Going boldly into the dark: Who will
drive the learning process? What is the
future of the relationship between
learners, their tutors and institutions?
Rosemary Luckin
r.luckin@ioe.ac.uk
Talk Outline
• Part 1: Background
• Part 2: The Ecology of Resources model;
integrating activities with technologies across
multiple locations
• Part 3: The Ecology of Resources model and
the Learning & Teaching process
• Part 4: The Future and Learner Generated
Contexts
How to use this presentation
• Part 1: Background – overview please read
• Part 2: The Ecology of Resources model; this looks
at a real project we developed in Kenya and offers a
practical view of my perspective
• Part 3: The Ecology of Resources model and the
Learning & Teaching process; more of a theoretical
overview to get you thinking about your own
institution & practice in two parts
• Part 4: The Future and Learner Generated
Contexts; as we might develop
Part 1
BACKGROUND
Background 1
•
•
•
Ownership of mobile and networked devices amongst young people is
increasing (LSE, 2006).
Greater access to broadband connectivity (Ofcom, 2008) and an increase in
the use of participatory digital technologies amongst young people – these
technologies are now integrated into the lives of young people (Green and
Hannon, 2007; Grunwald Associates, 2007; Lenhart and Madden, 2007)
Amongst a sample of 2,500+ UK secondary school learners 96.6% had access
to the Internet. Over 74% of participants had at least 1 social network site
account, and the use of Email and Instant Messaging was almost ubiquitous.
Over 50% of participants had shared pictures, video or music in the last
week, with the most common products being published and shared being
photographs (Luckin et al, 2008).
•
•
Learner generated content "is becoming a significant feature of the
educational landscape" (JISC, 2007).
Early investigations suggest that content generated by the learner for
themselves and for other learners can be beneficial for learning (Lee et al,
2007).
Background 2
• The focus is on the social and there is a lack of criticality (Boyd, 2007),
innovative skill development (Buckingham, 2007), self-management or
metacognitive reflection (Luckin et al, 2008).
• Learner interest can be limited to a small subset of applications and
technical skills sets can also be limited: Amongst 2,500+ secondary school
learners: less than 20% used VoIP, only 36.5% used a webcam, podcast and
discussion board use was rare, and use of wiki technology focussed on
Wikipedia. Learner interest in technologies for learning was limited to
familiar activities, such as presentations (Luckin et al 2008).
• Few examples of good or effective student-generated content available
online. Enthusiastic learners and good ideas are not enough if there is no
imperative to improve the quality (Sener, 2007).
• We need to ask how we can better support the creation of content for
learning and the formation of learning communities (Wolf, 2007).
Figure 1: Popular Social Network ing Activities: Percentage of tweens and teens wh o
say they do these activities at least week ly. (Source:Grunwal d Associates, 2007)
Figure 2: Learners use of related Web 2.0 activities in and out of school
Source: Luckin et al 2008
QUESTIONS
• How can we support learners and teachers to
make more effective use of new technologies
for learning, particularly when these
technologies are evolving fast?
QUESTIONS
• To what extent are you supporting learners
and teachers to make more effective use of
technologies in your institution?
• To what extent can you sustain this as
technologies continue to evolve?
Background 3
• In parallel with this increasing learner activity
there is also an increase in the availability of
mobile, ubiquitous and pervasive technologies
that offer multiple choices for staying in touch,
and capturing and storing information about
learners’ interactions in and with their
environment.
• Young people are keen users of technologies:
technologies that are increasingly integrated and
that can link their different locations,
environments and experiences.
QUESTION
• How do you use technologies to link your
experiences across different locations, times
and subjects?
• Is this something that your institution tries to
encourage and support?
The Potential and the Challenges
• Technologies now offer enormous potential to support learners and
teachers as they interact with the multiple locations, tools, people and
knowledge that make up their personal learning context.
• Along with this potential come several challenges. These include
finding ways to:
– Use technology to offer learners and tutors a more holistic
experience of their learning interactions through technology to
better link the different elements of their learning lives
– Develop a clearer understanding of the nature of the relationship
between learners and tutors that can help us to fulfil this potential.
