https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-women/
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54432589#:~:text=Emmanuelle%20Charpentier%20and%20Jennifer%20Doudna,DNA%20contained%20in%20living%20cells.
 
INDIVIDUAL :  Explore the awarding,  to two women scientists, of  the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. They developed the tools to edit DNA.  Explore a bit further, find out how Nobel prizes are awarded. Find out the demographics of Nobel prizes generally.  Pick one characteristic & post in the forum <link>  the statistics you have found about it & one piece of valid evidence offering an explanation (150 words max plus your reference(s)). Post by Monday at 16.00 GMT. 

PARTICIPATION   1. Respond to at least 3 others of your peers by agreeing or disagreeing (with evidence) about their accounts or interpretations.  Complete by Wednesday 16.00 GMT.  2.  Meet in your groups of 4 , draw a multiple cause diagram demonstrating why there are inequalities in the awarding of Nobel prizes https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/systems-thinking-complexity/0/steps/20381. Add this to your e -portfolio ready for your assignment. And post in your <Group drive>, alerting me when it’s there. Complete by Friday 16.00 GMT., latest.
 
INTERVENTIONS:   I will give feedback on your multiple cause diagrams, Friday to Monday.
     
SCHEDULE & TIME: 2 hours exploring Nobel prizes, the rules, the history & the statistics.  At least another hour choosing one demographical element & looking at evidence for explanations or make your interpretations.  60 mins reading classmates' contributions & responding.  2 hours in your groups reminding yourselves about multiple causes in complex systems & developing an excellent diagram & posting it for review. 30 mins reading my feedback & thinking about it for your assignment. Total: Around 5.5 hours spread over one week. Your whole career to try and get a Nobel prize. ​

The original Carpe Diem design drew from creative processes, agile project development, storyboarding and the constantly updated research on the 5-stage model, e-tivities, and e-moderating. The process was delivered intensively over a one or two-day workshop, whereby “…every moment of time during the workshop would be spent on designing something that could be put into immediate use” (Salmon, 2013, p. 73).

It uses well-researched pedagogical processes (Salmon, 2013) but applies them effectively and fast. During Carpe Diem workshops staff participants rapidly become informed, determined and enthusiastic. They apply their designs and work directly with engaging students – without challenge to their fundamental ideologies of their discipline or beliefs about teaching (Goldingay et al., 2017). A major change from the frequent cries of ‘resistance’! Pedagogical practice is rapidly transformed, which is of critical importance in a perennial time-poor sector (Sambell et al., 2017).  There is visible confidence building and interest among academics in using their institutional-provided Learning Management System/Virtual Learning Environment (LMS/VLE) for student activities. The team approach results in better professional relationships which are sustained after the intervention (Salmon & Wright, 2014).

Scaling up

Since its beginnings, many hundreds of Carpe Diem learning design workshops have been run all over the world and across every discipline. A MOOC helped to ‘crowd-source’ the experience and practice (Salmon et al., 2015). For example, at the campus-based and research-intensive University of Western Australia, 347 units/modules of learning were transformed over a two and half year period using the method. This volume resulted in a major ‘tipping point’ for engagement with the LMS/VLE, and upward movement in students’ satisfaction ratings and their engagement with their learning resources. 

Towards the end of this intensive scaling up period at UWA, it was realised that there was value in addressing the overall approach of the curriculum and modes of learning of a degree or programme of study, before undertaking the detailed design work that had proved so popular and successful.  Prototyping commenced with the aim of producing outputs of the overall concepts of programme mission, scaffolding and storyboarding. Research and prototyping work commenced using similar creative processes that had been successful with module or unit-based Carpe Diems but introduced additional oversight methods and future proofing. These include soft systems methods (Wang et al., 2014; Flood, 2017), scaffolding (Salmon, 2011) and key educational concepts applied to design thinking especially Threshold Knowledge (Timmermans & Meyer, 2017).

