Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Week 13 & 14-A2: Methodological issues in exploring the learner experience
Week 13/14: A2a: Reading Conole et al
Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.
tated and experiential. '
Research methodology
an online survey, audio logs and interviews
Finding were split into 4 categories:
Key Findings
· ‘students are learning in a complex and changing environment, using a plethora of technological tools to support their learning’
· ‘Computer ownership is high and students have become accustomed to being able to electronically access information or people on demand’
· ‘students are adept at finding and manipulating relevant information and synthesizing across different information sources and use a variety of communication tools to support their learning needs’
· ‘there is evidence from the data that there is a shift from passive to more interactive interactions across all aspects of their learning, which is another characteristic of the net generation’
· ‘Universities are ill-equipped to educate a new generation of learners whose sophisticated use of emerging technologies is incompatible with current teaching practice’.
‘Our findings support this and point to a mismatch between our current offerings and student use and a further mismatch between institutions’ perceptions of student use of technology and actual use’.
· ‘The data indicates that technologies are being appropriated by learners to play to their strengths in terms of visual and auditory capabilities’
· ‘Both our study and the LEX study highlighted personalisation and appropriation of technologies as major themes to have emerged from the data. Students appear to place greater value on technologies they have ‘discovered’ or selected for themselves. (‘Importantly if students did not find the technology or platform provided by the institutions useful they were in a position to by-pass it in favour of their own personalized approach and preferred tools.’)
· ‘One of the objectives of our research was to try to gain a better understanding of the different ways in which technologies might be used across disciplines (‘The evidence from our data did not draw out major discipline difference of this kind, although some patterns in discipline differences were evident’)
· ‘One of the most striking features to emerge from the data is the extent to which students are capitalising on the social affordances of technologies, much heralded under the banner of Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006), in terms of peer support and communication – the picture emerges of a networked, extended community of learners using a range of communicative tools to exchange ideas, to query issues, to provide support, to check progress.
Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.
Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.
' Oblinger and Oblinger’s book ‘Educating the net generation’ provides a useful baseline reference for research on students’ use of technologies (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). They describe the characteristics of the ‘net generation’ – students born after 1980 – suggesting that these students fundamentally differ from pre- vious generations in the way they process information and communicate (and hence learn). They argue that these students are comfortable with technologies and suggest that the ways in which they learn is task orien- |
Research methodology
an online survey, audio logs and interviews
Finding were split into 4 categories:
Information seeking and handling Communication Assignment preparation Integrated learning. |
Key Findings
· ‘students are learning in a complex and changing environment, using a plethora of technological tools to support their learning’
· ‘Computer ownership is high and students have become accustomed to being able to electronically access information or people on demand’
· ‘students are adept at finding and manipulating relevant information and synthesizing across different information sources and use a variety of communication tools to support their learning needs’
· ‘there is evidence from the data that there is a shift from passive to more interactive interactions across all aspects of their learning, which is another characteristic of the net generation’
· ‘Universities are ill-equipped to educate a new generation of learners whose sophisticated use of emerging technologies is incompatible with current teaching practice’.
‘Our findings support this and point to a mismatch between our current offerings and student use and a further mismatch between institutions’ perceptions of student use of technology and actual use’.
· ‘The data indicates that technologies are being appropriated by learners to play to their strengths in terms of visual and auditory capabilities’
· ‘Both our study and the LEX study highlighted personalisation and appropriation of technologies as major themes to have emerged from the data. Students appear to place greater value on technologies they have ‘discovered’ or selected for themselves. (‘Importantly if students did not find the technology or platform provided by the institutions useful they were in a position to by-pass it in favour of their own personalized approach and preferred tools.’)
· ‘One of the objectives of our research was to try to gain a better understanding of the different ways in which technologies might be used across disciplines (‘The evidence from our data did not draw out major discipline difference of this kind, although some patterns in discipline differences were evident’)
· ‘One of the most striking features to emerge from the data is the extent to which students are capitalising on the social affordances of technologies, much heralded under the banner of Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006), in terms of peer support and communication – the picture emerges of a networked, extended community of learners using a range of communicative tools to exchange ideas, to query issues, to provide support, to check progress.
Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.
To what extent this social peer network replaces or complements existing support mechanisms is not clear. Students evidently do still use traditional support mechanisms – contact with tutor, study guides, additional institutional workshops and training – but it would be interesting to investigate further how much some of these are being replaced by students choosing to turn first to a fellow student for guidance. |
Week 13 & 14. Activity 1.
A1a: A vision of students today
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=dGCJ46vyR9oconfirms)
Michael Wesch video is less academically and statistically studies in the previous blog, yet he underlines anocdotally how pervasive technologies are. His persuasive style shows a number of students in short clips explaining how much laptops, social networking sites, etc; although not necessarily always for educational purposes. Emails and Facebook updates were viewed more than books for instance, also technology made multi-tasking more feasible (and in fact multi-tasking was now a necessity. There are a couple of contentious issues that were brought up.
The video started with a quote from Marshall Mcluhan who suggested how antiquated the education system was, set in a the standards of the 19th century. The system was designed for the regimented factory line society, and the relevatory technological innovation was the charkboard. This arguement juxtaposed against the modern available technology indicates to me that the school sytstem now needs to move on. (there is also a interesting video covering this arguement: http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/archive/sir-ken-robinson)
A second point was about how the much there is a digital divide between rich and poor countries. One student holds up his laptop which he suggests is worth more than a lot of people earn in a year.
