The robustness of distance education
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•448 views
The document discusses the robustness of distance education compared to traditional education systems. It notes that distance education is designed to be robust like the internet, while traditional education brings all people to one location and relies on fragile systems. The document advocates for open, distributed, and decentralized models of online and distance education that allow flexibility and are more resilient. It concludes that educational systems should examine critical points of fragility and develop more robust models when the pandemic is over.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The robustness of distance education
Similar to The robustness of distance education (20)
More from Martin Weller
More from Martin Weller (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The robustness of distance education
- 1. The robustness of distance ed Martin ”Not an ed tech thought leader” Weller
- 2. Hypothesis – the internet is designed to be robust, and so is distance ed
- 3. What does the pandemic reveal about fragility in the education system? It’s based on bringing people to one location There are crunch points (exams) All aspects are co-located Reliant on other fragile systems (eg. entry exams)
- 5. Online, open and distance ed
- 6. Openness Open resources - remixed Open entry - independent Open source – self hosted Open access - unlimited
- 9. Asynchronous Allows student flexibility Less exams based
- 10. Resilience(!) 1. Latitude 2. Resistance 3. Precariousness 4. Panarchy (Walker et al 2004)
- 11. When this is all over… Examine critical points in the system Develop more robust systems
- 12. References Brian Lamb - DON’T FOLLOW THOUGHT LEADERS, AND WATCH OUT FOR SUBTWEETERS https://abject.ca/thought-leaders/ Weller, Martin (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 49(2) pp. 148–159. Weller, Martin and Anderson, Terry (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1) p. 53. Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), (p. 5). Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.
Editor's Notes
- Walker et al (2004) propose four aspects of resilience: 1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover. 2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed. 3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’. 4. Panarchy: the influences of external forces at scales above and below. For example, external oppressive politics, invasions, market shifts, or global climate change can trigger local surprises and regime shifts.
- Walker et al (2004) propose four aspects of resilience: 1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover. 2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed. 3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’. 4. Panarchy: the influences of external forces at scales above and below. For example, external oppressive politics, invasions, market shifts, or global climate change can trigger local surprises and regime shifts.
- Walker et al (2004) propose four aspects of resilience: 1. Latitude: the maximum amount a system can be changed before losing its ability to recover. 2. Resistance: the ease or difficulty of changing the system; how ‘resistant’ it is to being changed. 3. Precariousness: how close the current state of the system is to a limit or ‘threshold’. 4. Panarchy: the influences of external forces at scales above and below. For example, external oppressive politics, invasions, market shifts, or global climate change can trigger local surprises and regime shifts.