In May 2017, on bright and sunny days in South Africa the notion of Carpe Diem for Programmes was tried at scale ….

As part of a wide-scale strategic process of Curriculum Transformation at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, a large scale Programme Carpe Diem was undertaken with 110 university staff, involving, in most cases, very radical rethinking of their approaches. Following the Programme Day, design workshops were run over 2 days for selected modules. All teams left with a fresh understanding of the potential and clear action plans to ensure delivery to students. The experience resulted in a highly strategic approach and support by senior executives of the university but also several days of cross-disciplinary and multiple-role collaboration …great enjoyment and very hard work!

Vice Rector (Learning & Teaching) for Stellenbosch University, Professor Arnold Schoonwinkel, commented “Carpe Diem gave Stellenbosch University a powerful methodology for curriculum renewal. While Carpe Diem is often applied for the renewal of courses (units or modules), SU worked with Prof Salmon to adapt the methodology for our institution-wide renewal at programme level. The process at the 4 day off-campus workshop was highly effective to join faculty and support staff in 10 teams to focus on the renewal of at least one programme per faculty. We intend using a Carpe Diem based process for a cyclic renewal of all SU’s undergraduate degree programmes and constituent modules.” 

At the Learning Café at OEB December 2017 in Berlin…

At the 2017 OEB conference, Professor Salmon will launch the new method of Carpe Diem for Programmes and invite the participants to try out some features of design for themselves, ready to transform learning experiences for their own students.
​
More information about Carpe Diem can be found at www.gillysalmon.com/carpe-diem

References

Flood, R. L. (2017). Thirty years of systemic practice and action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30(3), 209–211. doi: 10.1007/s11213-017-9411-1

Goldingay, G., Haintz, G.L., Ryan, J. Hitch, D., & Macfarlane, S. (2017). Australian social work academics’ perceptions of their teaching roles within higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 975-988. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1263933

Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: the key to active online learning (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.

Salmon, G., Gregory, J., Lokuge Dona, K., & Ross, B. (2015). Experiential online development for educators: The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 542-556. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12256

Salmon, G., & Wright, P. (2014). Transforming future teaching through ‘Carpe Diem’ learning design. Education Sciences, 4(1), 52-63. doi: 10.3390/educsci4010052

Sambell, K., Brown, S., & Graham, L. (2017). Engaging Staff in Their Own Professional Development. In Professionalism in Practice (pp. 227-260). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sputore, A., Humphries, H., & Steiner, N. (2016). Strength through partnering: New professional development opportunities in academic libraries. 12 -14 August 2015 Cape Town, South Africa. http://library.ifla.org/1920/1/S02-2015-sputore-en.pdf

Timmermans, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2017). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge’ (ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1388241

Wang, W., Liu, W., & Mingers, J. (2015). A systemic method for organisational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). European Journal of Operational Research, 246(2), 562-574. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.014

Further reading

Rich pictures & soft systems
Ghangurde, S. (2011). Business diagrams. Retrieved from
http://bizdiag.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/rich-pictures-guidelines-for-business.html

Inscript Design. (n.d.). Rich pictures. Retrieved from http://inscriptdesign.com/rich-pictures/

Design thinking
Design thinking. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from
​ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_thinking

One powerful way to incorporate video in learning and teaching is to have the learners create videos, either individually or as part of a group, perhaps instead of a written assignment or exam.

The opportunity to create videos allows learners to:

• Have rich learning experiences
• Experience independence and ownership over their creation
• Collaborate with each other
• Develop skills in digital storytelling (Kearney, 2011)
• Contribute creatively to society and discuss their creations
• Experience the challenge of communicating through the medium of film
• Develop skills in film-making, research, communication, and technology (Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, 2017)
• Promote critical reflection and development of a personal narrative (Reeves et al, 2017)

Example:
In this initiative at Loughborough and Sheffield Hallam universities (UK), learners undertook a video reporting project as an assessment in engineering and materials science units, allowing learners to gain knowledge and skills through research and video creation (Willmot, Bramhall, & Radley, 2012).