This video was more provocative than the other research discussed in the previous blog. It also tells a lot on information in a short period of time. However, because it is anocdotal it does carry less gravitas, it is hard to reference and check the truth of what was said. This is ironic, since you are using 'old fashioned' research techniques to research new technologies with the results of the research suggesting that 'new' technologies are increasingly being utilized by students. The research does not suggest ways in which this knowledge about students use of technology can be taken advantage off by educators.
If the use of technology has become ubiquitious then it stands to reason that these tools should be used for education. Facebook is a useful tool because it is so popular, likewise other social networking tools. While the chalkboard has been replaced by the powerpoint, it is still the same style of presentation (i'e all students staring forwards towards a central teacher). New forms of education need to implimented, rather than old forms merely modified with new technology.
A1b Readings
Smith and Caruso (2010) ‘The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010’.
This study looked at 40,000 undergraduate students and their use of technology. The methods used to gather the data were questionaires (web based- where most of the students participated) focus groups (from 84 students), student comments, a literature review and a comparison of previous study. Immediately we can see a problem with the survey. If most of the data was from a web-based questionaire it stands to reason that most of the students would be computer literate and this would sure escrew the findings.
Students were questioned on the types of hardware they pre-existing used, the media they used (social networking site, blogging, etc), whether they used there web for colloborative work. It also analysed their competances with this technology.
The key findings
Most students consider themselves competant at using the internet to seach (80%), how only 57% knew how to check if they were looking up was from a credible source, and also the ethical and legal implications.
98% students own a computer- the majority a laptop. 70% owned a computer that was less than 2 years old. 80-90% use basic applications such as speadsheets and accessing university library resources. Approx. 40% create and share content via web 2.0 applications. 66% own internet enabled mobile devices but this number is growing.
The biggest use of technology is texting and social networking with 90% of students saying that they do this everyday, yet only 30% used this for academic purposes, likewise online colloboration was hardly used used, yet the figures in both cases are increasing.
Course Management Systems (CMS) are prominent in univesities (90% of institutions have their own systems). Students are reliant on these systems with 90% using them, although some quite sporadically. (30% use them daily, but 30% did not use one for months). The popularity of CMS has decreased in the years. (47% thought their tutors were good at IT).
Instructors where not using IT (such as blogs, and social networking as much as their students and are actually falling behind, except in the use of CMS. Tutors rely on old fashioned modes of teaching. Most students have noted their tutors lack of competances and are less than positive about their IT literacy.
Students perceptions about IT where that they made activities more convenient to carry out (70%), yet only 50% felt IT improved their education per ce, and only 30% felt IT made them particate more in their courses. IT then is an extension to pre-existing traditional concepts of education. Students did not want their courses to be wholly online and only wanted a moderate amount of IT in its content. This was consistent result to a similar report 6 years ago which indicates even though technology has moved on, perceptions of learning has not. An alternative view is that the commodization of IT means that what is perceived as a moderate amount of IT in todays courses is qualitively different than what this would mean 6 years ago.
Do tutors adapt tools which suite 'old fashioned' styles of teaching (eg such as Powerpoint). Could this be where the differences of the uses of technology diverge between students and tutors.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=dGCJ46vyR9oconfirms)
Michael Wesch video is less academically and statistically studies in the previous blog, yet he underlines anocdotally how pervasive technologies are. His persuasive style shows a number of students in short clips explaining how much laptops, social networking sites, etc; although not necessarily always for educational purposes. Emails and Facebook updates were viewed more than books for instance, also technology made multi-tasking more feasible (and in fact multi-tasking was now a necessity. There are a couple of contentious issues that were brought up.
The video started with a quote from Marshall Mcluhan who suggested how antiquated the education system was, set in a the standards of the 19th century. The system was designed for the regimented factory line society, and the relevatory technological innovation was the charkboard. This arguement juxtaposed against the modern available technology indicates to me that the school sytstem now needs to move on. (there is also a interesting video covering this arguement: http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/archive/sir-ken-robinson)
A second point was about how the much there is a digital divide between rich and poor countries. One student holds up his laptop which he suggests is worth more than a lot of people earn in a year.
This video was more provocative than the other research discussed in the previous blog. It also tells a lot on information in a short period of time. However, because it is anocdotal it does carry less gravitas, it is hard to reference and check the truth of what was said. This is ironic, since you are using 'old fashioned' research techniques to research new technologies with the results of the research suggesting that 'new' technologies are increasingly being utilized by students. The research does not suggest ways in which this knowledge about students use of technology can be taken advantage off by educators.
If the use of technology has become ubiquitious then it stands to reason that these tools should be used for education. Facebook is a useful tool because it is so popular, likewise other social networking tools. While the chalkboard has been replaced by the powerpoint, it is still the same style of presentation (i'e all students staring forwards towards a central teacher). New forms of education need to implimented, rather than old forms merely modified with new technology.
A1b Readings
Smith and Caruso (2010) ‘The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010’.
