The Connected Learning Space

THE CONNECTED LEARNING SPACE Edited by Madhumita Bhattacharya & Piet Kommers THE CONNECTED LEARNING SPACE Edited by Ma...

Author: Madhumita Bhattacharya | Piet Kommers

98 downloads 846 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE CONNECTED LEARNING SPACE Edited by Madhumita Bhattacharya & Piet Kommers

THE CONNECTED LEARNING SPACE Edited by Madhumita Bhattacharya & Piet Kommers

Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education www.aace.org

EDUCATION & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIGITAL LIBRARY he EdITLib is your source for 15+ years (with your 1 year T subscription) of peer-reviewed, published articles (20,000+) and papers on the latest research, developments, and applications related to all aspects of Educational Technology and E-Learning.

• Conduct scholarly research • Receive Table of Contents alerts • Keep current on the latest research and publications in your field

Journals – www.aace.org/pubs • International Journal on E-Learning (Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education) • Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching • Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia • Journal of Interactive Learning Research • Journal of Technology and Teacher Education • AACE Journal (electronic) • Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education (electronic)

Conference Papers/Presentations – www.aace.org/conf ED-MEDIA – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications E-Learn – World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Healthcare, Government, and Higher Education SITE – Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference and others...

Please Recommend Your Library Subscribe!

www.EdITLib.org Sponsored by AACE: [email protected] 757-366-5606

THE CONNECTED LEARNING SPACE

Articles Preface: The Connected Learning Space Madhumita Bhattacharya & Piet Kommers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Facilitating Online Learning Communities: The Collaborative Design of an Online Support Resource Shannon Novak, Anna Ponting, and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 The Safety of Crowds Jon Dron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 E-Learning Environments for Digitally-Minded Students Diana Andone, Jon Dron, Lyn Pemberton, and Chris Boyne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Design of Virtual Learning Environments for Deep Learning Mike Mimirinis and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 EDUCO: Social Navigation and Group Formation in Student-Centred E-Learning Jaakko Kurhila, Mikka Miettinen, Petri Nokelainen, and Henry Tirri . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Understanding Topical Science Issues – A Learning Design Approach Trevor J. Billany, Maggie Hartnett, and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Conceptual Model of Learning to Improve Understanding of High School Chemistry Faguele Suaalii and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 Designing for Learning Effectiveness Across Borders in a Multicultural Context Krishan Lall Kumar and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Integrated Approach to Learning Environment Design for Secondary Science Teachers Madhumita Bhattacharya and Lone Jorgensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Managing Technological Constraints and Educational Aspiration in a Multicultural E-Learning Environment Design Laïla Oubenaïssa-Giardina and Madhumita Bhattacharya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

The Connected Learning Space (ISBN 1-880094-68-1) is published by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), an international, educational, nonprofit organization. Published by: AACE, PO Box 1545, Chesapeake, VA 23327-1545, USA 757-366-5606; Fax: 703-997-8760; E-mail: [email protected] © Copyright 2009 by AACE. Website: http://www.aace.org

The Connected Learning Space, 7-9

PREFACE

The Connected Learning Space Guest Editors Introduction MADHUMITA BHATTACHARYA Massey University, New Zealand [email protected] PIET KOMMERS University of Twente, Netherlands [email protected]

This book focuses on the co-evolution of learning paradigms in the resonance of WWW-based learning support systems of the recent decade. Most striking is the rather autonomous trend towards information management for learning: the beauty of transparent user interfaces, highly dynamic and diagrammatic overviews, and mathematical models in the background that reduce the complexity of documents intertwining even without bothering the learner. While early graph theorists fell back on social networks in order to get inspired, we now see the reverse – social networking architects excavate metaphors on document management and supplant the earlier scruples of human resource caretakers who thought a relationship is merely a matter of empathy and passion. In other words, the notion of social structures and learning networks have re-entered the arena of system designers and again become subdued to systematic design. It is this context that has stimulated the authors of this issue to think about design methodology. The notion of design stages and templates has been extrapolated from the context of information systems, multimedia and more recently virtual reality. The phase of Conceptual Design is a two-sided knife. Its first connotation is learning that the end user needs a thematic landscape of metacognitive entities as they emerge in verbal protocols, thinking aloud and flashing associations that can hardly be suppressed in urgent situations. This global awareness of conceptuality in the learner has penetrated curriculum and instructional design. The core idea is that superordinate topics facilitate the understanding of the more concrete (Ausubel, 1960). As a consequence of the optimism to make the learner the owner of the learning process, the envi-

JILR 18/1page layout

8

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 8

Bhattacharya and Kommers

ronment and the instructional context becomes a facility rather than an orchestrator. Subsequently the learner becomes responsible for the higherorder planning and needs conceptual awareness in order to cope with distraction and indolence. (Stoyanov & Kommers, 1999). Its second connotation is to bring the system designer at the most-inclusive level of consciousness and become aware of the most important factors for the learner. Both communication and learning psychology and esthetics are at stake here. It is hard to imagine that system designers can surpass the action range of the real user during its anticipating in the design stage. Here it will be the semi-real emulation of usage that will help the designer. The phase of Metaphoric Design is one of convergence. After the wide span of conceptual entailments, the designer needs a radical decision on the key aspect of an artifact like prosthesis, notebook, atelier, waiting room, and so on. This choice is important as it prunes away the multitude of user expectations like we have in entitling a book on a controversial topic. The generation and selection of metaphors is crucial for the match between users’ perception of the task and the evoked repertoire of subsequent intuitive actions. In the scope of learning applications it is likely that the student will finally create his or her own metaphor despite of the intended metaphor as reflected in the cosmetics and its inherent task approach. This will be a possible solution for the designer to create activities and examples in a distributed learning environment. The phase of Structural Design deals with the technical components like database elements, control structures etc. and is only essential for the physical implementation of the system. In fact we are now thinking ahead and expecting more than what the present day technology is capable of doing. The final design stage is the one of Navigational Design. Studies on adaptive sequencing and user modeling concern this aspect. The training of learners to become effective learners plays at this level. The longer tradition before constructionism entered our laboratories and schools, considered instruction to be responsible for effective navigation. Since the learner is trusted to learn to learn it is the learner who needs to navigate based upon metacognition and self-regulation. Also there is close link between the navigational style, thinking pattern and the culture. In this special issue, the authors have reiterated over and over again that it is not only the technology which can solve the problems associated with the globalization of education. Deeper understanding of the learners’ behaviors and acts are the foremost important factor in designing an environment for meaningful learning (Bhattacharya, 2004). Technology will no doubt allow us to organize and implement different sorts of activities, but the teachers and instructional designers will have to understand their students’ needs and their motivation. Students will have to be equal partners in the process of learning environment design (Bhattacharya & Bhattacharya, 2006).


Preface

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 9

9

References Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272. Stoyanov, S. & Kommers, P. A. M. (1999). Agent-Support for Problem Solving Through Concept Mapping. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Special Issue on Intelligent Agents for Education and Training Systems, 10(3), 401-412. Bhattacharya, M. (2004) Conducting problem based learning online. In E. McKay (Ed.) Proceedings International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 (pp. 525-530), Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University. Bhattacharya, Y., & Bhattacharya, M. (2006). Learner as a Designer of Digital Learning Tools. In Kinshuk, R. Koper, P. Kommers, P. Kirschner, D. Sampson & W. Didderen (Eds.) Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06) (pp. 11331134), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press Kerkrade, Netherlands, July 5-7.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 10


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 11

Facilitating Online Learning Communities: The Collaborative Design of an Online Support Resource SHANNON NOVAK Massey University, New Zealand [email protected] ANNA PONTING The Correspondence School, New Zealand [email protected] MADHUMITA BHATTACHARYA Massey University, New Zealand [email protected] The design of a web-based hypermedia learning solution requires a robust design process – a full iteration that conceptually, metaphorically, structurally and navigationally defines a solution with the end users at its core as exemplified by Kommers (2001). Initially this process was considered as a sequential, hierarchical pyramid from conceptual at the base to navigational at its peak; however, upon completion of the process it appeared more fluid, flat and interdependent where each design phase influenced and informed each other. The solution was instigated by the identification of an opportunity to recreate a learning environment online. An analysis of the proposed client (in totality; student, facilitator, course and institution) resulted in the identification of an ideal solution concept. The concept was further entertained through the exploration of the metaphoric domain of the solution. This activity culminated in the identification of solution specification/personalisation and humanisation via a virtual avatar. Following this, a structure emerged which provided the technical framework for the final solution and ensured the solution would be efficient, usable and navigable. Design of the navigational architecture capped the design section. The output was a blended (synchronous/asynchronous) web-based learning solution for an online course in online facilitation, enabling users to discuss, learn, collaborate, reflect and derive meaning.