Welcome videos and more frequent informal update videos or podcasts can help learning leaders (lecturers) set the tone for learning for their units, easily and quickly highlight important issues, answer questions and alert learners to deadlines.
​
Welcome and update videos allow learning leaders to:

• Welcome and motivate learners
• Have a voice to connect personally with students outside of lecture settings
• Help learning leaders keep ‘in touch’ with their students
• Guide students with announcements, introductions to new topics, and key information
• ‘Humanise’ digital content
• The spark of a personal connection can really shape a learner’s experience (Dutton, 2017; Schmidt, 2017).

Example:
Gary Dufour’s (School of Design) short video welcomes and motivates students by previewing the material that will be studied in the unit, sparking their interest and engagement.

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage

Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, 30(9), 1-18. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/6219/view

Chalmers, C., MacCallum, J., Mowat, E., & Fulton, N. (2014). Audio feedback: richer language but no measurable impact on student performance. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 8(1), 64-73. Retrieved from http://194.81.189.19/ojs/index.php/prhe/article/view/150

Deakin Learning Futures Teaching Development Team. (2014). Using audio and video for educational purposes. Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/179013/Modules_1- 4_Using_audio_and_video_for_educational_purposes-2014-02-28.pdf

Dutton, A. (2017). Introduce yourself: Why professors should do video introductions. Kaltura blog. Retrieved from https://blog.kaltura.com/introduce-professors-video-introductions/

Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471-485. doi: 10.1177/1440783313504059

Hansch, A., Newman, C., Hillers, L., Shildhauer, T., McConachie, K., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and online learning: Critical reflections and findings from the field. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882

Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation. (2017). Video for teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/teach/video-teach-learn/index.html

Kearney, M. (2011). A learning design for student-generated digital storytelling. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 169–188. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.553623

Knauf, H. (2016). Reading, listening and feeling: audio feedback as a component of an inclusive learning culture at universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 442-449. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1021664

Ljubojevic, M., Vaskovic, V., Stankovic, S., & Vaskovic, J. (2014). Using supplementary video in multimedia instruction as a teaching tool to increase efficiency of learning and quality of experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1825/2903

Reeves, T., Caglayan, E., & Torr, R. (2017). Don’t shoot! Understanding students’ experiences of video-based learning and assessment in the arts. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 2(1), 1. doi: 10.1186/s40990-016-0011-2

Robinson, S., Centifanti, L., Brewer, G., & Holyoak, L. (2015). The benefits of delivering formative feedback via video-casts. UCLan Journal of Pedagogic Research, 6(1). Retrieved from http://pops.uclan.ac.uk/index.php/ujpr/article/view/326

Salmon, G. (2017). Higher education 1.0 to 3.0 and beyond. UWA Learning Futures blog. Retrieved from https://uwalearningfutures.edublogs.org/2017/03/22/higher-education-3-0/

Schmidt, N. (2017). Humanizing online teaching and learning: The quest for authenticity. EDUCAUSE Review Blog. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/blogs/2017/3/humanizing-online-teaching-and-learning-the-quest-for-authenticity

Skead, N. and Offer, K. (2016). Learning law through a lens: Using visual media to support student learning and skills development in law. Alternative Law Journal, 41(3), 186-190. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=406607143022037;res=IELAPA

West, J., & Turner, W. (2016). Enhancing the assessment experience: improving student perceptions, engagement and understanding using online video feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(4), 400-410. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.1003954

Willmot, P., Bramhall, M., Radley, K. (2012). Using digital video reporting to inspire and engage students. Retrieved from http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/hestem/heip/pdf/Using_digital_video_reporting.pdf

Woolfitt, Z. (2015). The effective use of video in higher education. Report for Inholland University of Applied Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.inholland.nl/media/10230/the-effective-use-of-video-in-higher-education-woolfitt-october-2015.pdf

​Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-based learning: A critical analysis of the research published in 2003-2013 and future visions. In eLmL 2014: The Sixth International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid and On-line Learning, 112–119. Retrieved from http://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=elml_2014_5_30_50050

Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) are used to mean more or less the same thing. For example, the term LMS is used for Blackboard Learn in Australia and VLE for the same system in the UK. As I’m in Australia today, I’ve used the term LMS in this blog.
​
For me, LMSs are like keystone species of biological ecosystems. Keystone species play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of an ecosystem, which would collapse if that species was removed.  

In 1997, only 7% of institutions surveyed in the UK used an LMS. By 2001, 81% of respondents ‘owned’ one or more LMSs, with 40% taking one up for the first time between 2000 and 2001 (UCISA, 2001). Implementation and integration was minimal, and staff and student engagement ‘very low’.

Now (2017) almost all colleges and universities worldwide use them and their scope has widened very considerably. They were oversold on the basis of ‘delivering’ learning, which sparked much debate about the predation of teaching staff—with their roles threatened by this new species that supposedly replaced the teacher as content-deliverer.
​
In 2017, there are around four dominant LMS providers globally (USICA, 2016). These have become highly complex enterprise-wide systems, often by acquiring a wide range of other technologies, or ensuring full and easy integration through modern integration tools offering more seamless experiences for students (read more about learning tools interoperability here). There’s more to go on this...

In practice, no LMS can ever ‘deliver’ learning and teaching but the LMS can and does shape, enable and limit learning design…a form of mutuality in the learning environment like a keystone! (More about learning design in a future blog post.)

So we move towards the 3rd decade of the 21st century with LMSs functioning as complex ecosystems. A full set digital learning tools are required as standard including enterprise-wide e-portfolios, rubrics, digital-first assessment and marking,  a wide range of synchronous and asynchronous collaboration and interaction, blogs, journals, time-based communication, learning analytics to fully exploit the enormous amount of ‘big data’ that is collectable and usable from within the LMS—in short anything and everything that enables a move from one-way teaching towards learning together, integrates, adds value, and reduces costs.

In addition, LMSs are now are now the most significant enterprise-wide technology platform that impacts on students’ experiences in Higher Education. Effective use of the LMS is essential to enable the design, development and deployment of new models of learning, including functionality on mobile devices. LMSs contribute to avoiding  expensive academic time delivering the same content repeatedly, increase the deployment and efficiency of physical teaching space on campus, and offer fully flexible, online digital learning to student cohorts (big and small) at all levels. The potential and value that LMSs could offer is now very large if they are aligned with university aspirations.  

The main LMS providers are realizing that their futures may depend on focusing on the impact on the students’ learning experience and working in true partnership with institutions. Institutions should be looking to shape their critical mission of developing students’ experiences and enabling staff to embrace new ways of becoming learning leaders. With the optimum digital learning system, then academic staff, learning technologists and information specialists become the ‘engineers’ of the ecosystem rather than by-standers and recipients.

I thought you might like to consider what I think are now the minimum requirements if LMS providers wish to continue their keystone-ness in promoting evolving learning in universities.
​
Here’s my list for today: Minimum requirements for a LMS in 2017. Yes the list is long, but we’re worth it! 

​

1. Student experience: Agile, flexible, easy to navigate, easy to use for the whole university community. Not much really!
2. Staff and designers’ experience: Also agile, flexible, easy to navigate, easy to use.
3. Staff development and learning design are the biggest factors in terms of time expenditure for the institution and of impact on students – well beyond platform and data migration costs. The LMS must be the enabler for staff development and learning design. This requires a Web based software environment (beyond the ‘menu select’): a contemporary ‘drag and drop’ is the minimum!

