SOF2008: Week 1 Discussion

Component one is the broad desired outcome or the purpose of such a strategy.

Caroline

I would add Culture on two levels.

Pedagogical/Institutional level- for the effective and sustainable adoption within and between institutions.

Linguistic/Cultural level- for access and adaptation of resources to create a critical mass of accessible, usable and adaptable resources for all (ie. French-English; Urban-rural).

Raymond

I would add to Raymond's Culture component, also the intercultural aspects of pegagogical design & learning process as we increasingly interact with and teach learners in and from other countries and cultures (wherever we may be located).

Another component which needs to be examined, as I brought up in the text box during your session, Terry, is the issue of "predictive" evidence-based research: i.e. what trends and directions can we collectively detect or imagine from what we are seeing and finding now. I think this is the critical difference between only applying for funding for research projects that confirm/ disconfirm the status quo & current practice, or funders' agendas, and research that helps us think forward. Particularly as social software, virtual worlds & mobile communications advance and morph, it often seems to be the "fringe areas" or the "potential for sharpness" of the cutting edge technologies where we find new solutions to some of our pedagogical problems.
-Debra-

A number of participants have noted the need for a bit of direction to our discussion and though I have enjoyed our far reaching discussion to date, I do think we need to start thinking about an organizational scheme that can frame this evolving agenda. Maybe the big picture will all us to comfortably fill in the details.

I’m no artist, but I created the attached illustration of a prosumer type model of a research agenda where the agenda itself is a network of e-learning researchers and practitioners – sort of focuses as much on the process as the product.

You will see four critical areas connected in a network, each one of which spans and connects many specific groups. The 4 areas are a documentation area where results, vision for the network, celebrations etc take place. The second is the research question and theory area, where we investigate, appraise and synthesize current ideas and directions. The third is the projects area where different groups tackle projects, develop and share methodologies, tools etc. Finally the administration area is where the network itself focuses on funding and relates to the various research teams, schools, institutes, private companies etc. This network and associated groups, of course, operate within the collective learning and activity of the wider Net, extending to other disciplines and other countries.


The diagram is rough and likely there are other areas missing, but it has the advantages of:

• Allowing us to focus in our document construction on an ongoing network versus a static document
• Allows focus on each of the four areas that has most interest to participants
• Reflects the way that we actually operate in real life
• Allows and supports development of new groups of researchers to spin off the generalized framework of the network agenda
• Gives us a structure for a final report

Disadvantages are that:

• It may seem too ‘spacey’ to attract support and funding
• The network structure may not be tight enough to maintain a coherent set of actions
• It may seem more like a social support system than a means to galvanize collaborative efforts and effective dissemination.

The question then becomes how is this network administrated, funded, governed etc? Is it like (and thus a competitor to CNIE or Canada Council for Learning)? Will it provide enough of an organization framework to support a large increase in e-learning research? How is it different than say CIDER, which has not been able to attract critical mass of producers/contributors.

Your thoughts about the value or the details of this model most welcomed.
Terry