This study looked at 40,000 undergraduate students and their use of technology. The methods used to gather the data were questionaires (web based- where most of the students participated) focus groups (from 84 students), student comments, a literature review and a comparison of previous study. Immediately we can see a problem with the survey. If most of the data was from a web-based questionaire it stands to reason that most of the students would be computer literate and this would sure escrew the findings.
Students were questioned on the types of hardware they pre-existing used, the media they used (social networking site, blogging, etc), whether they used there web for colloborative work. It also analysed their competances with this technology.
The key findings
Most students consider themselves competant at using the internet to seach (80%), how only 57% knew how to check if they were looking up was from a credible source, and also the ethical and legal implications.
98% students own a computer- the majority a laptop. 70% owned a computer that was less than 2 years old. 80-90% use basic applications such as speadsheets and accessing university library resources. Approx. 40% create and share content via web 2.0 applications. 66% own internet enabled mobile devices but this number is growing.
The biggest use of technology is texting and social networking with 90% of students saying that they do this everyday, yet only 30% used this for academic purposes, likewise online colloboration was hardly used used, yet the figures in both cases are increasing.
Course Management Systems (CMS) are prominent in univesities (90% of institutions have their own systems). Students are reliant on these systems with 90% using them, although some quite sporadically. (30% use them daily, but 30% did not use one for months). The popularity of CMS has decreased in the years. (47% thought their tutors were good at IT).
Instructors where not using IT (such as blogs, and social networking as much as their students and are actually falling behind, except in the use of CMS. Tutors rely on old fashioned modes of teaching. Most students have noted their tutors lack of competances and are less than positive about their IT literacy.
Students perceptions about IT where that they made activities more convenient to carry out (70%), yet only 50% felt IT improved their education per ce, and only 30% felt IT made them particate more in their courses. IT then is an extension to pre-existing traditional concepts of education. Students did not want their courses to be wholly online and only wanted a moderate amount of IT in its content. This was consistent result to a similar report 6 years ago which indicates even though technology has moved on, perceptions of learning has not. An alternative view is that the commodization of IT means that what is perceived as a moderate amount of IT in todays courses is qualitively different than what this would mean 6 years ago.
Do tutors adapt tools which suite 'old fashioned' styles of teaching (eg such as Powerpoint). Could this be where the differences of the uses of technology diverge between students and tutors.
Weeks 13 and 14. Listening to the Voice of the Student
The Learner Experience
New forms of technology means there is vast opportunities for learning and, it has been argued, this has led to a fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume and produce new artefacts. (Braun and Schmidt, 2006; Dillon, 2006; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001a, 2001b; Brown, 2000).
This idea spawned a swath of research in this area, however these initial studies on the student experiences concentrated too much on module evaluation rather than actually concentrating on the student. More indepth research was needed. (Sharpe et al., 2005). Hence we needed to listen to the voice of the student!!
One such study which did concentrate on the student was Oblinger and Oblinger’s (2005) book, Educating the Net Generation promoted a view of a digitally literate Net Generation who were so used to computing that it changed their mind and the way they think! 'they develop hypertext mind, they leap around' (media is the message?)
Alongside these two studies a third was being developed in the UK by Sharpe et al. (2005). Again he argued that there was little study that focussed on the student. His report led to JISC commisioning two projects:
The Lex project concluded that we were in the midst of a paradigm shift in terms of the use of technologies by students. In a broader study looking at students experience as a whole a similar conclusion was reached in two surveys by the UK Higher Education Academyn (HEA).
The LXP Project
New forms of technology means there is vast opportunities for learning and, it has been argued, this has led to a fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume and produce new artefacts. (Braun and Schmidt, 2006; Dillon, 2006; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001a, 2001b; Brown, 2000).
This idea spawned a swath of research in this area, however these initial studies on the student experiences concentrated too much on module evaluation rather than actually concentrating on the student. More indepth research was needed. (Sharpe et al., 2005). Hence we needed to listen to the voice of the student!!
One such study which did concentrate on the student was Oblinger and Oblinger’s (2005) book, Educating the Net Generation promoted a view of a digitally literate Net Generation who were so used to computing that it changed their mind and the way they think! 'they develop hypertext mind, they leap around' (media is the message?)
'there are a number of implications for colleges and universities. Most stem from the dichotomy between a Net Gen mindset and that of most faculty, staff, and administrators. (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005, p.21)'These findings were backed up in a related study in Australia by Kennedy et al. (2008). However, whilst his report recognised that first year students were increasingly using new technologies, it was a far from universal. Also the types of technologies were divergent into two groups between the use of relatively simple artefacts like word processors etc, to more complicated social networking tools like PDAs, web conferencing etc. However there was a general shift towards the use of technologies and this had to be considered in a considered way by universities using empirical and evidence based research.
Alongside these two studies a third was being developed in the UK by Sharpe et al. (2005). Again he argued that there was little study that focussed on the student. His report led to JISC commisioning two projects:
- Learner Experiences of e-Learning (LEX)
- LXP Students’ experiences of technologies
The Lex project concluded that we were in the midst of a paradigm shift in terms of the use of technologies by students. In a broader study looking at students experience as a whole a similar conclusion was reached in two surveys by the UK Higher Education Academyn (HEA).
