PJ Evans

Network Learning Conference: ANT symposium part 2

Posted on | April 8, 2014 | No Comments

Back again after the coffee break with more tech issues as trying to bring in Chris Bigum from Australia, on exploring the potential of publics click pedagogy.

The presentation has started but with extreme echo so makes it impossible to hear at all. … The session is being recorded and hopefully will be available later. So we can engage with what’s happening in the room now, later.

So we’ve moved on to @JeffreyKeefer on the power of theory looking at doctoral liminality of the PhD experience in times of difficulties and painful experiences using translation and use of theory to help students through difficult periods. Started with looking at the messiness of liminal periods and the experience of Aha! moments and does theory play a role in that. Using a narratibe inquiry so used stories and found that theory moved students to do something and push their research forward.
So used ANT to provide the insight that theory that was used by students for their research also provided insight in to helping them pass through these liminal experiences.

Now its a dialogue on performing blended learning as a product and as a service. Looked at network and blended learning (blended as a community of inquiry). NL presented self as coming from a socio-cultural perspective and BL from a psychological perspective but both reject the theory-practice separation. Discourse of pedagogies involve community and support but this is absent in more comercial learning businesses leading to looking at Callon’s notions of product/ commodity and services as conceived and sold. Performing as a commonity, BL is sold to HR departments (the learner is not involved). So sales is key in enroling to the network around BL as a commodity, eg, as sales of units of learning. So the learner is largely ignored in the processes.
The BL network involves lots of material supports especially automated emails, call logs, etc. Also found that the learning network did not involve the interaction of learners with oneanother but the overall learning network is dense and integrated.

Q. this networking pattern is commonly found in online Q&A boards where the direct interaction is minimal to getting answers to specific question.
A. gave an example of a failed language learning network that had a Q&A structure but failed as not appropriate to language learning.

Q. what is the criteria for being considered as a learner
A. learner is name given to them by the network but whetehr they are learning or not is debatable.

OK, for the rest of this symposium, as we get in to the beer tasting, I’ll be moving over to Twitter.

And here’s a selection of Tweets form the sessions:

Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 20.29.27 Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 20.28.40 Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 20.28.52 Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 20.29.05

Comments

Leave a Reply





About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin