TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing inclusive practices with technologies for online teaching and learning

T2 - Colloquium

AU - Passey, Donald

N1 - Export Date: 6 December 2018 Correspondence Address: Passey, D.; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster UniversityUnited Kingdom; email: d.passey@lancaster.ac.uk References: Alexander, R.J., (2008) Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk, , 4th edition. Cambridge: Dialogos; Barrows, H.S., Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview (1996) New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, pp. 3-12; Biasutti, M., The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module (2011) Computers & Education, 57 (3), pp. 1865-1875; Burgstahler, S., Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning practices and students with disabilities (2015) Social Inclusion, 3 (6), pp. 69-79; Caffrey, B.M., Carew, P.J., A limited engagement: A case study in using contextualised online learning environments to engage with marginalised communities (2012) IFAC Proceedings, 45 (10), pp. 165-170; Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., Ingraffea, A., Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community (2007) Computers & Education, 49 (2), pp. 309-329; Cleveland-Innes, M., Campbell, P., Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment (2012) International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13 (4), pp. 269-292; Cochran, J., Campbell, S., Baker, H., Leeds, E., The role of student characteristics in predicting retention in online courses (2014) Research in Higher Education, 55 (1), pp. 27-48; Coomey, M., Stephenson, J., Online Learning: It is all about dialogue, involvement, support and control-according to the research (2001) Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies, , J. Stephenson (ed.), London: Kogan Page; Daymont, T., Blau, G., Campbell, D., Deciding between Traditional and Online Formats: Exploring the Role of Learning Advantages, Flexibility, and Compensatory Adaptation (2011) Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12 (2), pp. 156-175; Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., Lindstrom, B., (2009) Analysing Networked Learning Practices in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development, , Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV; Donovan, M.S., Bransford, J.D., Pellegrino, J.W., (1999) How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, , Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; Drigas, A.S., Vrettaros, J., Argiri, K., Bardis, N., Web 2.0 Learning strategies for disabled students (2013) Journal of Applied Mathematics & Bioinformatics, 3 (4), pp. 125-140; El Seoud, S.A., Anguera-Iglesias, C., Franco-Casamitjana, M., Garcia-Ruiz, M.A., Block, A.E., Employing collaborative learning strategies in online conflict resolution (2007) International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2 (4), pp. 66-69; Gallardo, M., Heiser, S., Arias Mclaughlin, X., Developing pedagogical expertise in modern language learning and specific learning difficulties through collaborative and open educational practices (2015) The Language Learning Journal, 20, pp. 1-15; Gamage, V., Tretiakov, A., Crump, B., Teacher perceptions of learning affordances of multi-user virtual environments (2011) Computers & Education, 57, pp. 2406-2413; Hockly, N., Developments in online language learning (2015) ELT Journal, 69 (3), pp. 308-313; Hou, H.-T., Cheng, K.-H., Analyzing the latent emotional transfer pattern (LETP) of a learning community in an online peer-assessment activity (2012) British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (4), pp. E113-E116; Jung-Ivannikova, L., Communication challenges learners face online: Why addressing CMC and language proficiency will not solve learners' problems (2016) British Journal of Educational Technology, 47 (2), pp. 239-247; Kim, J., Lee, W., Assistance and possibilities: Analysis of learning-related factors affecting the online learning satisfaction of underprivileged students (2011) Computers & Education, 57 (4), pp. 2395-2405; Kirkwood, A., Price, L., Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is 'enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature review (2014) Learning, Media and Technology, 39 (1), pp. 6-36; Laurillard, D., (2001) Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, , 2nd ed. London: Routledge; Lave, J., Wenger, E., (1991) Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators, , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lidstrom, H., Granlund, M., Hemmingsson, H., Use of ICT in school: A comparison between students with and without physical disabilities (2012) European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27 (1), pp. 21-34; Lockyer, B., Johnson, J., Dyer, J., Conceptual content requirements for a mobile online learning community for marginalised youth (2009) Proceeding International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information Technology, 4, pp. 361-366; Lu, J., Yang, J., Yu, C.-S., Is social capital effective for inline learning? (2013) Information & Management, 50 (7), pp. 507-522; Malinverni, L., Mora-Guiard, J., Padillo, V., Valero, L., Hervas, A., Pares, N., An inclusive design approach for developing video games for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (2016) Computers in Human Behavior, , press; Mazer, J., Student emotional and cognitive interest as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student engagement: An examination of direct and interaction effects (2013) Communication Education, 62 (3), pp. 253-277; McDowell, J., A black swan in a sea of white noise: Using technology-enhanced learning to afford educational inclusivity for learners with Asperger's Syndrome (2015) Social Inclusion, 3 (6), pp. 7-15; Naslund, J.A., Grande, S.W., Aschbrenner, K.A., Elwyn, G., Naturally occurring peer support through social media: The experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube (2014) PloS ONE, 9 (10), pp. 1-9; Owens, C., Sharkey, S., Smithson, J., Hewis, E., Emmens, T., Ford, T., Jones, R., Building an online community to promote communication and collaborative learning between health professionals and young people who self-harm: An exploratory study (2015) Health Expectations, 18 (1), pp. 81-94; Passey, D., Identifying young people at risk of learning exclusion: Evidence from the educational system in England (2010) Social Media for Social Inclusion of Youth at Risk: Proceedings of the INCLUSO 2010 Conference, , J. Engelen, J. Dekelver & W. Van den Bosch (eds.), Leuven, Belgium: K.U. Leuven; Quinney, L., Fowler, P., Facilitating shared online group learning between carers, service users and social work students (2013) Social Work Education, 32 (8), pp. 1021-1031; Redecker, C., (2009) Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe, , Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Reilly, J., Gallagher-Lepak, S., Killion, C., Me and my computer": Emotional factors in online learning (2012) Nursing Education Perspectives, 33 (2), pp. 100-105; Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., Gijselaers, W., The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL (2012) Computers & Education, 59, pp. 893-906; Robinson, K., The interrelationship of emotion and cognition when students undertake collaborative group work online: An interdisciplinary approach (2013) Computers & Education, 62, pp. 298-307; Salmon, G., (2000) E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, , London: Kogan Page; Schmidt, M., Laffey, J., Schmidt, C.T., Wang, X., Stichter, J., Developing methods for understanding social behavior in a 3D virtual larning environment (2012) Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2), pp. 405-413; Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., Suthers, D., Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective (2006) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, , R. K. Sawyer (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Starcic, A.I., Niskala, M., Vocational students with severe learning difficulties learning on the Internet (2010) British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (6), pp. E155-E159; Steele, J.L., Bozick, R., Davis, L.M., Education for incarcerated juveniles: A meta- Analysis (2016) Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 21 (2), pp. 65-89; Sumner, C., Byers, A., Boochever, R., Park, G.J., Predicting dark triad personality traits from twitter usage and a linguistic analysis of tweets (2012) 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, 2, pp. 386-393; Topol, R., (2016) Manipulating Affordances in Practice: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study of Mobility Impairment and Uses of Digital Technologies in Work, , Unpublished PhD thesis. Lancaster University, UK; Woodfine, B.P., Nunes, M.B., Wright, D.J., Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! (2008) Computers & Education, 50 (3), pp. 703-717; Xie, K., Miller, N., Allison, J., Toward a social conflict evolution model: Examining the adverse power of conflictual social interaction in online learning (2013) Computers & Education, 63, pp. 404-415; Yang, Y.-T.C., Gamble, J.H., Hung, Y.-W., Lin, T.-Y., An online adaptive learning environment for critical-thinking-infused English literacy instruction (2014) British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (4), pp. 723-747; Yu, A.Y., Tian, S.W., Vogel, D., Kwok, R.C.-W., Can learning be virtually boosted? An Investigation of Online Social Networking Impacts (2010) Computers & Education, 55, pp. 1494-1503