1. Effective Adaptive Learning tools and platforms so personalised pathways for students can be built in, supporting self-efficacy, independent learning and greater student success (retention and achievement).
2. Tools for large classes.
3. Easy and quickly developed ways of achieving future approaches to learning, e.g. flipped learning, flipped labs, mobile as blend.
4. Much improved intuitive interfaces for students and staff, and ‘pop-up’ help in critical areas.
5. A LMS that does not expect everything to be based on ‘courses’ and programmes’, credit hours and traditional methods of assessment and feedback., or ‘standard’ starts and finishes.
6. Good decisions about whether a LMS really can/could provide social learning and communities of practice, or whether using existing social media within appropriate policies and supportive learning design is a better approach.
7. Stronger awareness of accessibility to match the increasing number of students with accessibility needs – for example easy ways of students-led/choice alternatives for those with low vision, colour blindness, dyslexia, mobility issues, etc.
8. New features and provision of appropriate partners for new and emerging technologies, e.g. AI, VR, 360 degree video, robotics.

So just one question to would-be LMS ecosystem learning engineers: what would you add, remove, adjust to this list? Let me know by leaving a comment below.

For a brief overview of futures for higher education as a complex evolving system, visit www.gillysalmon.com/learningfutures, see Education 1.0-3.0

Relationships and true innovative partnerships are what really matter. The power to achieve strategic objectives as an organisation lies not in the technology platform but in the commercial and trust relationships that can be built. The moment has arrived for universities to demand a ‘learning-first’ approach while enabling academic staff to be as comfortable in the LMS as they are in the lecture theatre.

Arch voussoirs by Jhbdel. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
Cluster of ochre sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus) – keystone predator by D. Gordon E. Robertson Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
Beaver photo from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cook, R., & Obexer, R. (2014). A time for everything: reviewing an institution’s virtual learning environment. Presentation at ASCILITE 2014, Dunedin, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/dunedin2014/files/fullpapers/84-Cook.pdf

Heathcote, L., & Palmer, E. (2016). Designing a review of the Learning Management System. Presentation at ASCILITE 2016, Adelaide, Australia. Retrieved from http://2016conference.ascilite.org/wp-content/uploads/ascilite2016_heathcote_concise.pdf

New Media Consortium. (2017). NMC Horizon Report > 2017 Higher Education Edition. Retrieved from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2017-higher-education-edition

Rouse, M. (2017). Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. TechTarget. Retrieved from http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/distributed-denial-of-service-attack

UCISA Academic Support Group. (2016). Technology enhanced learning survey. Retrieved from https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/tel_survey2016

UCISA Academic Support Group. (2001). Management and implementation of Virtual Learning Environments: A UCISA funded survey. Retrieved from https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20080305233426/https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/tlig/~/media/groups/tlig/vle_surveys/VLEReport.ashx

Virtual learning environments (VLE). (2016). Jisc. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/technology-and-tools-for-online-learning/virtual-learning-environments
​
Wright, C., Lopes, V., Montgomerie, T., Reju, S., & Schmoller, S. (2014). Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an academic perspective. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/selecting-a-learning-management-system-advice-from-an-academic-perspective

​All accessed 5.4.17

Education 1.5: expand and digitalise
During the 20th Century, opportunities for people to gain a higher education increased with a very sharp acceleration in many countries from the 1960s. The ‘massification’ and the much greater diversity of students challenged traditional structures and ways of teaching. Large educational innovations such as the UK Open University were established and grew. Funding regimes started to change and for the first time discussions began on ‘students as customers’.

From around 20 years ago, Education 1.5 arrived, and Learning Management Systems/Virtual Learning Environments (LMS/VLEs) with their aspirations and myths grew in popularity. Educators started enhancing the face-to-face experiences with digital resources…whilst still essentially driven by the ‘transmission’ paradigm of teaching. LMSs/VLEs, provided by vendors external to the university, enabled the digital part of what was now called blended learning. The LMSs/VLEs are now used by millions of students and academic staff across the world, dominated by a few big suppliers. There’s a similar continuum for distance and remote learning via print, videos, digital, and mobile resources. By the way, MOOCS didn’t invent entirely online learning — it has been used since the 1990s.

