Evelyn Kigozi Kahiigi
Exploring the e-learning state of art
Evelyn begins by describing an overview about the fundamentals of e-Learning
Main challenges of e-Learning
- Lack of technical skills
- lack of time management skills
- Credibility of e-learning
- Integration of emerging tech
- Digital Divide
- lack of policies and strategies
- Increasing dropout rate
To explain the why of failures (and successes in e-learning for development), Hypothesis: Applying social presence factors of communication, interactivity and feedback can create successful e-learning experiences
My reflections
- Connectivism, as a new approach beyond Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism, and really related with the hypothesis of the project, as Connectivism is really about feedback, interaction, co-participation, etc. Same with e-Learning/Education 2.0
- Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
- Connectivism.ca
- Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge
Annika Andersson
The (jigsaw-) puzzle of e-learning: case study Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
Thesis theme: Inhibiting and facilitating factors for e-learning in developing countries
- which are the nhibiting and facilitating factors for e-learning in developing countries
- which of these factors are of specific importance to developing countries
- Contribution: a conceptual framework on factors that contributes to enrollment and completion of e-learning courses in developing countries: student, teacher, course, technology, support, institution, society.
But, besides the difference in degree of factors, is there a difference in concept between developed and developing countries? Maybe not…
Nevertheless, in academic literature, when analyzing this factors the focus in developed countries is in the individual (the student) while when analyzing developing countries the focus is usually in culture. Isn’t this a prejudice?
Arguing for a holistic approach but still focusing on a few factors.
Categorizing and looking for differences between “developed” and “developing” countries… Extremely unhappy with this terminology.
More Info
Second Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (2007)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2007) “Second Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (II). ICT in education/ e-Learning (I)” In ICTlogy,
#47, August 2007. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from
https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=607
Previous post: Second Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (I): Tim Unwin: ICT4D, a dialectic exploration
Next post: Second Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (III). ICT in education/ e-Learning (II)
5 Comments to “Second Annual ICT4D Postgraduate Symposium (II). ICT in education/ e-Learning (I)” »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
My two cents: connectivism is fine if you want to talk about how organisations learn, but it is not about individual learning in a 2.0 environment, I think
Mmm, I don’t think I agree but, neverthless, one of the points that arose during the morning session – see also Tim Unwin’s speech – was just about communities and collective learning, and under this train of though, connectivism might perfectly fit the South perspective embedded in the Knowledge Economy, Globalization, and so.
My point is connectivism –as I see it, after having read Knowing Knowledge, at least– is knowledge management, not learning: the individual learning is ‘left to the reader as an exercise’, and supposed to happen just as it did twenty years ago, in a social constructivist way.
Umm, good point. I guess that I understand connectivism as that maybe there’s no more sense in (traditional) learning, but in building networks of distributed knowledge as extensions to your own self. This way, you “learn” as far as your network grows, your connections happen – same way as synapses in your brain when “real” learning happens.
So, yes, you can call it knowledge management, but you can call it learning.
In other words: I might consider I’ve learn the name of who invented the piano, or forgotten his name but know that there was a guy in Florence that was a brilliant luthier, the standing of Stradivari or Amati or Guarnieri and, by these data, be able to find it in Google.
Bad example, but I hope my point is clear.
So we might have to talk about ‘individual learning’ and ‘collective learning’… And connectivism does nothing to explain individual learning in a new environment, which was my point (though it is clear that I didn’t make it explicit enough).
And the thing is, we still have to really see, with sound theory, how technology enhances individual learning, something that concerns me, working in formal education.