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to explore ways that online learning might support the full spectrum of learners (those with specific social and emotional difficulties or mobility or physical disabilities, for example). METHODOLOGY: The paper draws out theoretical conceptions of inclusive practices for teaching and learning when activities deploy online technologies, using evidence from current literature. The scope of the paper is limited in two ways: to online learning and inclusive practices for the adult age group (those in higher, further, vocational education and training); and to practices concerned with subject and topic learning (rather than interventions addressing specific educational needs). Some existing taxonomies are used to explore initial dimensions and features, and a new theoretical framework is drawn through an inductive process of analysis. RESULTS: The theoretical framework defines key factors for online tutors to consider: possible spatial and physical barriers – access to learning, spatially within work or home environments; implications of tutor or learning focus – accommodating the demands of learning activities adopted; social focus - accommodating the social concerns and engagement of others; emotional focus - accommodating the demands and engagement of others; and cognitive focus - accommodating specific cognitive needs. DISCUSSION: The theoretical framework factors are related to specific individual characteristics that might be presented within a wide inclusive group online. These highlight key concerns that online tutors should consider in these cases. Although new tools are being developed that could allow us to monitor social and emotional shifts in individuals and groups working online, allowing for more timely tutor intervention, taking cognisance of findings from previous studies, as in the theoretical framework offered here, can nevertheless provide us with ways to at least ensure we consider the challenges already recognised when we support wide inclusive participation

AB - INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to explore ways that online learning might support the full spectrum of learners (those with specific social and emotional difficulties or mobility or physical disabilities, for example). METHODOLOGY: The paper draws out theoretical conceptions of inclusive practices for teaching and learning when activities deploy online technologies, using evidence from current literature. The scope of the paper is limited in two ways: to online learning and inclusive practices for the adult age group (those in higher, further, vocational education and training); and to practices concerned with subject and topic learning (rather than interventions addressing specific educational needs). Some existing taxonomies are used to explore initial dimensions and features, and a new theoretical framework is drawn through an inductive process of analysis. RESULTS: The theoretical framework defines key factors for online tutors to consider: possible spatial and physical barriers – access to learning, spatially within work or home environments; implications of tutor or learning focus – accommodating the demands of learning activities adopted; social focus - accommodating the social concerns and engagement of others; emotional focus - accommodating the demands and engagement of others; and cognitive focus - accommodating specific cognitive needs. DISCUSSION: The theoretical framework factors are related to specific individual characteristics that might be presented within a wide inclusive group online. These highlight key concerns that online tutors should consider in these cases. Although new tools are being developed that could allow us to monitor social and emotional shifts in individuals and groups working online, allowing for more timely tutor intervention, taking cognisance of findings from previous studies, as in the theoretical framework offered here, can nevertheless provide us with ways to at least ensure we consider the challenges already recognised when we support wide inclusive participation

KW - Online learning

KW - inclusive practices

KW - blended learning

KW - pedodigal concerns

KW - pedagogies

KW - development strategies

U2 - 10.13042/Bordon.2017.53523

DO - 10.13042/Bordon.2017.53523

M3 - Journal article

VL - 69

SP - 25

EP - 40

JO - Bordon, Revista de Pedagogia

JF - Bordon, Revista de Pedagogia

SN - 0210-5934

IS - 3

Y2 - 20 October 2015 through 20 October 2015

ER -