12

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 12

Novak, Ponting, and Bhattacharya

Introduction The design of a web-based hypermedia learning solution requires a robust design process - a full iteration that conceptually, metaphorically, structurally and navigationally defines a solution with the end users at its core as exemplified by Kommers (2001). This robust design process was put into practice through the identification of an opportunity to design a web-based hypermedia learning environment for the course Facilitating an Online Learning Community (FOLC100) at the Java Institute of Technology (JIT). The process began with careful analysis of the client (in totality; student, facilitator, course and institution) which in turn drove the formation of solution concepts from which a selection of the ideal concept was made and supporting learning objectives were developed. The selected concept was subsequently enriched through the exploration of a metaphoric theme that aimed, through the fusion of cues commonly present in the learning environment, to strengthen and demystify the relationship between participant and technology. This activity culminated in a metaphor that structured the interface, humanised the virtual environment with the inclusion of a virtual avatar and accommodated the cultural diversity of participants. Following this, the genesis of application logic/structure behind the solution arose through the identification of an underlying system framework, definition of a global structure map, consideration of content presentation mechanism and the production of a screen schematic and entailing screen prototype. Finally, the navigational logic of the solution was mapped to illustrate the complex navigational relationship between structural elements. The output was a blended (synchronous/asynchronous) web-based learning solution for an online course in online facilitation, enabling participants to discuss, learn, collaborate, reflect and derive meaning. The Role of Design Pedagogy The design of a web-based hypermedia solution entails undertaking a design process specific to that medium (Carr-Chellman & Duchastel, 2002) or a design pedagogy (Mioduser, Nachmias, Lahav, & Oren, 2000) detailing a distinct sequence of applications needs to be addressed. Kommers (2001) offers up such pedagogy through a series of applications of phases by which a web-based hypermedia concept is identified and refined using a process to bring the design into fruition. The first (conceptual) phase explores the project proposal through a range of analysis activities in order to conceptualise likely products and identify the ideal concept. The second (metaphoric) phase then seeks to personify and humanise this concept through metaphor. The third (structural) phase then formulates the technical and logical architecture behind the concept which is further enhanced by the final (navigational) phase detailing navigational logic and structure.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 13

Facilitating Online Learning Communities

13

Hobbs (2002) suggests the design pedagogy be of primary importance and carefully analysed by course designers before the course is constructed. To this end, the authors critically reviewed Kommers’ (2001) design pedagogy (model) prior to embarking on the design activities leading to the design of a web-based hypermedia solution. Critical Review of the Design Pedagogy Bhattacharya’s (2005) model used to guide the process was pyramidal in its original form (see Figure 1), portraying the conceptual phase as being the initial and most focused phase and the subsequent phases as being of decreasing focus. Using this model advanced the design process, offering it sequential structure, however the authors found the model inadequate in representing the way phases needed to be revisited and how they informed/influenced one another. As a result, the authors augmented the original model to suit the observed multidirectional development of each design stage through the actual design experience (see Figure 2). In narrating Figure 2, we begin to see the conversational schema that surrounds the development of each design phase. For example, during the navigational design phase elements of the metaphorical design were revisited which resulted in elements in the conceptual design being further refined. Kommers (2001) makes a qualified description of the phase as ideally being performed sequentially and without back tracking or iterations, where a return to the conceptual phase would be the result of identifying inadequacies.

Structural

Navigational

Metaphorical

Conceptual

Figure 1. The original design model


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 14

14


1. Conceptual

2. Metaphorical

4. Navigational

3. Structural

Figure 2. The augmented design model In the course of undertaking this particular process, our experience of a sequential process was similar to that described in Ellis and Hafner (2003) in writing of the system development lifecycle as both sequential and iterative. They explain the iterative nature of the process as being a resultant of issues arising at any given phase therefore necessitating a return to any previous phase for reassessment. The rest of this article will be devoted to an account of the design, the efficaciousness of the process, the authors practice and perception of the relationships between the phases which brought about the augmented design model. Setting the Scene The project began by attributing the design with an explicit purpose – that is, a scenario the authors could refer the design back to at each stage in the design paradigm, a scenario that would frame the reason for the design being created in the first place. To this end, a scenario was developed illustrating the need for a web-based hypermedia learning solution to aid, enhance and facilitate learning for participants in a course named Facilitating an Online Learning Community (FOLC100) at the Java Institute of Technology (JIT). The Conceptual Design Phase As a result of developing a scenario, the end product was conceptualised: a web-based hypertext solution; developed using Macromedia Dreamweaver (Macromedia, 2005); a Hyper-Text Markup Language (HTML) format; and


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 15


15

an interactive resource that compliments an online course. Following the conceptualisation of an end product came the audience analysis where variables like age, gender and literacy were discussed with the intention of what Kommers describes as getting to “know and feel the intended setting” (2001, p. 6). Although time constraints meant the authors could not achieve a great sense of depth/immersion in this particular area – a context (both psychological and situational) was generated, strong enough to distill various characteristics of the intended audience, therefore allowing the design to focus clearly on the needs of the resulting persona (Nichani, 2002, p. 1). As a result of defining both scenario and audience, the project could be purposefully pinned down to a bounded system (Stake, 1995; Merriam, 1998) that concentrated on a single phenomenon and was characterised by a unit of analysis (the proposed solution). The next step was to conceptually map this unit against the target product (web-based hypermedia), target audience (persona) and target context (institutional) using a software package called Inspiration (Inspiration Software Inc, 2005). The resulting conceptual map (see Figure 3) breaks the content and practice required by the conceptualised end product into two key components: knowledge and skills, which were further broken down into: a. Participants: knowledge and understanding of the participants involved in the online learning environment. b. Technologies: knowledge, practice and understanding of technologies supporting facilitation in an online learning community. c. Skills: knowledge, practice and understanding of methods of facilitation in an online learning community. d. Practice: putting the concepts learned in a, b and c into practice by facilitation in an online learning community. It was envisaged this would culminate in a collaborative process where participants would construct meaning and engage in practice in the facilitation of an online community and scaffold the course around three key activities: initial and independent learning activities; exploration and describing facilitation; and planning and undertaking facilitation in an authentic situation amongst peers. The architecture of this map is encapsulated by the concept thick authenticity (Shaffer & Resnick, 1999) where assessments, content and objectives are placed in relevant and authentic contexts aligned with the real world context the knowledge will be applied in. From the concept map, a list of course sections, modules and learning objectives were drawn and it was anticipated how each would flow practically over the duration of the course. In retrospect this stage went down into


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 16

16


Introductions

Participants and technologies

Participation, skills and knowledge

Cultural considerations Asynchronous media

Audience analysis

Social presence Facilitating an online learning community instruction

Technologies

Synchronous media

Facilitation practice

Student facilitation summative assessment

Instruction methods skills and knowledge

Reflective practice in facilitation

Facilitation plans

Figure 3. The conceptual map more detail than expected but at this stage in the design paradigm, detail is essential as by providing more detail we are providing the subsequent phases with greater stability and something increasingly concrete to draw from. The Metaphoric Phase The aim of the metaphoric phase was to formulate the personality of the web-based hypermedia module that would be presented to course participants (Kommers, 2001, p. 10). In seeking an appropriate metaphor, a theme (see Figure 4) that connected cues and structural elements (user interface)


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 17


17

commonly found in the web-based hypermedia solution (such as sound and visuals) was devised, a theme that would be presented to the participants who in turn would become engaged with the web-based hypermedia solution dependent on how well the metaphor matched what the participants already knew of the subject and their frame of reference (iconic/cultural symbols found in everyday life). Putting this into context with the proposed solution (a course on facilitating online learning communities) the metaphoric design of the course was primarily informed by the audience/context analysis in the conceptual design stage. Characteristics were drawn from the analysis that could inform the unifying theme on an external level (consideration of learning styles) and an internal level (i.e., the average learner’s profile) with an aim to generating a highly persuasive, emotional hence engaging metaphor. From the synthesis of audience characteristics and the development of a unifying theme the learner experience could be described in terms of physical components such as a Graphical User Interface, virtual environments and virtual characters. The result harks back to the concept of thick authenticity (Shaffer and Resnick, 1999, p. 195) or an experience that combines personal authenticity, real-world authenticity, disciplinary authenticity and authentic assessment to create a successful learning solution. The FOLC100 course would work pedagogically through the simultaneous alignment of individual, social, epistemic and expressive elements. Of considerable influence at this point in driving how the metaphor would appear to the user was that considered by Talin (1998) who suggests the principle of metaphor requires the solution to “borrow behaviors from systems” (p. 1) familiar to the users. Through synchronous discussion and asynchronous document sharing the metaphoric design evolved into a design entity with greater clarity and purpose, especially in relation to the target audience and the target context – which appeared the crux of the success experienced in this stage. By exploring and seeking to understand the psychological and situational aspects of the host environment (for the FOLC100 solution) the enculturation of the metaphoric design was made a smoother, logical process. The Structural Phase This phase sought to define the architecture driving the application logic for the web-based hypermedia module (Kommers, 2001, p. 11). Prior to embarking on this phase, the online learning system of the institution was profiled in terms of its major components and supporting teams. This highlighted the influential relationship between the system framework and FOLC100 web-based hypermedia learning solution and provided a foundation from which subsequent design could be completed with contextual awareness (Brookfield, 1995). The key at this stage was to design globally


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 18

18


Informs design of

Frame of reference

Personality/ theme

Structural elements Metaphor

Metaphor

Audio cues FOLC100

Participants

Visual cues

Engaged

Knowledge base

Socio-emotive cues Informs design of

Figure 4. The metaphoric concept

and consciously, with the wider (universal) structure in mind. Following the establishment of the system framework the natural progression seemed to be developing the “global structure” diagram (Kommers, 2001, p. 11) of the learning solution which in this case took the form of a high-level (low detail) structure diagram. In developing this diagram, reference was given largely to the concept map developed in the conceptual stage which had subsequently produced a list of topics/subtopics and list of learning objectives. From this, major subject areas were discerned along with their supporting learning chunks respectively and there were a number of design principles governing the design of the diagram: 1. Relating structure to the learning objectives (Chyung & Stepich, 2003; Hannafin & Peck, 1988; Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smaldino, 1996).


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 19


19

2. Purposeful organisation of the structure (Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Hannafin & Peck, 1988; Reigeluth, 1999). 3. Ensuring the structure was complete, authentic, cognitive load reductive and appropriately emphasised (Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Biggs, 1999; Wilson, 1997). 4. Putting the learner at the heart of the solution (Alessi & Trollip, 1991; Norman, 1986). 5. Ensuring the presence of a support function (Alessi & Trollip, 1991). Although the diagram provided an overview of the program structure, it missed a level critical to understanding the pedagogical logic of the learning environment, a level that described the logic of each learning chunk as it related to the learning experience. Part of the authors personal philosophy suggest participants learn best when engaged in a range of learning styles in equal stature as opposed to a single learning style in overriding dominance, that is, the belief a learning environment should promote proficiency in a multiple modalities (e.g., visual, audio, kinaesthetic) rather than a single modality. A major influence in this line of thinking comes from Chun and Plass (1996) who suggest that associating different objects with different forms of media (text, audio, visuals, and interactions) instills richness in “recall cues” (p. 186) therefore increasing the likelihood that students will remember what they have experienced. The logic here is that by coding the learning chunks in different modalities of learning they are more likely to cater to different types of learners therefore engage the audience in learning (as opposed to a learning chunk with a single modality). To this end each learning chunk was framed in a way that would actuate this premise by breaking the content into a: 1. Tell me section: where the student is presented with content that focuses on text/visuals/static elements, this is where the initial concept at hand is explained. 2. Show me section: where the content focuses on audio/motion-based elements, this is where the concept is demonstrated in a situated scenario. 3. Check me section: where the content focuses on kinaesthetic elements, this is where the student can try the concept out for themselves and begin to develop a skill. 4. Enrich me section: where the content focuses on bringing all the modalities together, this is where the student can begin building the skill in their ‘real world’ environment. At this point it is necessary to carefully consider the underlying framework based on the attributes of meaningful learning that largely informs the


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 20

20


design activities in each phase. Consideration of this framework was inspired by the work of Bhattacharya (2002; 2004), a framework originally devised by Jonassen, Howland, Marra, and Marra (2003) who suggest “…the primary goal of education at all levels should be to engage students in meaningful learning, which occurs when students are making meaning.” (p. 6). Jonassen et. al. (2003) described five interrelated attributes of meaningful learning that include: • Active (manipulative/observant): interacting with the environment and observing the results. • Constructive (articulative/reflective): interpreting and reflecting on the interactions. • Intentional (reflective/regulatory): having goal driven, progress assessable interactions. • Authentic (complex/contextualised): developing a complex and contextual understanding of the interactions. • Cooperative (collaborative/conversational): having group-oriented, highly communicative interactions. Active

Constructive

Cooperative

Authentic

Intentional

Figure 5. The interrelated attributes of meaningful learning (based on Jonassen, 2003)


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 21


21

Table 1 seeks to prove the FOLC100 web-based hypermedia solution as a solution for engaging students in meaningful learning. Although what validates meaning is highly contentious, we can consider the attributes as a starting point from which we can apply our own social beliefs as the FOLC100 solution evolves. Following the structure diagram was the development of a screen layout through three sequential steps: schematic design; focal design; and prototype design. In generating the schematic design, exemplar schematics were consulted and a particular schematic selected for it’s relevance to the solution at hand – adjusted to match the metaphoric design that designated specific requirements of the user interface. In making the adjustment, the interface had to reflect the WebCT interface students would already be familiar with. To achieve this, a study was carried out on the standard layout of the WebCT interface that identified four major areas; the main heading area, navigational breadcrumb area, course menu area and main content area. These four areas were incorporated into the schematic design respectively (see Figure 6).

Table 1 The FOLC100 Solution as a Provider of Meaningful Learning for Participants Attribute

Relationship with the FOLC100 solution

Manipulative

The provision of interactions (particularly in the ‘show me’ and ‘check me’ sections) where the student may assist or drive the interaction. The provision of ‘observational activities’ (particularly apparent in the ‘enrich me’ sections) where students are encouraged to observe actions in everyday life. The provision of links to the outside Discussion Forum where experiences within the FOLC100 solution could be articulated to the class. The provision of ‘reflective activities’ (particularly apparent in the ‘enrich me’ sections) where students reflect on their FOLC100 experiences. The provision of introductory screens (promoting solution purpose) and globally available ‘learning objectives’ (implicit rather than explicit). The provision of a ‘tracking’ function linked to the virtual character that can provide the student with a report on their progress at any given time. The provision of ‘challenging activities’ (particularly in the ‘enrich me’ sections) that require students to put what they have learned into practice. The provision of ‘situated activities’ (particularly apparent in the ‘show me’ sections) where students may view a concept in action with a real life scenario. The provision of virtual character-to-student and computer-student collaboration with links to student-student collaboration in the external learning environment. The provision of open communication channels between FOLC100 solution and the external learning environment (technical communicative specifications).

Observant Articulative Reflective Intentional Regulatory Complex Contextualised Collaborative Conversational


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 22

22


Paper heading and resource ‘type’ description Course menu

Navigational aid – breadcrumb trail Main content area

Supporting image area

Virtual character area Audio

Audio transcription marquee

Nav

Figure 6. Schematic screen layout for the proposed FOLC100 solution Following the schematic design was focal design, or deciding where focal emphasis lay in each screen area identified by the schematic design. The focal design is considered critical in instructional terms as it provides a clear reference for the ensuing prototype design as to how the spatial design (colour, typography, imagery) will develop to ensure learners focus on the learning as opposed to that which hosts the learning. The three levels of focus (primary, secondary and tertiary) were drawn from McClurg-Genevese (2005) who suggests in each composition there are “three stages of dominance” (p. 1) that determine the weight of compositional elements and where the eye is likely to go first (see Figure 7). Finally, the prototype design followed and represented the personification of the previous two screen design stages. CorelDraw Graphics Suite 12 (Corel Corporation, 2005) was utilised to generate both vector and rasterbased elements in the prototype with the exception of the virtual character which was generated using Poser 6 (E-frontier America Inc, 2005). The Navigational Phase The aim of this phase was to anticipate the routes selected by the user through the “navigational space” (Kommers, 2001, p. 13) of the web-based


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 23


23

Paper heading and resource ‘type’ description Course menu

Navigational aid – breadcrumb trail Main content area

Supporting image area

Virtual character area Audio Key:

Audio transcription marquee

Nav

= Primary user focus = Secondary user focus = Tertiary user focus

Figure 7. Content emphasis in the screen layout for the proposed FOLC100 solution hypermedia learning solution. One of the first tasks in designing the navigational architecture of the program was to produce a navigationally enhanced structure diagram. This was a rather simple process where the structure diagram created in the structural design phase was altered to show possible routes the user might take through the structure. What immediately became apparent during diagram enhancement was route variation or the emergence of several strong routes, each with an equal possibility of occurrence. From this it was decided to return to the conceptual design stage and reuse the idea of personas, initially used to describe the psychological profile of the target audience in general, this time the persona could be used to describe the anticipated navigational profiles of the target audience. In doing so, three distinct personas emerged; the linear persona, the non-linear persona and the hybrid persona (a mix of linear and non-linear) each with an equal possibility of occurrence, therefore the navigational design had to


24

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 24


incorporate routes that pandered to both profiles. This had already been anticipated in the design of the initial screen where: • A linear path was provided for those who fell into the linear persona/hybrid persona with the inclusion of back and next buttons on each screen. • A nonlinear path was provided for those who fell into the non-linear persona/hybrid persona with the inclusion of continually available menu options. Having drawn generalisations from a preliminary analysis of the navigational architecture of the FOLC100 program we can move into more detailed analysis that begins primarily with assessing “the importance of the information elements” (Kommers, 2001, p. 14) in the program. In defining which areas on the newly created navigational diagram would be more important than others and contain the most important messages, areas were considered which would be most critical in allowing the students to engage with the content rather than the interface, hence have an increased chance of achieving the learning objectives. As a result, areas that contained navigationalrelated information or instruction that directly related to getting around the program, the purpose of the program and the expected outcomes of the program were selected. Having ensured the most important messages have been determined by level of importance and placed at distances from the initial starting point of the users journey respectively we can begin assessing the “centrality of information components” (Kommers, 2001, p. 14). The logic here is that the more essential/important the information, the more central it must be in the program’s navigational architecture therefore more user reachable. In the case of the FOLC100 solution, the central point of the program was defined as the main menu (the location where the most navigational nodes extend from) so it was ensured that navigational-related components like the introduction, course information and online help screens were the components most central to the main menu. Following the assessment of importance in information elements and centrality in information components, the underlying reference structure of the solution was explored – which was a relatively smooth process given this had largely been devised in the conceptual design stage with the development of a conceptual list (the content covered by the solution) and the structural design stage with the development of a structure diagram. From these two outputs “textual fragments” (Kommers, 2001, p. 15) or more commonly known to the authors as learning chunks, could be elicited and both overarching concepts and supporting concepts could be drawn with ease. Therefore the underlying reference structure was already in place, it just had to be made explicit through the provision of detailed storyboards.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 25


25

Having defined the basic navigational entities of the program, the final step in the navigational design stage was to create “relational diagram” (Kommers, 2001, p. 15) which was greatly influenced by concept map developed in the conceptual design phase. The resulting relational diagram (see Figure 8) was a simplification/optimisation of the concept map created through carefully aligning the logic found in the conceptual diagram, structural diagram and navigational diagram. CONCLUSION This article has critically reported on the development processes underlying the web-based hypermedia solution Facilitating an Online Learning Community in light of Kommers (2001) design paradigm encompassing four stages: conceptual, metaphoric, structural and navigational.

Cultural considerations

Social presence

Introducing community

Online participants

Audience analysis

Asynchronous media

Formative practice Online technologies

Facilitation practice

FOLC100

Summative practice

Synchronous media Facilitation preparation

Community formation

Facilitation plans

Figure 8. Relational diagram for the proposed FOLC100 solution


26

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 26


During development in the conceptual design stage the establishment of a detailed target audience/context was promoted as critical to the design at each stage and to this end a detailed scenario was developed that grounded the solution and subsequently gave it a deeper sense of purpose. This stage highlighted the importance of developing an audience persona or group of personas to inform the solution concept from a psychological standpoint. Next the metaphoric design stage ensued, this stage was considered the most difficult given the definition of the stage was quite ambiguous. To this end a metaphoric paradigm showing environment, solution and theme was developed that could help to inform the design activities at this point. This stage highlighted the importance of reutilising the audience persona developed in the conceptual stage and merging it with the audience context to inform the logic of the metaphoric paradigm. Following was the structural design stage, where a structure diagram of the learning solution was produced after careful consideration of the supporting environment. Part of devising the structure diagram was to reflect on learning styles and try to accommodate for each (and promote proficiency in each) through the inclusion of sections poignant to a particular style. In developing an interface prototype the structure was considered particularly in light of focal design and content emphasis. This stage highlighted the importance of considering the underlying system framework that supports the existence of the final learning solution. From this consideration, one can devise a system-compatible structure that will heavily reduce design/development conflicts once the development stage ensues. Finally the navigational design stage arrived where the majority of work completed in this phase was the refinement of developments from the previous three design stages. Exceptions included the importance of using navigational personas to inform anticipated routes and the logic of the centrality diagram where the unit of distance became increasingly complex given a learning solution with a global menu system. This stage highlighted the importance of developing a set of navigational personas from which navigational routes could be anticipated. It is expected this idea will be refined in future solutions to include rapid structure development and subsequently user trials with a resulting structural prototype. In closing, it is useful to return to the revised design paradigm in Figure 2 and consider how it might prove useful in the design of future learning solutions, where the designers know at the outset of the design activities the level of flexibility and collaborative interdependency each stage is capable of. The authors believe that learning solutions following this paradigm in the future will have a greater chance of being intensely designed at each stage thus offer learners a richer learning experience through a final solution directed toward promoting multimodality.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 27