Learners may be able to drive their interactions with technology,
but evidence suggests that without support these interactions are
still relatively unsophisticated.
• Could we address both these challenges by taking a closer look at what we
mean by a learner’s (or tutor’s) context?
Part 2
THE ECOLOGY OF RESOURCES MODEL;
INTEGRATING ACTIVITIES WITH TECHNOLOGIES
ACROSS MULTIPLE LOCATIONS
Example: Vesel
http://www.veselproject.net/
• How understanding more about a
community’s wider context has helped us
design an appropriate technology
intervention
• VeSeL is a research project, and part of the
Bridging the Global Digital Divide network,
sponsored by the EPSRC in the UK. The aim
of the VeSeL project is to enable rural
communities in Sub-Saharan Africa to use
advanced digital technology to improve
their agricultural practices and education
levels.
Example: Vesel
• We are working with two communities using
participatory methods to develop technology
resource kits to support community learning.
One of these communities is in Kambu.
The Community
10 % of villagers comfortably read English.
50 % in one village, and 90 % in the other,
indicate they have used, and like using,
computers.
Less than 20 % have heard of email or the
Internet.
Nearly all have access to and have used mobile
phones - almost exclusively for voice, not text.
An early activity storyboard
‘One laptop per village’ Resource Kit
1 Communication,
e-mail, Internet
2
3
Recording Agricultural Activity,
Blogging, Mapping Local
Resources, Educational activities,
School linking…
4
KMS access
experiments
Agricultural &
weather
sensors for
decision
support
Plus Instructions, Introduction and
Training
•
•
•
•
Agricultural podcasting
http://www.veselproject.net
/files/activity-podcast.pdf
Agricultural trails
http://www.veselproject.net
/files/activity-trails.pdf
Water education
http://www.veselproject.net
/files/activity-wateradio.pdf
Blogging
http://www.veselproject.net/
files/activity-blogging.pdf
‘One laptop per village’ in Kambu
Solar power training video Community presentation ceremony
Community Training Session
Teacher
School
Head Teacher
Silanga school
• Having learned to
post text and
images to a blog,
use email, and
most importantly
charge and
maintain the
laptop themselves,
teachers and
students have been
posting stories and
accounts of their
activities on an
almost daily basis.
Modeling Context
• To support the work of the Vesel project we used the
Ecology of Resources model of context to map out the
different elements that learners and teachers in Kambu
might interact with.
• It can help identify the different elements with which
people interact and that make up their context.
• It can also help us to identify the relationships between
these elements and these interactions.
• This can indicate how we can use technology to strengthen
the desired links between elements within and across
different environments, people and tools.
• This model was originally conceived and is still being
developed through work conducted in the UK
Question
• What can we learn from this example that is
relevant to designing technology interventions
in the UK?
• How does the One Laptop per Village
approach contrast with the One Laptop per
Child approach?
The Ecology of Resources Model Key
= category
element
Environment
Knowledge
Resources
The Ecology of Resources Model Key
= category
element
= filter element
Knowledge
Organisation
Administration
Resources
Environment
EXAMPLE
• A Higher Education senior manager’s challenge: Create an
institutional e-learning vision and strategy
• This example highlights of the implications of the sociocultural
roots of the Ecology of Resource approach. These roots bring
a view of learning as a process that results from a learners
interactions within their environment. Therefore different
environments and cultures will result in different social
interactions. Therefore a large responsibility lies with those
who provide the educational environment to ensure that it is
one in which productive interactivity can take place
Filter Element
Knowledge
Mainly scientific, formal, academic and abstract
Small amount of less abstract knowledge e.g.
performance arts
An increasing emphasis upon transferable skills
Curriculum
Academic framework and structure for all credit
bearing and award based courses.
influences
Context Element
Influences
Some non award bearing courses, with less
formalised curriculum
influences
Administration
The types of resource include:
Human Resources - Types might include: teaching,
admin, technical, catering, estates etc.