The LXP Project
'The LXP study found that the Web is unequivocally the first port of call for students – with extensive examples across the study of how students are using search engines, dedicated subject-specific sites and e-journals to find information of relevance to their studies. The level and type of communication is notable – there is strong evidence of peer support and peer community, resonant with the rhetoric inherent in the idea of social networking and the world of Web 2.0. They were critically aware of the pros and cons of the use of different technologies and ‘voted with their feet’; i.e. they didn’t use technologies just for the sake of it – there needed to be a purpose and clear personal benefit. They had an expectation of being able to access up-to-date and relevant information and resources and saw this as vital. They didn’t see the technology as anything special, but as just another tool to support their learning. (Course website).'
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Week 12: A5: Technology in your context
Identify a form of technology used in an educational context.
1. What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the students’ perceptions of the quality of their modules, their approaches to studying and their academic performance?
2. What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the teachers’ perceptions of their teaching context and their approaches to teaching?
3. Do you think this technology embodies particular assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning in higher education?
4. Are these assumptions likely to promote more positive perceptions, more desirable approaches to studying and better performance on the part of the students?
1. What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the students’ perceptions of the quality of their modules, their approaches to studying and their academic performance?
2. What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the teachers’ perceptions of their teaching context and their approaches to teaching?
3. Do you think this technology embodies particular assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning in higher education?
4. Are these assumptions likely to promote more positive perceptions, more desirable approaches to studying and better performance on the part of the students?
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Week 12- A4: Reading Richardson (2009)
In Richardson's article article , ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’ he found that there was insignificant differences in students perceptions of online versus face to face versions of courses. He used A103 and A300.
Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the role of rhetoric in reports of educational research, do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?
It does seem a very convincing arguement. By using Humanities subjects, which he recognises to be where the weakest 'online natives' seem to exist compared to other disciplines, it seems possible that the results could be easierly transposed to a wider curriculum. Since the statistics show that there is no problem with how students perceive online study then institutions can explore this option if it is relevant to their objectives,
How do the accounts given in these two papers fit with your own experience of online tutorial support in H800?
Having said that i much prefer the face-to-face variety of study. I really miss the charisma of the tutor/student. During my History degree I have somethings felt jaded through the weight of work. This was often cured by a good tutorial or chat with my tutor/fellow students. Online forums just are not as inspiring.
Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the role of rhetoric in reports of educational research, do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?
It does seem a very convincing arguement. By using Humanities subjects, which he recognises to be where the weakest 'online natives' seem to exist compared to other disciplines, it seems possible that the results could be easierly transposed to a wider curriculum. Since the statistics show that there is no problem with how students perceive online study then institutions can explore this option if it is relevant to their objectives,
How do the accounts given in these two papers fit with your own experience of online tutorial support in H800?
Having said that i much prefer the face-to-face variety of study. I really miss the charisma of the tutor/student. During my History degree I have somethings felt jaded through the weight of work. This was often cured by a good tutorial or chat with my tutor/fellow students. Online forums just are not as inspiring.
Week 12. Activity 3 Reading Price Et al.
Good website (nothing to do with course: http://www.geekologie.com/).
article by Price et al. (2007), Which showed that students who studied an online version of the had worse experiences than those who studied a face-to-face version.
Make some notes in your blog on whether the evidence regarding online tuition in Price et al.’s paper fits your own experience of online communication in general and your own experience of online tuition on H800.
Time will tell if the results for my course are an improvement on my more face-to-face courses. I do feel that the there is much difference in the tutor support between either version (but I have never really engaged as much in tutor conversions in either version either. Both versions take a bit of time getting used too.
1. Do you agree with Price et al. that online tuition is a pastoral activity and not a purely academic activity?
Yes I do believe so. It is important for a student to be relaxed and to feel confident to contribute to a discussion. In H800 there is a lot of participatory elements so this is crucial for the 'group' effort. If is also important for the individual student as otherwise they would feel alone. I know it sounds bad, but if you feel that other students are struggling then it gives oneself the impression that 'you are not alone'.
2.Do you agree that the absence of what the authors call ‘paralinguistic cues’ (intonation, emphasis etc) in an online environment can limit the effectiveness of online tuition?
Yes I do. Almost as a side effect these paralinguistic clues lead to a personality being perceived. I get inspired by some charismatic teachers (and students), a part of this inspiration comes from them being a good public speaker. This lack in inspiration is a massive problem for online learning,
article by Price et al. (2007), Which showed that students who studied an online version of the had worse experiences than those who studied a face-to-face version.
Make some notes in your blog on whether the evidence regarding online tuition in Price et al.’s paper fits your own experience of online communication in general and your own experience of online tuition on H800.
Time will tell if the results for my course are an improvement on my more face-to-face courses. I do feel that the there is much difference in the tutor support between either version (but I have never really engaged as much in tutor conversions in either version either. Both versions take a bit of time getting used too.
1. Do you agree with Price et al. that online tuition is a pastoral activity and not a purely academic activity?
Yes I do believe so. It is important for a student to be relaxed and to feel confident to contribute to a discussion. In H800 there is a lot of participatory elements so this is crucial for the 'group' effort. If is also important for the individual student as otherwise they would feel alone. I know it sounds bad, but if you feel that other students are struggling then it gives oneself the impression that 'you are not alone'.
2.Do you agree that the absence of what the authors call ‘paralinguistic cues’ (intonation, emphasis etc) in an online environment can limit the effectiveness of online tuition?
