eLEN2 — 2nd generation eLearning Exchange Networks.

Rachel Panckhurst (1) , Debra Marsh (2)

1 Praxiling - Praxiling
2 iconnect - iconnect

Since May 2007 the authors of this paper have explored and evaluated the use, including relative merits and challenges of social networking within the context of higher education professional development programmes in France and in Britain (Marsh & Panckhurst, 2007; Panckhurst & Marsh, 2008). A social networking tool was adopted for Masters' level courses in order to try and establish an effective collaborative pedagogical environment and sense of community, by placing students at the centre of the learning process (cf. Coombes et al., 2003). This approach was initiated as students' professional backgrounds were very different and it was not within the remit of the more structured ‘academic' programme to cater for such diverse needs and experience. The tool (Ning : http://www.ning.com/) was used to create private communities (eLearning Exchange Networks — eLEN). They were set up to provide virtual discussion space for exchanges in a social network-type environment. The initial frameworks for learners to communicate within was created and structured by the authors, but within a relative short space of time the learners were encouraged to initiate and moderate discussion threads. Case studies of three different pedagogical contexts conducted during 2007-2008 show that the majority of students felt they were no longer “tied-down” to an institutional virtual learning environment (VLE) since the eLEN allowed learning and interaction on the open Web, and they considered they benefited from a sense of freedom, a shift of responsibility in terms of apprehending their own learning, a collaborative group developing towards a community of practice (CoP), and a chance to display their own autonomy and interactive/tutoring techniques. The latest case study (conducted during the University year 2008-2009), which is presented in this paper, introduces some new directions and questions: now that social networks have become very popular, even within pedagogical environments, will they continue to provide the same advantages as were recently exposed in previous case studies? Expectations of social networks are very different several years on. Will they be supplanted by a new technological or pedagogical innovation? Can we move towards second-generation eLENs so that they still include diversity, autonomy, openness, interaction? which are keywords that Downes (2008) associates with network usage? What distinguishes 1st and 2nd generation eLENs? What is the next step? Who are the drivers/stakeholders? What are the implications for institutions? How can institutional control (both qualitative and pedagogical) be maintained? In this paper, we posit that 2nd generation eLENs do not require new technology, but a new, more developed pedagogy is definitely mandatory. As Anderson (2009) stipulates: “social networking learning designs will prove more effective, efficient and motivating ways to support learning than any previous forms – including both traditional campus based and distance education”.

Domaines: Linguistique; Education

Rachel Panckhurst, Debra Marsh. eLEN2 — 2nd generation eLearning Exchange Networks.. Online Educa Berlin 2009, Dec 2009, France. pp.245-248. ⟨hal-00443012⟩