Physical Resources- Types of physical resource
includes - Paper, Pen Technology. Types of technology
include: Hardware - Campus Network - but not all
residences on line yet, PC (Mac) Cluster rooms, Some
wireless hotspots. Software - Standard ‘office’
packages plus some specialist software e.g. mat lab
and SPSS, MLE, NO VLE or DMS
influences
Resources
Some professional accreditation
influences
Organisation
influences
Environment
Standard university lecture rooms and timetable
constraints
City connectivity is good - students and staff
environment extends beyond the campus
Campus environment with formal labs, lecture rooms
and seminar rooms. Library, refectory etc.
–Human Resources include: a variety of policies,
such as equal opportunities. Pay and grading
structure. Line management and organisation
into departments and schools. Annual planning of
Teaching process
–Physical resources include: room allocation and
booking system, administration of computers with
acceptable use policy for example
–Digital resources include: User account man
management system, The selection of content
made by the lecturer or design team, admin
features of MLE
influences
Timetabling and academic year
Many changes in last 4 years
Ongoing change due to financial constraint
The HE Landscape
Progress
Students and staff use email and the
www to communic ate and to provide
resources and suppo rt for their
students.
Increased recognition of the
importanc e of teaching and pedagogy
– a move towards learner centred
curriculum developmen t and the
importanc e of the student experience.
Potential benefits are being ‘officially’
recognised in DfES and HEFCE elearning strategies which talk about
‘embedding’ and ‘t ransformation’.
Caveat
But, the use of ICT to deliver
substantial proportions of course
materials and to provide an integrated
approach to student-teacher and
student-student interactions is much
less widely established.
But, the jury is still out on the
pedagogic effectiveness of e-learning
and there is a lack of clarity when it
comes to methodologies for
evaluating its effectiveness or
frameworks for developme nt.
But there is a lack of:
 understanding and willingne ss
and/or abili ty to invest
 suitably skilled staff
 affordable and reliable tools and
technical infrastructure
Questions
• To what extent could a learner centred
approach such as the Ecology of Resources
have a role in your institution?
• What kind of ‘filter’ elements might support
or detract from technology supported learning
in your institutions?
Part 3
THE ECOLOGY OF RESOURCES MODEL AND THE
LEARNING & TEACHING PROCESS
The Ecology of Resources Model Key
= category
element
= filter element
Environment
Knowledge
Organisation
Administration
Resources
The relationship
• The proposed relationship between learner and More Able
Partner is one that recognises the skills each can offer.
Tutors in the role of More Able Partner know more than
learners about learning and about the subject or skill to be
learnt. Learners may know more than their tutors about
some aspects of the technological tools that might help
them to learn. The role of More Able Partner may alternate
between tutor and learner
• Such an approach emphasizes the need to help both
learner and tutor to adapt the resources available to them
at any particular place and time to best support their
learning needs.
• So how can we do that?
Example
Learners and Teachers map Resources
• The study was conducted with learners (11-15 yrs) & mentors.
• The aim was to explore the resources that comprised these
learners' contexts and to work with them to develop tools to
support learners and mentors to select from these resources.
• One aspect of this work involved the participatory
development of a card game to increase people’s
understanding of the relationship between their technologies,
their learning activities, and their learning situation and
environment. The latest iteration of the game was used to
support the planning and execution of a group trip.
• The exercise enabled the research team to increase their
understanding of the learning contexts of learners.
• The game also enabled learners and mentors to work
together to decide which resources might be appropriate for
their learning and is an illustration of the type of relationship I
have just described.
Game Play Version 1
Each player takes an Activity pad sheet and Player writes down name of activity
Player adds a goal arising from activity (includes notion of what to do and why with technology)
Player selects an appropriate ACTION card based on this information to start their game
Player annotates planning pad to record ACTION
Player selects MEDIA card to go with ACTION and annotates planning pad
Dealer deals each player a hand of 6 TECHNOLOGY cards
Players will find some cards useful, some not.
First point of play is to try to find a TECHNOLOGY card in dealt hand that matches the ACTION and MEDIA cards
selected at start of play. Match is identified via colour coding between TECHNOLOGY card and ACTION
card.
If player has a suitable TECHNOLOGY card, they place it with the ACTION/MEDIA card and place set to one side
and continue play.
If player does not have a suitable TECHNOLOGY card, they show their ACTION/MEDIA cards to the other players
and ask whether anyone else has a suitable card.