Yes I do. Almost as a side effect these paralinguistic clues lead to a personality being perceived. I get inspired by some charismatic teachers (and students), a part of this inspiration comes from them being a good public speaker. This lack in inspiration is a massive problem for online learning,
Monday, 9 May 2011
Week 12: Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching
This week we look at how and why certain areas are researched in educational research. Unlike science, there is no recognised and defined paradigm (or set of questions) which all scientists follow. Instead researchers have to decide what needs to be discussed- they have to justify the question as well as finding the answer. It is because of this reason a lot of research uses emotive language.
A2: Reading Richardson (2005).
article by Richardson (2005), ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ This article looked at the convergence of students and teachers approaches to learning.
Student approaches to studying
Interview based research saw 3 approaches to studying:
1. Deep Approach based on meaning of course material
2. Surface Approach based on memorizing course materials for purposes of assessment
3. Strategic Approach based on just trying to achieve the highest grade.
Student would adapt different approach for different contextual circumstances
a. the demands of the course materials. (course design)
b. quality of teaching
c. nature of assessment
thus it could be argued that if students could be manipulated into the correct way of studying if the above three factors were appropriately devised. (educational interventions). This idea was backed up when looking at research for subject curriculum based education versus problem based curriculum. However educational intervention via course design may not be as effective unless it changes students perceptions of the course sufficiently change. Some students who are studying exactly the same course adapt very different strategies based to studying because they have different viewpoints/perceptions about the course. This was confirmed by Ramsden (1991) Course Experience Questionaire results that show there is an intimate relationship between perceived quality of a course versus approaches to study.
Even taken into account the variation of perception, some differences in the approach to studying exist because students have differing conceptions of learning. Marton argues that students who have a deep approach take an active role, while students who have a surface approach see learning as something that happens to them. Saljo also identified 5 (later a 6th was added) conceptions of learning that fit into Martons broad categorization.
Säljö (1979) asked 90 people aged between 15 and 73 at institutions of further and
higher education in Sweden what “learning” meant to them. He found five different
conceptions:
1. Learning as the increase of knowledge
2. Learning as memorising
3. Learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures
4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning
5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality.
(p. 19)
6. A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony
and happiness or changing society
It was found that the older the student the more likely they were to adapt the 'deep' conception of learning. And also they would change there perception as they got more experienced.
Summary:
3 approaches to studying each interchangable based on contextualised materials.
Can be manipulated by course design
But perceptions of the course have to be taken into consideration
Also students ideas of what it means to study,
Tutor approaches to learning
Through the data gained from the ATI (Approaches to Teaching Inventory), it was found that students would adapt the deep approach to studying if the teacher adapted the student led approach to teaching, rather than the teacher led approach. Tutor who adapted the former method of teaching also had a more positive outlook to their profession.
However, all thing being the same, some tutors still adapted a different approach the teaching. This was based on their perception of what it meaned to teach. (see article Kember). Unlike students, there is little evidence to suggest that a tutors concept of teaching changes over time (through experience).
Finally it has been noted that although some tutors may have a student focussed idea of teaching they could be prevented by fulfilling this urge based on an old fashioned head of unit (etc) who prefers a subject based approach, or by the students themselves who prefer a more didactic approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Would learning design innovations in weeks 8 and 9 induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of students.
I do not feel that the learning design programmes we were introduced to in Week 8 and 9 would have changed a tutors approach to teaching. Compendium is all well and good, but it is a neutral technology. Likewise Cloudworks (which I found particulary cumbersome and un-user friendly. What I think the problem is that these programmes only provide blueprints to a study programme, they are still up for interpretation by the tutor and if the tutors perceptions led to a teacher orientated approach to teaching then there would be little that a neutral design template could do to change this.
2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.
This does coincide to an extent with Sfard acquisition metaphor, although Martons view is more extreme it almost implies complete passivity of the student. Sfard quite rightly points out that learning is all about a mixure of acquisition and participation, even if the participatory elements are only of the abstract social kind.
3. Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a learner?
I could relate very much to the interchangability of the three main approaches to study. I also adapt either three based on a 'cold' analyse of the job in hand. If I need good grades for a subject then I will adapt a strategy based on this. If I am studying a subject for 'fun' then I would have a selectively deep approach. As a Spanish learner I find by necessity I have to adapt a deep appoach based on the accumulative nature of this study programme.
4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?
For me I think that learning is increasing knowledge. I had a very difficult time 'handling' Sfard's participation metaphor idea's. Everything is about the individual and therefore learning is about gaining individual knowledge. The latter examples are to me a bit wooley and hippified.
5. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?
I would certainly agree with the 3 approached to learning as I certainly adapt these approached myself. The training I give really is about imparting specific knowledge about specific products/procedures. By necessity this leads to a teacher led approach as there is little room for maneavourve within the learning outcomes. Also, even if I wished to adapt a more student orientated approach this would be difficult based on the predictions of my training department.
6. Do you find Richardson’s argument convincing?
Very convincing in is style not not enough statistics for my liking. Another problem I have is that there is a bias towards deep learning. Some learning does not require this as the subject is too simplistic.
A2: Reading Richardson (2005).
article by Richardson (2005), ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ This article looked at the convergence of students and teachers approaches to learning.