27

References Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bhattacharya, M. (2002). Creating a meaningful learning environment using ICT. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/v5n3/sec3.htm Bhattacharya, M. (2004). PBL approach: A model for integrated curriculum. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/bha04803.pdf Bhattacharya, M. (2005). A model for dimensions of analysis of ID of a course. [PowerPoint] IDPaper.ppt Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational. Technology (n.d.), 31(3), 229-214. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/bjet/31/3 Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198 Chyung, S., & Stepich, D. (2003). Applying the congruence principle of Bloom’s taxonomy to designing online instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 317-330. Corel Corporation. (2005). CorelDraw Graphics Suite 12. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.corel.com/ E-Frontier America Inc. (2005). Poser 6. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.e-frontier.com/go/products/poser Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. L. (1998). The design, development and evaluation of Instructional software. London: McMillan Publishing Company. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. & Smaldino, S. (1996). Instructional media and technologies for learning (5th ed). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hobbs, D. L. (2002). A constructivist approach to web course design, a review of the literature. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 60–65. Inspiration Software Inc. (2005). Inspiration. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www. inspiration.com/productinfo/inspiration/index.cfm Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Kommers, P. (2001). Conceptual stage in designing multimedia for tele learning. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.ub.utwente.nl/webdocs/ctit/1/00000060.pdf Macromedia Inc. (2005). Macromedia Dreamweaver. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/ Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nichani, M. (2002). Framing learner personas. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/framing_learner_personas/ Norman, D.A. (1986). Cognitive Engineering. In D.A. Norman & S.W. Draper. (Eds.). User Centred System Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


28

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 28


Reigeluth, C. (1999). The elaboration theory: audience for scope and sequence decisions. In Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruction theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thick authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 10(2), 195-215. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Talin. (1998). A summary of principles for user-interface design. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://escience.anu.edu.au/lecture/cg/Import/UserInterfaceDesign.en.html Wilson, B. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. Retrieved October 19, 2006, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the participants of the 186.757 Instructional Design and Learning Technologies in Distance and Online Education for their critical feedback, accessibility and support surrounding the events described in this article.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 29

The Safety of Crowds JON DRON Brighton University, United Kingdom [email protected] If we assume that learning is best achieved in a social setting, then a vital aspect of any learning environment is its ability to support the development of trust. Trust takes many forms, from helping to identify the validity or the effectiveness of a learning resource to feelings of safety and reliance on support from fellow learners and teachers. This article explores how the environment may support or diminish trust in several types of systems, situating them within a conceptual model of trust based on their social, cognitive, technical, interface and systemic features. It goes on to describe a learning environment called Dwellings, which uses a design based on Jane Jacobs’s observations of what makes city districts thrive or decay. Dwellings may be thought of as a cross between a wiki, a moo and a learning object repository. It is built to enable trust to develop, through a combination of safety through a “succession of eyes,” a fluid locus of control and social navigation approaches to collaborative recommendation. The article concludes with a discussion of issues that have arisen through the use of Dwellings and some thoughts on general features and future developments of learning environments that encourage the development of trust.

Introduction Safety in an e-learning environment is among the most important factors in building an effective learning community (Bonk, 2002). Safety is based on trust – trust of the teacher, trust of other members of the community, trust in the tools, trust in the environment. This article will discuss appropriate means of building e-learning environments that make the emergence of trust a more likely outcome. The word trust applies to a wide range of interactions between agents, both human and otherwise. This article follows Castelfranchi and Falcone’s


30

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 30

Dron

translation of Gambetta’s definition that “trust is the subjective probability by which an individual, A, expects that another individual, B, performs a given action on which its welfare depends” (Castelfranchi & Falcone, 1998). Safety and Learning Teachers should make learning less scary but, by definition, make learners face the unknown, and we fear the unknown. Done right, teaching challenges learners to construct and examine new knowledge, to leave their comfort zones. To be effective, learners must trust the teacher to act as a guide or a light that shows the way ahead. As Bruner puts it, “Learning something with the aid of an instructor should, if instruction is effective, be less dangerous or risky or painful than learning on one’s own” (Bruner, 1966). It is generally important to trust that the transmitted knowledge provided or pointed to by a teacher is accurate. This is the default state, as teachers have been employed by those that we trust to have vetted them, subjected them to peer review, and quality control processes. Often, teachers in institutional learning exhibit behaviours that reinforce that perception, for instance by standing in an elevated position, wearing different clothing, talking loudly and authoritatively and so on. In a classroom, this may be amplified by the construction of the classroom itself: for example, the traditional tiered lecture theatre separates the teacher from the learner, making him or her the focus of attention. Students’ own knowledge of a subject may help to distinguish which teacher is spouting nonsense and which is an expert. If not, they converse with others who might. Each may know a part of the picture and spot the occasional weakness. Some students are recognised by their peers as gurus or experts. Their opinions are seen as more significant. As well as subject knowledge, learners must trust that teachers can teach. A wide range of personal factors affect learner perceptions of this ability, including, for example, the processes they employ, their personal magnetism, sympathy, awareness of student needs, style of delivery and so on. Students learn both first and second hand of this ability. If a teacher has helped them to learn in the past, they are more likely to trust that he or she will do so again. If the reports of their friends are positive, they are more likely to be trusting. Other factors such as pass rates, institutional or professional accolades and other success criteria may play a role. We trust our teachers will have our best interests in mind. There are many ways that this trust can be broken, for example by teaching us something we care nothing about, through harsh words, an apparent lack of interest, or worse. We should trust that they will see it through to the end – that they will not take a holiday when we need them most, or suddenly stop talking to us. We trust that the supporting infrastructure will remain intact, that classrooms will not collapse, that schools will not arbitrarily and suddenly close, that


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 31

The Safety of Crowds

31

our classrooms will not be invaded by thugs, that there may be a base level of comfort and safety. Trust arises from a combination of social, cognitive, technical, interface and systemic features. A hypothetical example of how this might appear in a typical traditional face-to-face course is shown in Figure 1. Trust in E-learning Environments In a centrally managed online environment, the important features that enable trust are akin to those that give us assurance in face-to-face learning. Secure logon procedures, public key infrastructures and a perceived high level of teacher control over the content and structure of the environment create a technologically mediated space in which privacy, accountability and trust are designed from the top down (Korba, Yee, Xu, Song, Patrick, & El-Khatib, 2005). Unfortunately, a high level of control may have harmful effects by its implied distrust of the teacher, student or institution (Holt, 1977). It is still

Trust

Context

cognitive Other learners

social

Learner

interface

Teacher

technical Physical environment systemic

Figure 1. Hypothetical view of trust relationships in traditional face-to-face teaching


32

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 32

Dron

less appropriate to a more open, constructivist approach, where the environment is a relatively unconstrained space for learning to occur (Jonassen, 1994). However, the more the constraints are lifted, the more uncertain and therefore the scarier and edgier the world may become. The absence of non-verbal cues and the depersonalisation of the online environment make trust of a teacher harder to ascertain. It is important to engage in explicit trust building dialogue, to compensate for these weaknesses (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Salmon, 2000). A variety of techniques and processes can help to develop a sense of social presence, that is both reassuring and motivating (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Technology can be a constraining and intimidating factor in a learning activity. Limitations on the ability to interact with software or hardware can seriously impact on the learner’s sense of safety and security. It is therefore important to ensure that learners are able to use the technology, that the technology works, and is as usable as possible (Simpson, 2002). Things that might help to reduce our trust may include lack of system reliability, perceived security, usability, accessibility, the level of control it provides, the colour scheme and so on. We may also base our level of trust on other factors beyond the immediate environment, such as its interaction with firewalls, its perceived susceptibility to attack, our perceptions of the operating system it runs on, its system administrators, its level of funding, its cost and so on, perhaps even its market share/our perceptions of the company that produces it. Tool, Medium and Environment In a face-to-face environment there is a clear distinction between the space and the interactions that take place inside it, although even here there may be a close relationship between space and programme (Tschumi, 1996). A virtual environment is also a tool and a medium, an active participant in the process, the means by which the process occurs and the place where that process happens. This recursive nature potentially reifies interaction so that form and process become almost indistinguishable (Boder, 1992; Dron, 2005c). A hypothetical model of how this recursiveness changes the trust relationships identified earlier is shown in Figure 2. In such an environment it is not enough to trust the teacher, the content and the process, but also the environment that mediates it. This is in keeping with a model of e-learning where software supports student-student, teacher-student, teacher-teacher, learner-content, teacher-content and (significantly) content-content interaction (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). The most important elements of a learning ecology in an e-learning environment are the people who contribute to the space’s creation, especially when the environment supports communication. In an online (or indeed any) learning environment where there is a need for collaboration, “students need to trust


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 33


33

Context

Trust

social Teacher technical Virtual environment cognitive Other learners Learner interface

systemic

Figure 2. Hypothetical model of trust relationships in a mediated environment each other, feel a sense of warmth and belonging, and feel close to each other before they will engage willfully in collaboration and recognize the collaboration as a valuable experience” (Rourke, 2000). Nowhere is this more visible than in the various forms of social software. Social Software Social software has been defined by Clay Shirky as software for which the group is a first class entity within the system (Allen, 2004). Traditional communication systems are one to many or many to many. Social software mediates communication of many to one. In traditional collaborative environments, the greater the number of participants, the harder it gets. In social software, with a few pragmatic provisos relating to technical capacities of networks and computers, the greater the number of participants, the more useful the system becomes. Social software embodies Metcalfe’s law, that the usefulness of a network is the square of the number of users, extended by Reed’s law, which suggests there are still greater gains due to the effects of interactions with groups and clusters (Reed, 1999).


