My blog review of
Sabry, K. & Barker, J. (2009) Dynamic interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International46:185-197. Link
Well I started reading this article with slight headache and finished it with a thumping headache. So which is it? Did this article blow my mind or am I ready to blow a gasket? Lets find out …
Blown mind or blown gasket??
(Image courtesy of fuckedupmedicalconditions.tumblr.com)
Perhaps one of the most ongoing and complex questions in education is how educational organisations can deal simultaneously with multiple types of learner without ignoring their differences.
What a way to start! Yes – how can it be done? I wanna know and I wanna know now.
… a large gap exists between the information available and the use of that information (Barker, 2005; Barker, 2007; Barker & Finnie, 2004).
Again, yes! How can we close this gap? Please tell me …
For a learning system to be interactive for different types of learner, it will be necessary to take account of the users (the learners) who are expected to use such systems for learning, and it is not merely enough to give students access to different tools and/or learning environments (Bates & Leary, 2001). It requires a move from a teacher–student dependence design to a teacher–student independence design that gives students flexibility and control over their learning in line with their changing needs.
Woah! These guys are good. This stuff is exactly what I want to know.
S&B continue by telling us about the components that make a good Interactive Learning System: Learner, Subject Content, Technology and Pedagogy. So far so good – they are making lots of sense and it is well referenced, with lots of other theorists backing them up.
DILS will not only have interactive components, but dynamic components rather than static, components that are constantly updated and modified based on latest research and updated knowledge gained in the field concerned.
Fantastic! But how? This is where I start to get a bit mad with them. All theory backup (references) seem to stop here and they appear to just be pulling ideas out of thin air and chucking them in. OK maybe this is because they are all their own ideas but I can’t help feeling that they should have thrown a few examples in here.
Course Materials
This component should contain up-to-date links to up-to-date information and knowledge resources related to subject area in digital form (e.g. e-book, virtual lecture, e- libraries, web, simulations, labs, etc). … As an example, each student in a class will have his/her own dynamic text book, the content of which is based on the constantly updated (dynamic) evaluation of the student’s knowledge and understanding of the material.
If the course material is so dynamic – what happens to the teacher? Will they stop learning themselves because there is no perceived need? If this happens then at some stage, surely the learner will know more than the teacher? Then where does the teaching profession stand?
And if students use dynamic books, what happens if the website/company stops trading/publishing? Who will update the knowledge then and how will the teacher know that the knowledge is no longer being updated?
Learner
This component contains actual and dynamic information including up-to-date information about level of attainment, courses evaluation results (as it occurs), efforts, progress, and considerations about the student
Where does this information come from? How can this be dynamic? Surely it would come from the teacher? If that’s the case then is the teacher of the future just going to be an evaluator/administrator?
Educational Technology and Pedagogy
OK great. How can these examples be used?
Learning interaction design
This is the component that coordinates and balances the other four components, based on up-to-date and dynamic course material, technology, pedagogy, and learners’ profile.
And the diagram includes a teacher! Sorry – where does the teacher fit in??? Poor old teacher doesn’t seem to fit with this model at all to my mind.
The whole idea of dynamicity (dynamicness, dynamicality …what word am I looking for here?) is brilliant, great, smashing, super but seems to be rather a model of utopia than a realisic model in my mind.
Sorry rant over! It looks like I blew a gasket in the end – my temples are certainly throbbing now 😦 Or have I missed the whole point? Please tell me I have …
jubarutumbleweeder 