Student approaches to studying
Interview based research saw 3 approaches to studying:
1. Deep Approach based on meaning of course material
2. Surface Approach based on memorizing course materials for purposes of assessment
3. Strategic Approach based on just trying to achieve the highest grade.
Student would adapt different approach for different contextual circumstances
a. the demands of the course materials. (course design)
b. quality of teaching
c. nature of assessment
thus it could be argued that if students could be manipulated into the correct way of studying if the above three factors were appropriately devised. (educational interventions). This idea was backed up when looking at research for subject curriculum based education versus problem based curriculum. However educational intervention via course design may not be as effective unless it changes students perceptions of the course sufficiently change. Some students who are studying exactly the same course adapt very different strategies based to studying because they have different viewpoints/perceptions about the course. This was confirmed by Ramsden (1991) Course Experience Questionaire results that show there is an intimate relationship between perceived quality of a course versus approaches to study.
Even taken into account the variation of perception, some differences in the approach to studying exist because students have differing conceptions of learning. Marton argues that students who have a deep approach take an active role, while students who have a surface approach see learning as something that happens to them. Saljo also identified 5 (later a 6th was added) conceptions of learning that fit into Martons broad categorization.
Säljö (1979) asked 90 people aged between 15 and 73 at institutions of further and
higher education in Sweden what “learning” meant to them. He found five different
conceptions:
1. Learning as the increase of knowledge
2. Learning as memorising
3. Learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures
4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning
5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality.
(p. 19)
6. A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony
and happiness or changing society
It was found that the older the student the more likely they were to adapt the 'deep' conception of learning. And also they would change there perception as they got more experienced.
Summary:
3 approaches to studying each interchangable based on contextualised materials.
Can be manipulated by course design
But perceptions of the course have to be taken into consideration
Also students ideas of what it means to study,
Tutor approaches to learning
Through the data gained from the ATI (Approaches to Teaching Inventory), it was found that students would adapt the deep approach to studying if the teacher adapted the student led approach to teaching, rather than the teacher led approach. Tutor who adapted the former method of teaching also had a more positive outlook to their profession.
However, all thing being the same, some tutors still adapted a different approach the teaching. This was based on their perception of what it meaned to teach. (see article Kember). Unlike students, there is little evidence to suggest that a tutors concept of teaching changes over time (through experience).
Finally it has been noted that although some tutors may have a student focussed idea of teaching they could be prevented by fulfilling this urge based on an old fashioned head of unit (etc) who prefers a subject based approach, or by the students themselves who prefer a more didactic approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Would learning design innovations in weeks 8 and 9 induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of students.
I do not feel that the learning design programmes we were introduced to in Week 8 and 9 would have changed a tutors approach to teaching. Compendium is all well and good, but it is a neutral technology. Likewise Cloudworks (which I found particulary cumbersome and un-user friendly. What I think the problem is that these programmes only provide blueprints to a study programme, they are still up for interpretation by the tutor and if the tutors perceptions led to a teacher orientated approach to teaching then there would be little that a neutral design template could do to change this.
2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.
This does coincide to an extent with Sfard acquisition metaphor, although Martons view is more extreme it almost implies complete passivity of the student. Sfard quite rightly points out that learning is all about a mixure of acquisition and participation, even if the participatory elements are only of the abstract social kind.
3. Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a learner?
I could relate very much to the interchangability of the three main approaches to study. I also adapt either three based on a 'cold' analyse of the job in hand. If I need good grades for a subject then I will adapt a strategy based on this. If I am studying a subject for 'fun' then I would have a selectively deep approach. As a Spanish learner I find by necessity I have to adapt a deep appoach based on the accumulative nature of this study programme.
4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?
For me I think that learning is increasing knowledge. I had a very difficult time 'handling' Sfard's participation metaphor idea's. Everything is about the individual and therefore learning is about gaining individual knowledge. The latter examples are to me a bit wooley and hippified.
5. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?
I would certainly agree with the 3 approached to learning as I certainly adapt these approached myself. The training I give really is about imparting specific knowledge about specific products/procedures. By necessity this leads to a teacher led approach as there is little room for maneavourve within the learning outcomes. Also, even if I wished to adapt a more student orientated approach this would be difficult based on the predictions of my training department.
6. Do you find Richardson’s argument convincing?
Very convincing in is style not not enough statistics for my liking. Another problem I have is that there is a bias towards deep learning. Some learning does not require this as the subject is too simplistic.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Cost and Elearning
Activity A4a: The eUniversity of the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom E-University (or UKeD) was conceived in 1999 and instigated in 2000 with £62 million of government money via HEFCE. It failed to achieve high student figures (only 900 students) or gain any private investment and was shut down in 2004. E-learning initiatives that did not reach targeted goals (p63-75).
One mistake by UKeD was that it tried to create its own VLE which was very costly, only after much money was spent did it decide to use commercial platforms Blackboard and WebCT. UKeD also tried to develop their own platform with Sun Microsystems (and was criticised in parliament for doing so. However there are examples whereby learning providers have created a VLE of their own and it has worked- Learndirect created their own VLE and it has 500,000 students a year.
Activity A4b: Comparing the thoughts of economists
How much does elearning cost? by Laurie Bassi (2000) presents her case from the point of view of employee development. The main point of her article is that it is impossible to work our the cost of elearning, but that we should consider the cost effectiveness instead. Cost shifts if employees are training in their own time away from the employer.