34

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 34

Dron

Popular examples of social software include collaborative filters, social navigation systems, wikis and blogs (not so much the individual blogs themselves but the ways that they link together through blogrolls and trackbacks). Other more specialist social software includes popular systems such as del.icio.us, Flickr, Orkut, Furl, Digg and Ning. Social software underpins some of the most popular sites on the Web. Google’s PageRank employs latent human annotation (Kleinberg, 1998) to provide more reliable recommendations (Brin & Page, 2000). eBay uses the reputations of sellers, Amazon uses collaborative filters to recommend books, films and music, Slashdot uses karma points to identify reliable posters. The list goes on. Until recently, social software has been used surprisingly little in e-learning. However, this is changing. Blogs and wikis are increasingly significant tools (Anderson, 2006; Barker, 2005; Downes, 2004; Dron, 2003; Mejias, 2005). Collaborative filters have been developed for educational purposes for some time (Anderson, Ball, Boley, Greene, Howse, et al., 2003; Chislenko, 1997; Dron, Mitchell, Siviter, & Boyne, 1999; Recker, Walker, & Wiley, 2000) and social navigation systems (where past or present navigation behaviour influences the navigation of others) are not unknown (Brusilovsky, Chavan, & Farzan, 2004; Dron, 2005a; Kurhila, Miettinen, Nokelainen, & Tirri, 2002; Miettinen, Kurhila, Nokelainen & Tirri, 2005). Into the Unknown Social e-learning software raises new issues of trust. The further the teacher blends into the background, potentially the less secure the learning environment becomes. Left to their own devices, learners may paddle in the shallows, leading to what Kay (1996) describes as a chopsticks culture. Students are often wary of the risks of the blind leading the blind, and fear they may end up knowing less, albeit with the proviso that they might understand more (Evans, 1983). Knowles tells us, “Many students enter into a new learning situation feeling a deep need for the security of a clear structural plan – an outline, course syllabus, time schedule, and the like. They want teachers who know what they are doing, who are in charge” (Knowles, 1975). Conversely, if too much control is exercised, then it will stifle creativity, lead to boredom, a potentially poor fit to learning needs and learning styles. Social software mediates between the group and the individual, structuring the environment emergently as a result of the behaviour of its users, which in turn structures that behaviour. It begins to play the role, not just of the environment, but of the teacher. The many become the teacher of the one, who (recursively) is one of the many. If social software is to be effective in this role, then we must consider whether and to what extent it may be possible to embed the characteristics of trust that we have identified for the teacher in the design of the learning environment.


11/9/06 11:25 AM


Page 35

35

Dwellings This article will consider one example of social software for e-learning called Dwellings, based on the dynamics of the city. Cities are a complex jumble of constraints, laws, economic, social and physical structures and people that, on occasion, organise effectively to create safe spaces for a rich variety of activities and uses. If it were possible to identify the factors that lead to their success, it is possible that they might provide useful lessons in the design of e-learning environments. The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs, 1961) is an examination of the features areas of cities that lead to their success or failure. Success revolves around a central dynamic: Under the seeming disorder of the old city, wherever the old city is working successfully, is a marvelous order for maintaining the safety of the streets and the freedom of the city. It is a complex order. Its essence is intricacy of sidewalk use, bringing with it a constant succession of eyes. (Jacobs, 1961) The succession of eyes that Jane Jacob describes is a phenomenon that neatly embodies the essence of social trust. As part of a community, the presence of others and awareness of their gaze makes us behave differently. The features that Jacobs identifies that enable a city area to thrive can be summarised in four interconnected rules: • Short blocks • Diverse primary uses • A mixture of old and new • A high density of people Dwellings was created as an attempt to discover whether Jacobs’s dynamics might apply in an online learning environment. The system mirrors city dynamics in the following ways: • Short blocks equate to high connectivity – in a successful space it should be easy to get from one place to another. • Diverse primary uses – a single-purpose e-learning environment is the norm, but greater diversity of uses might encourage greater safety. • A mixture of old and new – for Jacobs, old is cheap and new is expensive, which leads naturally to diversity of primary uses. In the context of a website, this might equate to the quick and easy (the wiki, for example) and the complex, expensive design (e.g., of a large website, a multimedia simulation and so on). • A high density of people – this recursive rule still applies.


36

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 36

Dron

Dwellings is akin to a MUD (Multiple User Dimension) or a MOO (MUD Object Oriented), though to the end-user it appears more as a realtime collaborative web browser with elements of a wiki and a learning object repository. Inhabitants drag avatars around streets lined with buildings, on which they may, if they wish, write graffiti. Buildings are pointers to websites or pages that are created and modified using a WYSIWYG editor, which are displayed within an inline frame beneath the street when inhabitants drag their avatars onto them. Inhabitants may interact using a simple text chat, which shows both as a speech balloon and in a more traditional text window at the side of the page. Streets and buildings can be created and (by default) modified by every inhabitant. Creators of buildings and streets may optionally lock them, so that they cannot be edited by other inhabitants, although there is nothing to stop others daubing buildings with graffiti. As social software, Dwellings is replete with social navigation cues that operate at a number of levels and scales from the immediate to the temporary to the persistent: • Immediately, inhabitants are drawn to other inhabitants, and it is possible to see from afar which streets are currently most populous. • Temporarily, users leave footprints wherever they go, which fade after an hour or so, allowing others to see where there has been recent activity. • Permanently, visiting a building increases its emphasis, while reducing that of others on the same street. Similarly, the order in which streets are presented is affected by the number of visits they have received overall. Dwellings reifies interactions with it, so that every user’s interactions contribute to the emergent structure of the system. The process is completely transparent, a feature that Swearingen and Sinha (2002) identify as central to enabling trust in a collaborative filter. This has a number of consequences, the most important of which is that it provides control as an emergent feature of being controlled. If users wish to be influenced by others in their navigation, then they can be, but if not then they can choose their own paths and, in so doing, influence the paths of others. Dwellings may be constructed by a teacher who may lock streets and buildings down if he or she wishes, but can never entirely remove the influence of learners due to the social navigation cues and opportunities for graffiti and chat. Similarly, the teacher cannot prevent learners from creating their own streets which, if they wish, can be locked so that the teacher cannot change them. There is thus a balance of control throughout the system. Dwellings has been used in a blended learning environment as a content management system, with buildings playing the part of lecture slides. The benefit of this usage is that the interaction does not need to cease once the lecture is over. Learners can return, chat with each other and leave messages


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 37


37

on the buildings. Where the teacher is trusting, learners can be allowed to make modifications to the content. Learners can also create their own content without the intercession of the tutor. In its first iteration, Dwellings had no locking mechanism. Anyone could make changes to anything, and many did. On the positive side, students competed to create more exciting streets, to draw people to them. However, an unforeseen side-effect was a series of minor skirmishes and wars, with students modifying and demolishing each other’s buildings and streets. Although often playful, for some it reduced their trust in the system and caused loss of pride in their work as they no longer felt that it belonged to them. After the creation of a locking mechanism, a group of students performing the same exercise on the same course the following year behaved quite differently. The skirmishes died out, students felt much happier that their work belonged to them and felt that things were under their control. Interestingly, this positive perception came despite the fact that only one of the six students locked anything, and then only to see what happened. The students expressed a strong sense of ownership, both collectively and personally, and claimed to feel secure within the environment (Dron, 2005b). CONCLUSIONS Trust is something that we learn to give. The single most effective way to ensure trust is to continually and consistently help the learner to learn, as easily and painlessly as possible. Having said that, there are many ways that we can cultivate trust, and equally many ways that we can thwart it. We may make some tentative conclusions about how trust may be embodied in the design of a learning environment that contains some self-organising features: A Succession of Eyes. The model of the wiki and the approach taken by Dwellings rely an awareness of the presence of others. Knowing that others have seen and (explicitly or tacitly) approved content is a great comfort in the great stuff swamp of the Internet. Transparency and Control. Any environment that seeks to gain trust from its users should clarify its inner workings. These workings should behave consistently and, at least in retrospect, predictably. The benefits will be enhanced if the environment allows learners to take control of that process. If we employ user models, then those models should be liable to inspection and, preferably, to change. Technical Control. Secure certificates, verified logins and the like can assure us that people and machines are who they say they are, while access control and logging can introduce accountability. Reliability and usability are vital factors in enabling learners to trust an environment. In an unreliable


38

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 38

Dron

or unusable environment, learners may be left without help or guidance when they need it most. Control of Our Own Space. If we are to share our thoughts and opinions with others, a sense of ownership or, more accurately, the ability to take ownership is a useful feature of a learning environment. We should be able to choose whether and when to make our work public, and be able to retract it without fear, when to allow others to change it. The Promise Social software presents a range of unique challenges relating to learner control and trust, and is a rapidly evolving area. However, the challenge is worthwhile, as the promise of emergent structure is a use of networked computers that takes full advantage of their unique nature as simultaneously, tool, medium and environment. References Allen, C. (2004). Tracing the evolution of social software. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html Anderson, M., Ball, M., Boley, H., Greene, S., Howse, N., Lemire, D., & McGrath, S. (2003). RACOFI: A rule-applying collaborative filtering system. Paper presented at the COLA'03, Halifax, Canada. Anderson, T. (2006). Teaching a distance education course using educational social software. Retrieved 7th January 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://terrya.edublogs.org/2006/ 01/02/teaching-a-distance-education-course-using-educational-social-software/ Barker, P. (2005). Potential uses for weblogs in electroniccCourse delivery. Paper presented at E-Learn 2005, Vancouver. Boder, A. (1992). The process of knowledge reification in human-human interaction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 8, 177-185. Bonk, C. J. (2002). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training, and pedagogy in web-based distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 331-348). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brin, S., & Page, L. (2000). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Brusilovsky, P., Chavan, G., & Farzan, R. (2004). Social adaptive navigation support for open corpus electronic textbooks. Paper presented at the AH 2004, Eindhoven. Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1998). Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems. Chislenko, A. (1997). Collaborative information filtering and semantic transports. Retrieved November 19, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/ACF.html Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. Educause Review, 39(5), 14-26.


