Control, influence and beyond: the logics of learning networks David Boud

1. Control, influence and beyond: the logics of learning networks David Boud University of Technology, Sydney

2. Aims Part 1 • Identify what I see as a widening divide between technology-driven and other pedagogy Part 2 • Introduce some ways of thinking about affordances as part of the bridge

3. Part 1 A problem

4. Three experiences leading to my position now Experience 1. Teaching online for the first time in a global program Experience 2. Developing a framework for judging technology-led activities from a learning perspective Experience 3. Reviewing changing conceptions of learner-centredness over time

5. Experience 1

6. Intercontinental Masters in Adult Learning and Global Change LiU, Linköping UBC,Vancouver UWC,Cape Town UTS,Sydney

7. Key features • Students from different countries share the same classes. They learn about global change and adult learning through together examining their own practices • Teaching is equally distributed across four continents so students experience different cultures of teaching, learning and practice • Appropriate technology used

8. My on-line experience • Move from face-to-face peer learning to remote • Total design and the temptations to control • De-centering the teacher • Forming meaningful relationships across cultures and contexts • Forming and meeting expectations

9. Experience 2

10. Appraising new technologies for learning What are suitable frameworks for analysing learning designs using new technologies?

11. Appraising new technologies for learning Learning designs Learning outcomes

12. AUTC diagram Engage learners Acknowledge context HIGH QUALITY LEARNING ACTIVITIES Challenge learners Involve practice

13. AUTC diagram Engage learners Acknowledge context Engages: • intents/expectations • prior experience • through promoting agency • will/desire/ emotion • socially Context of: • problem • self • discipline • site of application HIGH QUALITY LEARNING ACTIVITIES To: • discern variation • question assumptions • seek support of others • go beyond provisions • take responsibility Challenge learners Involve practice To: • demonstrate learning • gain feedback • develop awareness of what is learned • reflect/make sense • develop confidence

14. Issues in developing a framework • Two cultures, two traditions • Compatibility and resistance • Importance of context of actual use and the specific experience of learners often ignored

15. Experience 3

16. Learner-centred practices • Programmed learning and self-paced learning • Self-directed/negotiated learning • Problem-based learning • Work-based learning

17. Reviewing learner-centred discourses • Major shifts have occurred over past 30 years • Use of the learner-centred label disguises conceptual incompatibilities • While we may all be learner-centred now, this is almost meaningless • What traditions are we drawing on? Can we really pick and mix?

18. Reviewing the three sets of experience

19. Observations • Concern about the disconnectedness between developments on-line and face-to-face. • Two discourses are developing and two sets of structures within organisations: this is worrying when the future appears to be blended learning • Being learner-focused in itself is not enough

20. A problem? • Two different communities of practice • Potentially divergent discourses • Both embedded in a wider culture of control and surveillance with a rhetoric of autonomy and development • Each community has much to learn from the other

21. Part 2 A contribution?

22. What is needed to address the problem? • Recognition that we share a common project: creating high quality learning events for students • Development of common language and sources • Acceptance that we can learn from each other

23. My specific argument • An earlier tradition that emphasised control over learners exerts a powerful influence • The notion of affordances is useful as a way of viewing the facilitation of learning • However, we need to be careful in our use of this term • We should replace what has been a logic of control with a logic of affordances

24. The seduction of control • Feeds the belief: ‘If we can only control the environment for learning we will enable students to learn all that is required of them’ • Many technology-based environments permit greater control of students behaviour than conventional teaching • Ironically, sometimes we need to exercise control to facilitate autonomy

25. What are affordances? Example

26. What are affordances? Characteristics • Not just attributes of an environment • Link objects and events with behaviour of individuals • Not causes but opportunities • Need to be perceived • Requires individuals with reciprocal effectivities

27. What are affordances? Characteristics • Not just attributes of an environment • Link objects and events with behaviour of individuals • Not causes but opportunities • Need to be perceived • Requires individuals with reciprocal effectivities

