bolton, located at http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/resources/ed_media.doc - link operative on 3rd September 2010


O’Reilly’s – meme map

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_meme_map.php

Nigel Ecclesfield and Fred Garnett (nefg)◦ [email protected] ◦ http://architectureofparticipation.wordpress.com

Fred Garnett◦ [email protected]◦ http://heutagogicarchive.wordpress.com

Nigel Ecclesfield◦ [email protected]◦ [email protected]