She did produce a useful chart:
The United Kingdom E-University (or UKeD) was conceived in 1999 and instigated in 2000 with £62 million of government money via HEFCE. It failed to achieve high student figures (only 900 students) or gain any private investment and was shut down in 2004. E-learning initiatives that did not reach targeted goals (p63-75).
One mistake by UKeD was that it tried to create its own VLE which was very costly, only after much money was spent did it decide to use commercial platforms Blackboard and WebCT. UKeD also tried to develop their own platform with Sun Microsystems (and was criticised in parliament for doing so. However there are examples whereby learning providers have created a VLE of their own and it has worked- Learndirect created their own VLE and it has 500,000 students a year.
Activity A4b: Comparing the thoughts of economists
How much does elearning cost? by Laurie Bassi (2000) presents her case from the point of view of employee development. The main point of her article is that it is impossible to work our the cost of elearning, but that we should consider the cost effectiveness instead. Cost shifts if employees are training in their own time away from the employer.
She did produce a useful chart:
Factors favoring traditional learning | Factors favoring elearning |
| The nature of the content requires human feedback and practice | The content can be readily modularized and/or focuses on facts and information |
| The most effective instructional design is highly interactive and/or a great deal of customization is required | Passive learning is acceptable and/or little customization is necessary |
| The content has a short-shelf life (in cases where elearning development costs are high) | The content has a long-shelf life (in cases where development costs are high) or short shelf-life (in cases where development costs are low) |
| Relatively few learners need access to the content | Many learners need access to the content |
| Learners are highly geographically concentrated, so travel costs are relatively low | Learners are highly dispersed geographically, so travel costs are high |
| The speed with which the learning is rolled out is not particularly critical | Learning must be rolled out quickly to a large number of learners |
Friday, 6 May 2011
Week 11 Activity 3: Aspects of Quality and Elearning
Activity 3a: ICT and test performance.
There seems to be little evidence to suggest that ICT has a positive effect in the classroom setting when viewing test performances. Executive Summary. This may be because the period reviewed was not long enough or the parameters set for data were 'old fashioned', making the change from ICT technologies hard to quantify.
A3b: Other benefits of ICT
For me ICT has opened up a world of possibilities. The best is that I have access to a vast library of knowledge in my home, and I can colloborate with people from all around the world. Language exchanges via skype, citizen journalism, etc: are an excellent tool to learn. It is also useful for its informal learing benefits. If a barister does not know how to make a particular blend of coffee, he could simply look it up on Utube! The benefits of this hidden educational benefits are limitless.
Open and distance education is a beneficiary, but not the main one. Distance learning is best situatued in the formal education environment, but this pails in comparison to informal education.
Of course there are disbenefits when things get taken to the extreme Online risks: from cancer to autism?. But would these not effect people who read all the time, or who were in some way addicted to some other unhealthy lifestyle?
A3c: 'Digital Natives'.
A3d: Low learner take-up?
It has been noted by educators that there is a reluctantancy to use forum and the internet for education. I am certainly reluctant, mainly because a lot of my day to day job involves using a computer and studying using these medium adds further strain to my eyes.
In terms of joining in forums, before this course I would only join for 'short sharp hits'. Ie I would require specific information about a particular subject. I have never joined a forum for the purposes of discussion.
One thing I have noticed as I have joined in the discussions on the course thus far, is that my behaviour is practically no different than if I was in a face-to-face tutorial- namely reserved and quiet. In the face to face discussion I find that a lot of the times I cannot find my arguement in time and the discussion has moved on, or someone else has suggested the point I was going to make.
The test case by Banerjee et al did find positive results looking at ICT in rural communities. But this test also found more cost effective results when they compated this data with a counter experiment of more traditional people centred methods (ie by using a local women to help children who had fallen behind catch up).
The Fuchs and Wössmann study was a meta-analysis which did not provide positive results either which showed the ICT effects were insignificant. The use of meta-analysis is also criticised:
But could reason behind the bad results be because ICT is being tested against standardised (old fashioned) test criteria.Issues such as different groups of subjects, different experimental and analytic methodologies, different experimental contexts, and possible study selection biases are all sources of concern. As is the case with virtually all studies that are quasi-experimental in design, the results are potentially open to alternative interpretations that are not consistent with the researchers’ interpretation. (Caret, 2005)
A3b: Other benefits of ICT
For me ICT has opened up a world of possibilities. The best is that I have access to a vast library of knowledge in my home, and I can colloborate with people from all around the world. Language exchanges via skype, citizen journalism, etc: are an excellent tool to learn. It is also useful for its informal learing benefits. If a barister does not know how to make a particular blend of coffee, he could simply look it up on Utube! The benefits of this hidden educational benefits are limitless.
Open and distance education is a beneficiary, but not the main one. Distance learning is best situatued in the formal education environment, but this pails in comparison to informal education.
Of course there are disbenefits when things get taken to the extreme Online risks: from cancer to autism?. But would these not effect people who read all the time, or who were in some way addicted to some other unhealthy lifestyle?
A3c: 'Digital Natives'.
A3d: Low learner take-up?