11/9/06 11:25 AM


Page 39

39

Dron, J. (2003). The blog and the borg: A collective approach to e-learning. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2003, Phoenix, Arizona. Dron, J. (2005a). E-learning and the building habits of termites. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(4), 321-342. Dron, J. (2005b). A succession of eyes: Building an e-learning city. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2005, Vancouver. Dron, J. (2005c). The way of the termite: A theoretically grounded approach to the design of e-learning environments. International Journal of Web Based Communities 2(1). Dron, J., Mitchell, R., Siviter, P., & Boyne, C. (1999). CoFIND - An experiment in n-dimensional collaborative filtering. Paper presented at the WebNet 99, Honolulu, Hawaii. Evans, C. (1983). Studies in French literature. In Gerald Collier (Ed.), The Management of Peer-Group Learning-Syndicate Methods in Higher Education. Guildford: Society ofr Research into Higher Education. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Holt, J. (1977). Instead of education: Ways to help people do things better. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american cities. London, UK: Pimlico. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37. Kay, A. (1996). Revealing the elephant: The use and misuse of computers in education. The Educom Review, 31(4). Kleinberg, J. M. (1998). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Paper presented at the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company. Korba, L., Yee, G., Xu, Y., Song, R., Patrick, A. S., & El-Khatib, K. (2005). Privacy and trust in agent-supported distributed learning. In F. O. Lin (Ed.), Designing Distributed Learning Environments with Intelligent Software Agents (pp. 67-114). Hershey: Information Science Publishing. Kurhila, J., Miettinen, M., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2002). Use of social navigation features in collaborative e-learning. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2002, Montreal, Canada. Mejias, U. A. (2005). A nomad’s guide to learning and social software, The Knowledge Tree. Miettinen, M., Kurhila, J., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, H. (2005). OurWeb - Transparent groupware for online communities. Paper presented at the Web Based Communities 2005, Algarve, Portugal. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Recker, M. M., Walker, A., & Wiley, D. (2000). An interface for collaborative filtering of educational resources. Paper presented at the 2000 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Reed, D. P. (1999). That sneaky exponentia – Beyond Metcalfe's law to the power of community building. Retrieved January 12th 2006, from the World Wide Web: http://www.reed.com/ Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for Distance Education 16th Annual Conference, Québec


40

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 40

Dron

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2). Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page. Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting students in online, open and distance learning (Second ed.). London: Kogan Page. Swearingen, K., & Sinha, R. (2002). Interaction design for recommender systems, DIS2002. London: ACM. Tschumi, B. (1996). Architecture and disjunction. MIT Press.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 41

E-Learning Environments for Digitally-Minded Students DIANA ANDONE, JON DRON, LYN PEMBERTON, AND CHRIS BOYNE University of Brighton, United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] While most existing online learning environments cater for needs identified during the 1990s, a new generation of digital students has emerged in the developed world. Digital students are young adults who have grown up with digital technologies integrated as an everyday feature of their lives. Digital students use technology differently, fluidly (and often simultaneously) using instant messengers, mobile phones, the web, MP3 players, online games and more. If their use of technology is different, the kind of learning environment they will require is likely to be equally different. To identify these differences we ran an online survey in universities from the UK, Romania, Finland and Hungary, followed by focus groups, interviews and observations of students in traditional and online learning environments. As a result we have refined our initial definition of digital students, we identified the digitally-minded students, most notably to include recognition of such students’ need for control over their digital environment. From this analysis we have more clearly identified how a learning environment for these students should be constructed and used; an environment that contains a blend of Internet and mobile technologies which enhance student-tutor and student-student communication through multiple media channels, providing responsiveness, customizability and flexibility to adapt and be adapted to the students’ needs.


42

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 42

Andone, Dron, Pemberton, and Boyne

Introduction In the last quarter-century the digitization of virtually all aspects of life – something Negroponte has called the “change of atoms into bits and pixels” (Negroponte, 1996) – has had an impact on us all. However, for the generation born after 1980, the digital world is the only world they know. They are the digital ones or the N-Gen – Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998). Significantly, most students in higher education now belong to this group. This article is an investigation of how adaptive and adaptable e-learning spaces might influence and be influenced by these digital students’ learning attitudes and abilities. The main purpose is to define an e-learning environment aimed at their needs As part of this process, online surveys in universities from the UK, Romania, Finland and Hungary, followed by focus groups, interviews and observations of students in traditional and online learning environments, were used to investigate the level of e-literacy of young adult students in an attempt to identify the unique features of digital students, to search for the digitally-minded, as a move towards building a an e-learning environment customised to their needs. Digitally-Minded Students Digital students possess a mentality in tune with the new media, take the availability of email, instant messaging and text messaging for granted, and use unlimited online resources. The digital world has had a significant impact on their cognitive functions (Barone, 2003). They expect to try things rather than hear about them. They want to learn by doing – usually just by trying things out (Tapscott, 1998) from which they develop understanding by synthesis. They tend to learn visually and socially (Livingstone & Bovill, 2001). Using technology to organize and integrate knowledge feels natural to them. As a result of their “digitalness,” they will have very specific needs and expectations from their learning environments. They will enjoy enhanced interactivity and connectivity with others, and expect to learn in groups which may be physical or virtual. Papert (1996) says that young people’s “access to information is more interactive and non-sequential” and they learn for “the pleasure and benefit of discovery”. As a result of their fluid access to digital media and to the endless information on the Internet they have learned to access facts and to assess them in particular ways; and to be able to process so much data, they need to synthesize (Andone, Boyne, Dron, & Pemberton, 2005a; Seely Brown, 2000) Their learning expectations are different due to new cognitive patterns that they have developed over their school years. As Bob Woods says, They rely on the ‘Net to help them with completing their schoolwork. They use it for research, collaboration with other students, and as a


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 43

E-Learning Environments for Digitally-Minded Students

43

resource for information passed on to them by other students or teachers. Students also use it as a virtual guidance counsellor and as a way to store important school-related materials. (2002) Electronic collaboration is an area of great potential for digital students. Using instant messaging, e-mail and text messages via mobile phones, they are able to create, join, leave and rejoin at will what the Pew Internet group calls “virtual study groups” (Jones & Madden, 2002). These groups can be synchronous or asynchronous but the feeling is of instant communication. This has led to a continuous need for instant feedback which is also found in their learning attitudes. Despite the traditionally restrictive educational settings in which they often have to function, today’s students perceive their learning environments as boundless. They tend to use physical space differently from prior generations and they blur the boundaries between physical and cyber space and between mine, yours, ours, and everyone’s (Andone, Boyne, Dron, & Pemberton, 2005b). Our students simply think differently and are becoming increasingly digital. However in reality, most people do not display all the traits that we associate with the term digital student to the same degree. For instance, some older people exhibit distinctly digital behavior. We therefore choose to use the term digitally-minded to represent a tendency in this direction. The Survey We developed a survey as the first strand of a multi-faceted research effort to generate a digitally-minded student profile. An online questionnaire was created using standard research techniques (Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight, 1998). The survey’s focus was on Technology in Education; it attempted to collect information from a relatively random sample of a specific target population of young students and was conducted during September-November 2004. Themes covered were digital literacy, Internet use, mobile phone use, learning attitudes, visual use, and IT expectations. The initial target group was young students 18-21 years old in universities from Great Britain, Romania, Hungary, and Finland (Andone et al., 2005a; 2005b; Andone, Dron, Boyne, & Pemberton, 2006). In fact, the sample included some older students and was not entirely random, since taking the questionnaire was entirely voluntarily and the fact that it was online implies at least some level of digital ability. Also, the answers were often expressions of preference and there was some latitude for different interpretations of what the questions meant. For that reason, we prefer to think of this study as an investigation of digitally-minded students, which have not always grown up with ubiquitous internet and mobile phone use. Various strategies were used for analysing the results (Andone et al., 2005b; Blaxter et al., 1998). This was an exploratory survey, not an experiment, and the results should only be con-


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 44

44


sidered as indicative. Later, we will describe the focus group, interviews, and scenario analysis based on issues the survey identified. RESULTS A full analysis of the UK survey is presented in (Andone et al., 2005b) and of all four surveys in (Andone et al., 2006). Now we present the differences and similarities between the different countries, with the purpose of identifying the general characteristics of digitally-minded students, and to present the conclusions and the expected impact on the e-learning environment development. The results are analysed following four main strands: the use of technology, communication, the need for control and the use of elearning environments. The Use of Technology The results show a high level of technology use (computer, Internet, mobile phone) and that technology is firmly embedded in the students’ lives, a large majority describing themselves as at least intermediate in computer competence (Figure 1). This accords with official Eurostat results in 2003 (Eurostat, 2003; 2004) and with EDUCASE results (Livingstone & Bovill, 2001). This result shows that the use of multiple media and technologies is directly connected to their use in education, home and entertainment (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The results indicate that the students from the Western European countries have a higher, more constant use of computer and Internet than their

Figure 1. The use of technology


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 45


45

Figure 2. Online access colleagues from Central and Eastern Europe, which accords with the country statistics of ICT penetration (Eurostat, 2003; 2004). All students tend to use the mobile phone more for sending text (SMS) or playing than for calling, probably due to the relative low cost. It is part of their education and also of their social life, both as individuals and at group level (Andone et al., 2006). Communication Using technology for communication is part of students’ life-styles. The results show an increased need for synchronous communication, but with asynchronous communication still playing a significant role (Figure 1 and Figure 3). If email, SMS and instant messaging are part of the daily routine (Andone et al., 2006), using forums is a less regular occurrence, with a higher percentage being used by women (Livingstone & Bovill, 2001). The high daily use of browsers indicates a strong emphasis on search methods, which can be expected to modify the students’ cognitive approach to information retrieval and implicit to their learning process and also their expectations about the learning environment – which should include powerful search engines, not just indices or glossaries. Synchronous communication is preferred when students contact one another, while for educational contacts with their professors the asynchronous model is preferred. SMS is increasingly becoming the preferred communication tool because of its users’ need for instant response and feedback. Comments such as, “the quicker the better” and “instant response” were common