If another player has a suitable TECHNOLOGY card they are willing to ‘deal’… they must describe ways in which
their card is appropriate and useful. There may be more than one player who is able to furnish a card. In
this circumstance, they must persuade the player whose game is in play to accept their card.
Game Play Version 1
Once they have a suitable card, the player spins the QUESTION WHEEL and matches the word
from that to their MEDIA selection, e.g. AUDIO and WHERE. The ‘where’ is not the location of
the activity, e.g. if it’s a trip, or in school, but rather a quality of the location, e.g.
‘inside/outside/underwater’. Once identified the player writes the response on the planning
pad, next to the question word.
Next, the player selects an ISSUES card to identify any possible problems/considerations that
might affect their use of the selected technology. If it is irrelevant, they simply replace the
card at the bottom of the deck. If relevant, they write it in the ISSUES section of the planning
pad and keep the card until the end of the game.
Finally, before play switches to the next player, the current player connects the MEDIA card with
the QUESTION WHEEL word and any relevant ISSUES and looks for another ACTION card for
the next round. If there are no relevant ISSUES to generate the next ACTION card, the player
needs to make a selection based on the next logical sequential action, e.g. CAPTURE might
lead to STORE or PROCESS or SHOW.
Play passes to the next player.
Player can only take one turn (based on ACTION card) at a time… so cannot say, I need a
computer to PROCESS it and a TV to SHOW it…
Activity pad
Game components
1 Question Wheel
6 x 6 ACTION CARDS
6 X 7 Media Cards
Game components
50 x TECHNOLOGY CARDS
40 x ISSUES CARDS
12 x ? CARDS
Example Dialogue:Round table discussion of
‘Retrieval’ category
Participant
Label
Technologies
Descriptors/Comments re. label
Learner
Retrieval
Mobile phone, Bluetooth, Infrared
Collect information
Learner
Collect
Retrieval
Digital camera, voice recorder
-
Learner
(It’s alright)
Retrieval
Laptop, internet, Limewire
Yeah, ‘retrieval’s good.
Filesharing, downloading
Learner
Get
Retrieval
Internet, Limewire
I like ‘retrieval’
Access
Learner
Retrieval
Internet, Film, Phone
Yeah, I like ‘retrieval’
Talking to people
Learner
Retrieval
Internet, CDs
-
Mentor
Retrieval
Laptop, mobile phone, Internet
I did have a problem with ‘retrieval’, I
can’t really get that in my head. Find
is like – where I would go to get the
information that I need.
Find, Fetch
Game Play Discussion
Speaker
Dialogue
Learner a You could do, like… you’re going to the BBC and you ask what piece of technology you would use and
there’s like four answers and you get to choose an answer and say why you thought it would be best to
choose it.
Learner b How long would it take to play?
Learner c You, like, ask… not questions like ‘how old am I’… but like ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and maybe… and you have to guess…
Learner d You’ve got to win!
Learner c Maybe two people could play… and they could be against each other…
Learner e The most you can learn about each technology.
Learner c Just something educational, like who gets the most answers…
Learner d You pick a place and everyone has to name as many technologies as possible and the person who gets the
most wins.
Mentor
You get scores… points… How would the game conclude?
Mentor
So, they’ve got to collect a full set which shows they’ve got storage capacity, communication capacity, etc.
Possible Steps for Learners and
More Able Partners (MAPs)
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actions to be completed by Learner and
MAP
Represent and communicate the way in which
they both currently understand the Learner’s
Ecology of Resources, in particular with respect
to the subject or skill being learnt
Negotiate a shared representation of the goal or
sub-goal of their interactions. Steps 1 and 2 are
the way in which the recognition – production
gap important to the scaffolding process can be
identified.
Explore the resources identified in the learner’s
Ecology of Resources model. In particular the
filter elements and the extent to which these
need adjustment.
Select the resources most suitable for the learner
and identify at what level of difficulty should it
be introduced.
Make decisions about who or what will be able
to share the representation of the learner’s
Ecology of Resources
Access and activate the selected resource/s
Return to step 1
Actions to be completed by Design team
Provide facilities to enable the learner and MAP to represent and
communicate their understanding. Homework example, Parent
and Child can discuss child’s previously completed activities.