28. Why affordances? • Note plural: affordances • Focuses on importance of learning environment • Connects learning environments with learners and learning • Relational idea—resonates with student learning research in HE

29. Key features • An affordance is not a given. It can only be inferred from learners’ actions in a given context. • Learning environments can however be designed to enhance affordances • Consideration of needed learner effectivities (e-literacy)

30. Logic of control versus logic of affordances Logic of affordances Logic of control V

31. Why logics? • The framework of thinking in which we operate influences all the micro-decisions that lead to what a learner can experience • It is the cumulation of these decisions that creates the learning environment • It is not the issue of control or affordances per se, but what is associated with them

32. Logic of control Activities determined Behaviour is all Outcomes always determinable Emphasis on achievement What is permitted is required Learner values may be tolerated Logic of affordances Activities facilitated Behaviour is important Outcomes may not be determinable Emphasis on development What is permitted is not required Learner values and priorities respected Comparisons

33. Logic of control not sustainable • Learner’s experience, inherently, cannot be controlled • We can set up the environment fully, but how learners respond depends on what they bring and what they desire

34. Logic of affordances links: Design for learning Experience of learning

35. Portraying affordances • The representation of affordances is the key to any description of pedagogy • It provides useful information to learners and teachers about what opportunities exist in any particular learning event • Any report of a learning activity, particularly when claims are to be made about outcomes needs to describe it in terms of affordances

36. Affordances and pedagogy: questions to ask 1. What pedagogy does an environment permit? (that is, what are the intrinsic limitations?) 2. What pedagogy is fostered? (that is, what features are foregrounded and promoted?) 3. What opportunities are perceived by learners? (and thus influence their potential action) 4. What is acted upon by learners?

37. Exampletutorial affordances • Provide opportunities for students to raise questions of subject matter with tutors • Provides opportunities for discussion between students of subject matter • Opportunities are not always realised as tutors may not have the skills to establish a climate in which students feel comfortable nor manage interactions that occur

38. Exampleweb-platform affordances • Provide opportunities for students to raise questions of subject matter with tutors • Provides opportunities for discussion between students of subject matter • Opportunities are not always realised as designers/tutors may not have the skills to establish a climate in which students feel comfortable nor manage interactions that occur

39. An illustrationBlackboard • Has many features which can be used for more participative pedagogy • But there are still limits, eg. students forming their own groups, difficulties of following threaded discussion, etc.

40. Affordances of learning networks • Network seen to be relevant to intents of learner • Threshold of participation within reach of learner • Access available within normal life/work patterns • Access to and familiarity with technology and platform used • Involvement scaffolded through progressive participation

41. Benefits for practice • Being clear to students and colleagues • Revealing actual pedagogy • Making it available for critique

42. Conclusions • Focus on logics emphasises intents and framing of learning • Logic of affordances can provide a bridge between two discourses • Transparency of intents helps avoid false expectations • Maintain the search for common concepts

43. References • Alexander, S. and Boud, D. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In Stephenson, J. (Ed.) Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies. London: Kogan Page, 3-15. • Boud, D and Prosser, M. (2002) Appraising new technologies for learning: a framework for development, Educational Media International, 39, 3,&4, 237-245. • Boud, D. (submitted for publication). Aren’t we all learner-centred now? the bittersweet flavour of success. In Ashwin, P. (Ed.). Changing Higher Education: The Development of Learning and Teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer. • Gibson, J.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. • Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 2, 336-342. • Larsson, S., Dahlgren, M. A., Walters, S., Boud, D and Sork, T. (2002). Confronting globalization: the challenges of creating space for global learning. In Pettitt, J. M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Adult Education Research Conference. Raleigh, North Carolina: Adult and Community College Education, North Carolina State University, 201-206. • Mynatt, E.D., O'Day, V. L., Adler, A., & Ito, M. (1998) Network communities: something old, something new, something borrowed... Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing,7 (1-2), 123-156