46

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 46


Figure 3. The use of online communication among students’ responses. Students’ ability to select the right communication tool for different purposes also shows their need for control and the development of independent skills (Andone et al., 2005a; Andone et al., 2006). The survey reveals that Hungarian and Romanian students are more inclined to use the Internet in cafés as part of their social activity (Andone et al., 2006). Students from UK and Finland make more use of online communication tools, but the gap between them and their Eastern colleagues is smaller then expected, with one tool (chat) being more used by the latter. Control Our results suggest that digitally-minded students’ need to control their online and e-learning environment is directly associated with their high use of technology (Andone et al., 2005a). When accessing websites these students want better interaction and they want to be able to change and control it. They are less interested in controlling the general design than of the functionality (Figure 4). Our surveys also lead us to suspect that their level of control is also dependent on their strategic thinking, developed by their experience in playing games (55-69% – as an average from all countries surveyed – often played computer games). E-learning Students showed enthusiasm for direct participation and control over certain aspects of the educational process (Figure 5). The need for personalized delivery and instant feedback, together with the lack of interest in writing or


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 47


47

Figure 4. Desire for control over the web control over content delivery, suggests that digitally-minded students want information fast but they want it presented visually and interactively (Andone et al., 2005a). They prefer being involved in subject-related activity, learning by doing, discovery or practice (Andone et al., 2005a). The results show a preference for a learning environment where the online mate-

Figure 5. Desire for control over e-learning


48

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 48


rials contain hyperlinks, which Beasley claims to have the educational advantage of allowing students greater control over the order in and depth to which they explore a topic, allowing for more reflection and active gaining of knowledge (Beasley, 2004). From a combined analysis of Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5 we infer that an increased use of online tools and of new technologies is associated with an increase in the desire for control over the technology and what is done with it. This correlation appears consistent across students from each country that we studied. Scenario-Based Design Following the survey and associated interviews, we used scenario-based design methods (Carroll, 2000) as a means of defining suitable e-learning environments for digitally-minded students. Using scenarios can help achieve the goal of creating useful and usable products by encouraging designers “to explore the larger design space of many possible design challenges, to review the technical feasibility and likely payoffs of the different approaches and only then begin considering the normal design issues” (Carroll, 2000). Scenario building is used to explore new forms of interaction in which the physical environment is able to react to human behaviour using technologies as a mediator, for identifying, refining and verifying what digitally-minded students need and then managing the development of the environment to meet those needs by constantly determining how it can be refined to meet them better. Based on a conceptual meta-model fed by the results of our initial surveys, we developed a scenario that we have christened DIMPLE (Digital Internet and Mobile Phone e-learning Environment). This allows defining relationships between (1) learning objectives, (2) roles of staff and learners in the learning process, (3) performed activities and (4) environment and resources necessary to the educational situation installation (Lejeune & Pernin, 2004). DIMPLE was a learning scenario, a description of the progress of the learning situation intended to ensure the appropriation of a precise set of knowledge, formulated a priori as an abstract scenario. It was an open, adaptable scenario which allowed modification or completion by the students who were involved in the focus groups. Focus Groups Two focus groups were run in March 2005 to gather in-depth, qualitative information, opinions and attitudes about the students’ characteristics and the proposed DIMPLE scenario. Fourteen participants took part in the study, in two groups, of six in the UK and eight in Romania. Participants were selfselecting, all of them having previously answered the survey. The three female and eleven male participants were aged 18 to 24, five nationalities (English, Greek, Indian, Romanian and Hungarian), all studying ICT-related subjects, of varying degrees of ICT competence. The interviewer moderated


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 49


49

the discussion using an outline based on the same topics as the survey (digital literacy, Internet use, mobile phone use, learning attitudes, visual use, and IT expectations) and on the proposed scenario. The informal discussion lasted two hours and was recorded on video and audio for further analysis. Focus Group Results A large number of desirable attributes for e-learning environment emerged, some of them contradictory. For instance, while participants generally want to have things coming to them in a rapid, fast way, receiving unrequested learning objects disturbs them. It was clear that no single approach would be likely to satisfy all requirements, and an e-learning environment for digitally-minded student will need to use complementary methods and technology and leave the power of choice of the right one to the student. All the students from both focus groups reported a high use of different technologies for different purposes. They tend to use the World Wide Web to search both for educational purposes and for information about their hobbies and interests. They use SMS (mobile text messaging) extensively for contacting their friends and colleagues, as well as online they will use IM instant messaging. They perceive email as an “official thing, for which you contact professors or other people.” As one of the UK students said, “I do not like email as I never know when people read it and when they receive it.” A Romanian student observed, “to read my email I need to get to my computer at home or university when my mobile is always with me and it is open also during classes.” As they all learn in a traditional university with limited technological support they have found ways to develop their own supporting network: they contact each other via SMS and IM to get assignments done, to support each other in finding resources (mainly on the web), to meet face-to-face as well as to get last minute information about timetables, classes or university activities. One UK student established a Yahoo briefcase and a mailing group for his group so they could all share the same resources. At the same time, several technical attributes are used less: few students synchronise their mobile phones with their computers. “It’s a class differentiation; just us techies are doing it,” said one student from Romania. UK students’ critiques of the university’s centrally-managed e-learning environment highlighted several redundant services and “things which you never use,” pointing again to their strong need of control and independence. They seek control over functionality, not visual aspects: a typical comment was, “I want tools as IM and SMS and to see when my colleagues are online, to choose the length of text of a course, to have interactive activities, less interested to change colours more interested to change the text size and the links.” As a general perception the proposed DIMPLE scenario was considered very useful and its learning functionality “is going to be efficient, you are not duplicating information it is all linked.” In the focus groups opinions about


50

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 50


identification with the scenario subject were frequently expressed: “I’m like David. I think everybody will like that. I do this all the time.” An adaptable learning environment was seen as very desirable: “It’s good to have the note;” (to make a note in the learning material), “It’s quite confined to what is given is not expandable so you can’t add info which I will like to do;” and collaborative environments are attractive: “If I find something useful I will like to share it with my colleagues.” But the scenario was recognised more as a possible e-learning environment as a supplement or for an education later in life, as all prefer the face-to-face interaction that the traditional university provides. The following scenario evolved from these focus groups. DIMPLE Scenario David, nineteen years old, is a student in computer science in a European university. He started to use computers when he was eight and has been actively online since he was twelve. Now he owns his own laptop, mobile phone and iPod. In his first days at the university he took photos using the built-in camera of his mobile phone of all the interesting adverts, location of the buildings, labs and of some of his colleagues. At home he posted these on his own study area of the e-learning environment (DIMPLE). He also set up reminders of all important dates on his mobile phone. From DIMPLE he transfers into his mobile phone his specific calendar, assignments dates and contact details of his peers and tutors. All of these are mirrored on his laptop, updated when he connects his mobile to his laptop, and he gets any changes in calendar and assignments he receives directly from DIMPLE as a text message to his mobile phone. When logged into DIMPLE he establishes his preferred environment by setting up the colours palette, the font types and size. He arranges his links (e.g., his courses), his colleagues’ links, and the links for other areas (e.g., library) according to his needs. He chooses what he wants to be sent to him via SMS regularly (schedule, major announcements, major communication with his tutor/colleagues) and via email (announcements, assignments, group work projects). He also sets up all the major announcements to be sent via SMS to his mobile and also as emails, and the less important ones just as email. He customizes his profile in the Instant Messaging section so he can easily get in touch with his colleagues and tutors. Out of his customized profile, DIMPLE will recognize which is the most important information to him, and will adapt to this pattern. David knows that if his preferences change or he doesn’t feel comfortable with some of the initial choices he can change them anytime, and DIMPLE will re-adapt. He can search DIMPLE for all the information inside the environment by using its search engine, which allows him advanced search using different variables of words, time and date of the published material and subject area. He can find out about examples of other students work.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 51


51

When accessing a course he can choose between 3 levels: the general view of the lessons (course module), those lessons which are important for the quick overview of the curriculum, and those lessons which exceed the basic curriculum. During his lesson he can take notes in a separate file (and save it), make comments and see also where exactly he is and how much he has to do in order to finish the course. Some of these notes which he considers relevant for his colleagues he chooses to share with them. As his first assignment was a group work project, he established the first meeting with his colleagues via SMS and during the first meeting they split the work between them. Everybody posted their research results on the common working group area so that all could see it and comment on it via instant messaging. They started writing the first draft of their project online, sharing the same file and were in constant touch via the instant messaging service. At the end, DIMPLE emailed each of them the final result of their work. During the last faceto-face meeting they just agreed on the final content. They were pleased that they could share the same work and that they have done it in a short time. They enjoyed getting in touch and knowing each other. Now, on Friday evening, when they want to meet socially they know which is the best way of getting in touch and which communication method each prefers. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS We have refined the concept of the digitally-minded student and therefore (by extension) the digital student to include the need for control and independence in the use of e-learning environments. Our study revealed the digitallyminded students, which not always have grown up with ubiquitous Internet and mobile phone use, but now uses extensively and have similar characteristics with the new digital students. This is a major outcome of the study. It has direct implications for the design of an e-learning environment which ought to include adaptable elements wherever possible, under direct student control, rather than those controlled by the tutor or the system. The study results played a key role in directing the overall e-learning strategy and influenced some major decisions. One such decision concerned the appropriateness of formal learning structures for Internet and mobile phone based services. Many scenarios for this type of learning have concentrated on formal learning, presented in a traditional university setting, possibly even in the context of an undergraduate curriculum or class (Beasley, 2004; Tretiakov & Kinshuk, 2005). Our study suggests that DIMPLE may be more suitable for life long learning than institutional learning, or as part of a blend of face-toface and e-learning strategies. The scenario responds to many of the requirements of the focus group, students can choose to take advantage of one device without the other, and scaffolding learning opportunities can be provided to suit learner motivation and knowledge level.


