Networked Learning Conference 2016 leads to Barcelona which means...?

After the ICIC 2016 in Barcelona this past week I'm still reflecting on Lancaster and the Network Learning Conference. It has been a busy month. I'll write about Barcelona (again) soon, but with the ICIC presentation done (thanks to all 30+ who attended the session and engaged afterwards) I can catch up a little. Despite the stress this implies this is all positive as the challenge lies in the opportunities and tensions between nursing-healthcare, education and technology.

In Lancaster, Fran Tracy (Liverpool John Moores University) and Jesper Jensen (University of Southern Denmark) held a symposium - Designs for learning with the Semantic Web. Three papers were presented followed by discussion on:

1) the emergent nature of semantic web technologies, 2) how participatory research practices like DBR are affected during the development of semantic web technologies and 3) how both of these concepts may find a new place as we move forward into increasingly complex and changeable educational environments.

By means of introduction there were several useful pointers and reminders, including Stahl with a definition of emergence and a definition of design based learning (and DB Research). It was the combination of semantic web, DBR and networked learning which made this an immediate must-go-to session for me. My research proposal is seeking to combine these aspects plus situated learning.

I probably won't be following DBR by-the-letter(s) as defined by some advocates. My application will to some extent be emergent. There will, as I envisage it, be several invitations for users to contribute to DBR but being asynchronous this needs to be factored in. All learners - users could contribute to successive iterations, but this is unlikely and once the numbers get beyond 10-15 it would become complex and difficult to make a sense of. Poll-based reconciliation might work? As per #2 above my plan would be that a number of subjects (web users) would provide views on their experience with the model and the future site. So it is DBR on a scale that befits a small-scale evaluation study. Tracey also mentioned Wang and Hannafin (2005) and their definition of DBR:

a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories. (p. 7)

The context sensitive is were I see a role for situated learning. There are a couple of hierarchies that result. Situated learning brings in the community (- of practice), but Hodges' is firstly about the student, the care situation and their learning with the model, reflection and developing reflective practice. There are few examples of technology mediated group reflection, but the technical challenges of the group form make the individual starting point more realistic?

Simonson also cites the above and notes how DBR is pragmatic. My approach is pragmatic (that's why it's taking so long).

In Hodges' model I've written before how the interpersonal care domain, combines the INTRA (an individual's metacognition - their thinking about thinking) and the INTERpersonal (how they relate to the other). The NL conference and this past week at #ICIC2016 have helped me realise that this project may also possess this property*. As an intraproject and interproject (?) subjects (students) may engage at any of the following levels:

• Not engage in design questions at all / Read the intro materials on Hodges' model
• Read the intro materials / use the site for their case study purposes

Drupal can (I believe and have seen demonstrated) provide a great deal of web analytics from logs and reports. There is the prospect of taking this further using web analytics to inform the specific site locations subjects have visited. (For Hodges' model visual tracking would be an excellent measure but that is beyond me). There is a potential escalator of sorts here:

• Use the site for their case study purposes / comment on the usability of h2cm and the site
• Comment on the usability of h2cm and the site / See their web analytics data and my conclusions about this 
• See their web analytics data and my (other student's!) conclusions about this / Use their experience, knowledge and this feedback to respond to design questions

These design questions would then socio-technically span their nursing care learning and TEL. The project as a whole represents at its core the intra, its about the student's reflection and being reflexive. It could be that the project can progress to group and community. As posted previously I have highlighted the functionality of Drupal with respect to the semantic web. I mentioned Drupal in the discussion. The conceptual (and semantic) dimension that can be found within Hodges' model, the curriculum, the learner's vocabulary and development might facilitate that transition from individual to group? Since 2008 I've followed the development of RDF, semantic web in Drupal and the longevity of contributed modules and Drupal projects that have used them. Framing these observations with an emergent lens is fascinating in terms of the challenges, opportunities and tensions in nurse education, TEL and furthering Hodges' model.

I added the asterisk above as what follows from that point seems a long winded description of what is basically an experiment, with the attendant risks... I need to forget about the INTER and concentrate on the INTRA and yet both clamour for attention. Whatever follows must deliver something tangible for subjects^# to mitigate the risk and translate experiment into (some resemblance of) workflow? It can't be quod cum fit, however long 'after' may be...

(The terms intra-project and inter-project are not novel, see for example: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31946/ )

The symposium paper

Simonson, M. (2006). DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH Applications for Distance Education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), pp. vii–viii.

Wang, F. & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.

# students, subjects, users - all these terms may be applicable.