Provide facilities to enable the learner and MAP to negotiate.
Homework example, Parent and Child can explore a range of
activities and select as appropriate. The Teacher will also be
involved through her original selection for the Child.
Provide accessible descriptions of the Resources available.
Provide specifications of the flexibility range of resources. Such as
the level of difficulty of different activities or the range of
locations for which an activity has been designed
Provide facilities to share/limit access to the evolving Ecology of
Resources model of the learner
Provide facilities to enable resources to be accessed.
Part 4
PART 4: THE FUTURE AND LEARNER
GENERATED CONTEXTS
Learner Generated Contexts
This phrase is designed to capture the fact that technological
developments over the past 15 years or so have changed the
nature of what learning could be like. Learners now have lots
of tools that can help them produce their own material
wherever they are. This contextualized content can enable
them to build their own knowledge networks. Learner
Generated Contexts are concerned with exploring how
education (both formal and informal) could scaffold learners
to more effectively generate their own learning contexts.
Learner Generated Contexts
Working Definition = A Learner Generated Context can be
defined as a context created by people interacting together
with a common, self-defined or negotiated learning goal. The
key aspect of Learner Generated Contexts is that they are
generated through the enterprise of those who would
previously have been consumers in a context created for them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner_generated_context
http://learnergeneratedcontexts.ning.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/tag/learnergeneratedcontexts
Example
• A learners’ eye view of Learner Generated
Contexts
• See yoodoo video clip at
• http://yoodoo.org.uk/index.php?siid=6461
Summary
• I have offered a context model called the Ecology of
Resources as a tool to help develop appropriate
technology interventions so that we can ‘Go boldly
into the dark’
• I have also used this model to consider the future
relationship between learners, their tutors and
institutions
• In particular I have highlighted the importance of
exploring the links between learners’ experiences
across and within different environments
Questions
• Can you see how a context based model might
be useful to you and your institution?
• Technology provides us with the operational
capability to integrate our learning
experiences across different locations, times
and disciplines. How can we help learners
integrate their experiences at a conceptual
level?
• What is the role for tutors in this process?
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
Boyd, D. (2007), 'Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life'. In D. Buckingham (ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning
– Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Buckingham, D. (2007), Beyond Technology: Children's Learning in the Age of Digital Culture.
Cambridge: Polity.
Green, H. and Hannon, C. (2007), TheirSpace: Education for a digital generation. London:
Demos.
Grunwald Associates, L. (2007), Creating and Connecting//Research and Guidelines on Social
- and Educational - Networking: National School Boards Association.
JISC (2007) Briefing paper to support the call for projects on the Repurposing & Reuse Of
Digital University-level Content, and Evaluation (RepRODUCE). e-Learning Briefing Paper
Supplement to Circular 4/07 available at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2007/10/reuseofcontent.aspx
LSE. (2006), The Mobile Life Youth Report 2006. London: London School of Economics
(LSE)/Carphone Warehouse Group Plc.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lee, M.J.W., McLoughlin, C. and Chan, A. Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as
catalysts for knowledge creation. e-mentor No 4 (21) / 2007
http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/eng
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2007), Social Networking Sites and Teens: An overview.
Baltimore: Pew Internet and the American Life Project.
Luckin, R. (2008) The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology
to scaffold learning Computers & Education 50 (2) 449-462
Luckin, R., Shurville, S. and Browne, T. (2007) Initiating e-learning by stealth, participation and
consultation in a late majority institution, Organisational Transformation and Social Change
Volume 3 Number 3 and Volume 4 Number 1 pp. 317–332
Ofcom. (2008), The Nations & Regions Communications Market 2008 (May). London: Ofcom.
Sener, J. (2007) In Search of Student-Generated Content in Online Education in e-mentor No
4 (21) / 2007 www.e-mentor.edu.pl/eng
Wolf, K. (2007) “YOU Learning - the impact of user generated content on education” ITK
conference 2007 in Hämeenlinna, Finland. Found on http://www.ifeb.unibremen.de/wordpress_wolf/?p=59