Education 2.0: social connections and contributions
By around 2005, there was discussion about Web 2.0 and recognition that Web services increasingly enabled people to interact and collaborate as creators of ‘user-generated content’ in virtual communities of interest…enter blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, Web applications (apps), and mashups.
​

The impact of Web 2.0 is encapsulated by Time magazine naming ‘you’ (that is, content creators on the internet) as the 2006 Person of the Year

The nature of students and their expectations started to shift. Most students worked as well as studied and needed highly flexible learning opportunities. Education started to leverage Web 2.0 technologies to enhance and challenge traditional approaches to education. Open Educational Resources and crowd-contributed content (like Wikipedia) enabled different approaches to more information and knowledge. Some groundwork was done towards student-centred change.
​
A great example of Education 2.0 is the ‘flipped classroom’. This means moving information transfer out of the lecture room — often for students to access and work on themselves — and then assimilation, contextualising, making meaning and working together shifts to activities during precious campus-based time. As mobile technologies and much better integration becomes possible, flipping has attracted a lot of interest and experimentation. Maybe we could call this Education 2.5?
​
Reflecting Web 3.0

The World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee uses the term ‘Semantic Web’, also known as Web 3.0, to describe a network of linked data that can be processed by machines (2001).

Creating the Future for Learning

Universities are steeped in governance structures and see themselves as tasked with maintaining and building upon the knowledge and teaching methods through Education 1.0 and 2.0. However, there are huge opportunities, albeit challenging, to create very new futures for learning.

My view is that the values by which a university stands need not change but fixed institutional arrangements, including policies and strategies, preferred and often ’unconscious’ or ‘assumed’ pedagogies need to transform.

The strands of Education 3.0 can be traced back to the 1980s but unlike 1.0 and 2.0, they are a substantial change from the preceding phases and their emergence requires shifts in underlying university structures and a rethinking of student outcomes. Design thinking has become more common as a way of flexibly changing learning and teaching practices.
How can we prepare ourselves to be at the forefront of highly beneficial and innovative approaches in Web and Education 3.0 and beyond? First we need to disrupt our own thinking…since as educators we belong to Education 1.0 or 2.0 cohorts of learners. One way forward is to explore some questions about the future:

• If education becomes ‘personalized’ or ‘adaptive’, responding to the ‘like’ or ‘need’ culture, then does it kill off the critical element of learners’ own process of discovery? Do we not really need ‘disruptive learning’ instead to create the future?
• Can we use the power of learning analytics for supporting students’ self-efficacy and independence in their learning (rather than for the paternalistic prediction of risk )?
• Is another definition of ‘immersive’ going well beyond virtual reality and into seamless portable learning centred around the individual or group?
• What would you ask?

​Sources if you’d like to delve a bit more

From the field of Computer Science, looking ahead to Web 4.0 or the symbiotic web

• Aghaei, S., Nematbakhsh, M. A., & Farsani, H. K. (2012). Evolution of the world wide web: From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 3(1), 1. doi: 10.5121/ijwest.2012.3101

Exploring the concept of the ‘emotional web’ beyond Web 3.0

• Benito-Osorio, D., Peris-Ortiz, M., Armengot, C.R., & Colino, A. (2013). Web 5.0: the future of emotional competences in higher education. Global Business Perspectives, 1(3), 274-287. doi: 10.1007/s40196-013-0016-5

Commentary on technology and social patterns that will shape learning futures

• Downes, S. (2016). The 2016 look at the future of online learning. http://www.downes.ca/post/65113

Overview of the evolution of Web 1.0 to 3.0

• EPN. (2008). Evolution Web 1.0, Web 2.0 to Web 3.0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNcjya56v8

Reference:
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American Magazine, 21(3).