Last Thursday I received a parcel. Thinking it was a duplicate copy of a hardback purchased recently, I was thrilled to find it was a copy of the Social Information Technology title. When I originally enquired about submitting a paper, a complimentary copy of the book was not promised. So this was a real bonus on two counts, having checked chapter 7 and looked through the final product I'm really delighted to be a contributor. Putting my effort to one side - one of several from the UK - there are some really informative papers here. This morning I read through one -
Chapter 19 Technology and Continuing Professional Education: The Reality beyond the Hype
Maggie McPherson, School of Education, University of Leeds, UK
Miguel Baptista Nunes, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK
John Sandars, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, UK
Christine Kell, Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, UK
Section V: Implications of Social Information Technology in Education
Some points of note for me -
Learning consists of a process of construction of knowledge and the development of reflexive awareness, where the individual is an active processor of information. p.302.There's another paper combining Hodges' model and the concept (and commodity) of information. The individual who is the focus of the model is interchangeable, like the elements within a user interface. This paper is concerned primarily with medical social information technology (SITs). Being person-centred Hodges' model can focus on the patient, carer, student, doctor, nurse, or on-line instructional designer...
The authors describe constructivist learning theory:
- Learning must be situated in the domain of the use and the learning activities must match the complexity of the domain.
- Learning must contain both direct experience of the world and the reflection on that experience that will produce the intended way of representing it.
- Learning must be provided with the opportunity to explore multiple perspectives on an issue, that is, one activity is not enough to acquire a comprehensive view of a particular concept. p.303.
Finally, I must check up on two of the author's recommendations: Firstly, that of adopting a developmental approach to design and development using action research and the EMAR model (McPherson and Nunes; 2004). Secondly, a systematic approach to the evaluation of learning phenomenon, with a broader sociopolitical context must be embedded into the design and development process. Although in Hodges' model the individual is the focus - group (sociopolitical) considerations are ever present. The authors suggest as a model activity system analysis proposed by Mwanza (2002) based on activity theory.
There is the inevitable mention of Web 2.0 and its future promise and yet beyond highlighting some Web 2.0 components such as social networking, this is not (understandably) elaborated. I think this situation with its future uncertainty reflects the course of self-study I am currently engaged in - Drupal, jQuery, Ruby and Rails.
I must contact these and other authors and look forward to reading more and following up leads on W2tQ.