An Introduction to Connective Knowledge Revised and Updated (minor corrections and typos only) and placed in MS-Word Document form, November 27, 2007. Click here. The version that follows below is the original (uncorrected) version). Yet another article, describing new forms of knowledge as probablistic, has crossed my desk today, and consequently it seems appropriate at this time to type a few words on the nature of distributed knowledge. It should go without saying that these are my own thoughts, and this discussion should not therefore be considered an authoritative reference on the subject. a. You probably grew up learning that there are two major types of knowledge: qualitative and quantitative. Distributed knowledge adds a third major category to this domain, knowledge that could be described as connective. This is more than just the existence of a relation between one entity and another; it implies interaction. This is why it is incorrect to represent distributed knowledge merely as a type of probabilistic knowledge.
Social Development Theory (Vygotsky) Summary: Social Development Theory argues that social interaction precedes development; consciousness and cognition are the end product of socialization and social behavior. Originator: Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). Key terms: Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory is the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934), who lived during Russian Revolution. Vygotsky’s theory is one of the foundations of constructivism. Major themes: Social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive development. Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford, 1996). Applications of the Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Many schools have traditionally held a transmissionist or instructionist model in which a teacher or lecturer ‘transmits’ information to students. Luis C.
Balancing the Two Faces of E-Portfolios Printable version of this paper (PDF - 2 MB) Helen C. Barrett Figure 1. Balancing the Two Faces of E-Portfolios Learning Objectives After completing this chapter, you should be able to: · Explain the two major purposes for developing e-portfolios in education · Outline how to balance both process and product to enhance learner engagement with the e-portfolio process · Understand how students’ experiences with social networking can contribute to their engagement with e-portfolio development · Understand the role of intrinsic motivation in the e-portfolio development process · Outline a developmental process to implement e-portfolios through three levels: 1. 2. 3. This chapter focuses on these two major purposes for developing e-portfolios, and how to balance both approaches to enhance learner engagement with the e-portfolio process. U. Technology also gives students opportunities for taking ownership of their learning. Later in the publication, in the section on Assessment: Why E-Portfolios?
What do we mean by learner-centred e-learning? Placing the learner at the centre of the learning process is often encouraged in e-learning design yet frequently misunderstood. I find that the examples provided in articles about this topic repeatedly ignore the real meaning of this approach. If you think adding the following to your e-learning designs make it learner-centred, I’m afraid I have to disagree (this is a snapshot of suggestions offered in numerous articles about the same): Use scenario-based design with 3-4 choices every few screens (some designers say this gives ‘control’ to the learner and is therefore learner-centred – really?) These are all very useful learning design approaches to increase motivation, but they don’t make a course more learner-centred. Jonassen et al. (1995)* (yes, almost 20 years ago!) According to Jonassen there are four distinct attributes of learner-centred effective e-learning courses: Are these elements present in your e-learning? *Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.