Birgit Ferran's List: Educational technology

Paige D. Ware and Robert O'Dowd
Language Learning & Technology, 12(1)

by Philip Murphy
Language Learning & Technology, 11(3)

by Andrew J. Milne
EDUCAUSE Review, 42(1)

by Barry McMullin
The story of technology and teaching in higher education has generally been one of successive false dawns. Each major technological advance has been ritually hailed as heralding a revolution in either the quality or cost of education (or both). Large sums of money have been expended on foot of such predictions - but, in each case, the long term impact has been found to be, at best, modest (at worst, actually negative). The application of Internet technologies in education has followed this pattern quite consistently - from hyperbolic claim, through commitment of sometimes extraordinary amounts of resource (admittedly, in this case, at the irrational height of “dot.com” fever), to both public and not-so-public failure to deliver any recognisable revolution (“no significant difference” - again). So what might we learn from this? A common factor, already recognised in earlier iterations, seems to be preoccupation with technology per se, and neglect of pedagogical theory. Indeed, many recent innovations, though technologically dazzling, seem to have been premised on the most naive and primitive theories of knowledge and learning. Yet beneath the technological hype and dazzle, the Internet may yet have something genuinely profound to bring to education. From a social constructionist view of learning (and teaching) there are signs of a slower, quieter - and much cheaper - Internet revolution, under such unlikely rallying cries as “open content”, “wikiwiki”, “blogging” and “moodling”. In this paper we will review these developments, relate them to each other and to theoretical foundations, and finally risk some continuing optimism about the ultimate role of the Internet in enhancing higher education.

by Phillip D. Long and STephen C. Ehrmann
EDUCAUSE Review, 40(4)

by Brian Lamb
EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5)

by Robert Godwin-Jones
Language Learning & Technology, 9(3)

by Stephen Downes
EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5)

by Gardner Campbell
EDUCAUSE Review, 40(6)

by Bryan Alexander
EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44

by Robert A. Ellis and Rafael A. Calvo
Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 60-70.
This study describes a set of institutional indicators that suggest minimum standards for the quality assurance of learning supported by learning management systems in blended contexts. The indicators are evaluated by comparing seven universities that use a common learning management system to support student learning experiences. The responses to a qualitative questionnaire provide evidence of how the participating universities approach leadership, policy making, development, and evaluation as they relate to
the quality assurance of learning management systems. A comparison among the universities reveals that they tend to have a better understanding of technical rather than educational issues related to quality assurance. A case is made for the need for universities to address key areas in order to reliably assure the quality of learning supported by learning management systems.

Karl Kapp is the assistant director of the Institute for Interactive Technologies and a professor of instructional technology at Bloomsburg University. Kapp also is author of the upcoming book Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning: Tools for Transferring Knowledge from the Boomers to the Game, (2007).

Nanette Miner and Jennifer Hofmann are co-authors of the upcoming
Tailored Learning: Designing the Blend that Fits (ASTD Press, 2009), from which this article is adapted;

This page provides links to some resources on blended learning - that is a learning solution created through a mixture of face-to-face and online learning delivered through a mix of media.

by Ray Jones, Department of Computing, Communication Technology and Mathematics, London Metropolitan University
Journal of Digital Information, Volume 6 Issue 1
Constructing courses of study from learning objects is an attractive proposition, but for this to be feasible learning objects need to be designed to be reusable. While considerable work has been done in producing technical standards to promote compatibility in learning objects, more work is required in designing learning objects for reuse. Aspects of cohesion, coupling and freedom from specific contexts can be used in designs to help ensure that learning objects are reusable, and these aspects can be captured as design patterns that may be employed to produce reusable designs for learning objects. However, the requirements for reusability may be in conflict with those for effective learning so the patterns used must ensure that the learning objects constructed are adaptable to different contexts and remain pedagogically sound within those contexts. The paper shows how patterns can be used to create learning resources that are both reusable and adaptable.

by Margaret Freeman and Lyn Parker, University of Sheffield
Networked Learning Conference 2004
This paper describes the ongoing process of action research and collaboration between an academic and a librarian, as we have explored how electronic resources can interact with, influence and change teaching and learning opportunities. From our experiences in this project, we identify the factors that have influenced the effective integration of learning resources with the programme of learning opportunities. As well as knowledge of, and access to, the technology and the resources, it is argued that active dialogue between the librarian, the academic and the students is a major influencing factor in developing effective and appropriate blended learning solutions.

Telos: Cuadernos de comunicación, technologia y sociedad, 67, April-June 2006