It has been noted by educators that there is a reluctantancy to use forum and the internet for education. I am certainly reluctant, mainly because a lot of my day to day job involves using a computer and studying using these medium adds further strain to my eyes.
In terms of joining in forums, before this course I would only join for 'short sharp hits'. Ie I would require specific information about a particular subject. I have never joined a forum for the purposes of discussion.
One thing I have noticed as I have joined in the discussions on the course thus far, is that my behaviour is practically no different than if I was in a face-to-face tutorial- namely reserved and quiet. In the face to face discussion I find that a lot of the times I cannot find my arguement in time and the discussion has moved on, or someone else has suggested the point I was going to make.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Week 11, Activity 2 The Global Digital Divide.
A1a Looking at the Global figures.
Internet World Stats
There is a digital divide between developed and undeveloped worlds, according to the above statistics. This divide is shortening as the number of people with access to the internet is increasing. Internet users are defined as people who have (potential access) to the internet and knowledge of how to use its applications and this can vary widely.
A2b Looking at Latin America
The digital divide is less pronounced for Latin America. About one third of the population has internet access.
A2c Looking at Africa
This has the lowest population of internet users yet is also growing at the highest rate. Like South America there is significant regional variation.
A2d Is the X0-1 the answer?
One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a project of the Miami-based One Laptop per Child Association which was backed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It had the goal of producing a computer for $100. This was known as the X0-1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child
Latin American placed a lot more orders in general than Africa, reflecting the digital divide previously discussed. India felt it could do better and produce a laptop for $10. NO WAY. But in 2010 they did unveil a laptop that cost $35 called the Sakshat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshat
The give 1 get 1 scheme (whereby donor would buy an X0-1) was orginally quite successful and had over 80,000 'customers'. However in 2008 when a second initiative was undertaken only 12,000 orders were made.
Criticisms include
A2e Digital divide debate: proposition ‘OER will reduce the digital divide’
I think the digital divide is more a matter of hardware. However the statistics seem to indicate that this hardware divide will be shortened (Internet World Stats), at which point OER will be more relevant in a digital content divide. The OER that are produced by Openlearn and MIT are as Santo's states one-way mediums. There seems be little evidence of a framework with Openlearn of MIT, etc, in which localised indigenous providers can contribute there own blend of education.
A second point I think it that because the West has had a headstart in terms of hardware, this will always be reflected in web content. By the time the third world catches up in hardware, the OER market may well be staturated. Like a lot of web services it is a case of 'getting in there first'.
I agree that OER are imperialistic and education is never neutral, but I do not think there is anyway around this. The West cannot produce educational material with a localised indigenous slant because it is not 'part' of that culture. The education it produces will always be originated in Western ideals and philosophy. I am even dubious about the neutrality of free OER software like Moodle is in allowing third world countries to produce completely localised educational resources, as Moodle by its very design does not allow the flexibility in its framework for completely autonomous elearning.
I think OERs only reduce the digital divide by providing a homogenising force to education. Because Western originated OERs will be the only choice of OER to third world countries, educators and learners in those countries will have to subscribe to this Western education in order to use them.
Internet World Stats
There is a digital divide between developed and undeveloped worlds, according to the above statistics. This divide is shortening as the number of people with access to the internet is increasing. Internet users are defined as people who have (potential access) to the internet and knowledge of how to use its applications and this can vary widely.
A2b Looking at Latin America
The digital divide is less pronounced for Latin America. About one third of the population has internet access.
A2c Looking at Africa
This has the lowest population of internet users yet is also growing at the highest rate. Like South America there is significant regional variation.
A2d Is the X0-1 the answer?
One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a project of the Miami-based One Laptop per Child Association which was backed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It had the goal of producing a computer for $100. This was known as the X0-1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshat
The give 1 get 1 scheme (whereby donor would buy an X0-1) was orginally quite successful and had over 80,000 'customers'. However in 2008 when a second initiative was undertaken only 12,000 orders were made.
Criticisms include
- top down approach imperialistic
- other priorities for low income countries (esp. Africa)
- more cost effective solutions without computers would be better
- countries are forced to buy them
- little technical support or teacher training
A2e Digital divide debate: proposition ‘OER will reduce the digital divide’
I think the digital divide is more a matter of hardware. However the statistics seem to indicate that this hardware divide will be shortened (Internet World Stats), at which point OER will be more relevant in a digital content divide. The OER that are produced by Openlearn and MIT are as Santo's states one-way mediums. There seems be little evidence of a framework with Openlearn of MIT, etc, in which localised indigenous providers can contribute there own blend of education.
A second point I think it that because the West has had a headstart in terms of hardware, this will always be reflected in web content. By the time the third world catches up in hardware, the OER market may well be staturated. Like a lot of web services it is a case of 'getting in there first'.
I agree that OER are imperialistic and education is never neutral, but I do not think there is anyway around this. The West cannot produce educational material with a localised indigenous slant because it is not 'part' of that culture. The education it produces will always be originated in Western ideals and philosophy. I am even dubious about the neutrality of free OER software like Moodle is in allowing third world countries to produce completely localised educational resources, as Moodle by its very design does not allow the flexibility in its framework for completely autonomous elearning.
I think OERs only reduce the digital divide by providing a homogenising force to education. Because Western originated OERs will be the only choice of OER to third world countries, educators and learners in those countries will have to subscribe to this Western education in order to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)