Hello All!
Reading through all the recent postings brought back our days of intense exchanges in our Emoderating course ;-)
Kathi’s comment about the use of “framework” vs “structure” reminded me of an article I read recently about the importance of having a good design that is clear and defined, yet providing participants with the flexibility to response as they negotiate and construct their own meaning. Goodyear distinguished these differences as learning tasks (ie. our designed tasks for participants) and learning activities (what the participants actually did). With this type of design in mind, I suppose that will address Kirsty’s comment regarding Jonassen’s viewpoint that the “endpoint is different for each learner”?
Thanks to you all, as I read and re-read the recent postings, I am also now of the view that the design process is a continuously evolving process and is not an end point by itself. This supports Grace’s observation that much depends on the group dynamic. I must also bear in mind Wenda’s strategy of using these strategies to evaluate our strengths and resources
I am attaching the article (mentioned above). It is based on Wenger concept of COP (community of practice). Hope this works!
Happy reading and a big thank you to all again!
Jenny
P/s: But Folks….wait….there is still an existing contingency plan: this Emoderating Group! :-) Hooray!!!
Ooops! Attachment did not work. Here is the article title:
Brosnan, K., & Burgess, R. (2003). Web based continuing professional development - a learning architecture approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(1), 24-33.
Or if you have access to Emerald database, under advanced search, key in the 2 authors and the journal title.
Feeling a little silly....
Jenny