52

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 52


Technology makes it possible to design learning situations that actively engage and guide learners while allowing them to choose their style of learning and organize their knowledge outcomes. This conceptualization of the learning environment allows learners to make the transition from learning in a physical space such as the lab or lecture theatre, to learning in a studentcentered learning environment in cyberspace. As our interest is in broad trends we believe that technology integrated with methods for communicating knowledge can enhance and stimulate learning. However, we should express a sign of caution: it is at least possible that learners' preferences may be for modes of learning that are ineffective and counter-productive. The trend away from predominantly analytic knowledge towards primarily synthetic knowledge implies a loss as well as a gain (Seely Brown, 2000). We are currently implementing the DIMPLE system based on our findings and will be exploring whether giving digitally-minded students what they want will also give them the rich learning experience that they need. References Andone, D., Boyne, C., Dron, J., & Pemberton, L. (2005a, 19-22 October 2005). Digital students and their use of e-learning enviroments. Paper presented at the IADIS WWW/Internet 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 302-306. Andone, D., Boyne, C., Dron, J., & Pemberton, L. (2005b). What is it to be a digital student in a British university? Paper presented at the ICALT 2005 5th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, pp. 925-927. Andone, D., Dron, J., Boyne, C., & Pemberton, L. (2006). Digital students across Europe. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2006, Florida, USA, pp. 1741-1749. Barone, C. (2003). Meeting the needs of today's internet-defined students. AAHEBulletin (May). Beasley, N. (2004, 2004-06-07). Lessons Learned from Students’ use of an Online Learning Environment. Elearning Europa Info. http://www.elearningeuropa.info/index.php?page= doc&doc_id=5076&doclng=6&menuzone=1 Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). How to research. Open University Press. Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. In Interacting with Computers (pp. 43 - 60). Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-based design of human computer interactions (Vol. 1). Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Eurostat. (2003, 2004). Science and technology in Europe - Data 1990-2004. http://epp.eurostat. cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=1073,46587259&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_pr oduct_code=KS-EA-06-001 Jones, S., & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/71/report_display.asp Lejeune, A., & Pernin, J.-P. (2004). A taxonomy for scenario-based engineering. Paper presented at the Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age CELDA 2004) Proceedings, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 249-256.


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 53


53

Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (2001). Children and their changing media environment: A European comparative study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. First Vintage Books. Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the generation gap. Longstreet Press. Seely Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change Magazine, 11-20. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill. Tretiakov, A., & Kinshuk. (2005, 28-30 November 2005). Creating a pervasive testing environment by using SMS messaging. Paper presented at the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education WMTE, Tokushima, Japan, pp. 62-66. Woods, B. (2002, August 16, 2002). A digital divide between students and educators? Instant Messaging Planet. www.instantmessagingplanet.com/public/article.php/10817_1447791


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 54


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 55

Design of Virtual Learning Environments for Deep Learning MIKE MIMIRINIS Middlesex University, United Kingdom [email protected] MADHUMITA BHATTACHARYA Massey University, New Zealand [email protected] Although the advent of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) promised more flexible and independent learning, concerns have also been raised about the quality of their pedagogical effects. This article presents the results of a case study which endeavoured to explore the relationship between approaches to learning and studying, and perceptions of use of a VLE in a Higher Education taught module. Literature review focuses on the theory of approaches to learning and studying, which advocated that students’ positive perceptions of the academic environment are linked to desirable learning outcomes and proposed the existence of three distinct approaches to learning: the deep, the strategic and the surface approach. The results of the study are presented and the relationship between approaches to learning and use of the VLE is explored. The article consequently investigates the requirements for appropriate design of of VLEs. Recommendations are aiming to highlight the importance of specific elements in the design and delivery of online courses through VLEs. Reflection, inquiry, analysis and synthesis are key characteristics which play a crucial role in the demonstration of desirable approaches to learning in an online context.

Introduction Recent changes in Higher Education (HE) have been characterised by increased expectations from large-scale use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). In that context, Virtual Learning Environments


56

11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 56

Mimirinis and Bhattacharya

(VLEs), also referred to as Learning Management Systems (LMSs), Content Management Systems (CMSs) or online learning environments, were launched as a way of responding to the new set of educational demands. VLEs have been defined as learning management software systems that synthesise the functions of computer-mediated communications software and online methods of delivering course materials (Britain & Liber, 2004). One of the most important reasons given for the large-scale investment in webbased technology is their potential to enhance teaching and learning (Jenkins, Browne & Armitage, 2001), as well as to encourage the development of student-centered, independent learning (Pahl, 2003) and to foster a more deep approach to learning (Collis, 1997). Enhancement of learning was previously proposed to be linked with the adoption of student-centered approaches to teaching and learning in traditional HE contexts. Education researchers approached an understanding of students’ learning by assessing students' experiences of learning and how they made sense of the individual approach to the tasks prescribed by their course of study. Marton and Saljo (1976) had first identified a deep and a surface level of processing, each of them corresponding to contrasting focuses of attention. The term approach included intention, which is what the learner was looking out for but also process, which is how that intention was carried out. It was evidenced that a deep approach was likely to result from a relevance to students' interests (Fransson, 1977), the interest and support of the instructor and where students had an opportunity to manage their own learning (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981). Conversely, a surface approach was more likely to emerge when assessment methods rewarded reproducing information, or due to anxiety and a heavy workload (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981). Further work identified another component; the strategic approach which derives from an intention to obtain the highest possible grades and involves focusing on assessment requirements and task demands, as well as adopting well-organised and efficient study methods (Entwistle, 1992). Overall, it was proposed that a relationship existed between higher quality learning outcomes and a deep approach to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1997), and between a deep approach to learning and a student-focused approach to teaching (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999). Since the introduction of VLEs, it has been unclear whether these findings apply also to web-enhanced learning environments. It has been argued, however, that a transfer of traditional teaching methods to the online context may ignore pedagogical issues and also that the central provision of VLEs promotes a degree of ‘pedagogical inflexibility’ (Konrad, 2003). Despite the introduction of evaluation methodologies for learning technologies (Oliver, 2000), others claimed that the role of the individual learner and the dynamic characteristics they bring into this particular learning situation, was widely overlooked (Richardson, 2001; Hoskins & van Hooff, 2005).


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 57

Design of Virtual Learning Environments for Deep Learning

57

Some studies attempted to explore the relationship between students’ approaches and use of VLEs and provided a basic overview of the subject. In one of those studies, the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (Tait, Entwistle & McCune, 1998) had been used, with the aim of examining whether the students’ approach to learning affects their perception of the value of the VLE. It was concluded that students who adopted a deep approach to learning showed a preference for independent studying and perceived positively the use of the VLE. On the contrary, students who developed a surface approach complained about lack of time and had not completed the online tasks set (Jelfs & Colbourn, 2002). A similar study in the same university, found that there was a negative correlation between a surface approach and the rating of the VLE (Enjelvin & Sutton, 2004). Adopting a different perspective on the issue, an investigation with Social Sciences students questioned to what extent the use of a VLE could contribute to the demonstration of a deep approach to learning. Participants in discussions had higher deep learning scores whilst non-participants had higher surface approach scores. Evidence was also reported that strategic learners demonstrated their approach by their choice of online activities, which required flexibility in learning and organisational skills (Gibbs, 1999). Finally, in a most recent study, Hoskins and van Hooff (2005) reported that strategic approach was associated with more extended use of bulletin boards. Exploring the Relationship Between Approaches to Learning and Perceptions of VLE Use The findings presented in this article derive from a study in a physiology module of first year students in a British HE college. The module was part of a degree in sports studies and students used the ‘Blackboard’ VLE. The module leader was inclined to use learning technologies and coordinated a group of module tutors. The group extensively used the VLE for different purposes like uploading of learning resources, online assessments, synchronous and asynchronous communication, assignments and laboratories reminders, and there was integration with the students’ record system. Focus of attention was placed on what were the most suitable ways to collect the data. An earlier discussion on learning technology research methods highlighted potential pitfalls in terms of population validity (Gill & Johnson, 1997). Cairncross, Mannion and McEwan (2003) noted that in some experiments, the analysis of examination performance suggested that learners who participated in the trials tended to do better in the examinations. A distribution of a paper-based version of the questionnaire was thus estimated to have several advantages compared to online data collection. The study aimed to provide an understanding of learners’ perceptions of the VLE and to ascertain whether there are any significant relationships between approaches to learning and students’ perceptions. The questionnaire com-


11/9/06 11:25 AM

Page 58

58

Mimirinis and Bhattacharya

prised of two parts; one part with eighteen items on students perceptions of the VLE and a second part with a revised version of the ASSIST inventory. The sample was highly homogeneous; almost all of the participants belonged to a typical entry age group and were predominantly white of British origin. There was also a fairly even distribution between male and female users. RESULTS Fifty-one students completed the ASSIST questionnaire, representing 68% of the students who were registered for the module. Scores on each scale and subscale are obtained by adding the scores of the relevant items. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics from the inventory. Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the subscales of the Revised ASSIST Inventory Subscales

Mean

Standard deviation

Coefficient alpha (_)

Deep approach Strategic approach Surface approach

49.94 51.66 47.10

8.40 9.14 7.45

0.82 0.83 0.73

Note: The possible score on all subscales is from 4 to 20.

Table 2 Significant Correlations: Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of Use of the VLE Deep approach VLE and development of interest in the subject Positive to attend other modules that use the VLE Use of VLE to examine the understanding of the meaning of concepts meaning of concepts VLE can not replace face-toface contact with my tutor

r Sig.(2-tailed) r Sig.(2-tailed) r Sig.(2-tailed)

.353* .012 .311* .028

r Sig.(2-tailed)

.324* .022

Strategic approach

Surface approach

.312* .027

.415** .003

-.282* .047

Note: N=50, ** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), p

The Connected Learning Space

The Connected Company

The Connected Company

Well-Connected

Connected Sociologies

Connected - double L error

Connected - double L error

Well-Connected [Short stories]

Britannica Learning Library Volume 01 - Exploring Space

Space and Learning: Lessons in Architecture 3

Cyclicly Connected Continuous Curves

Hyperinnovation: Multidimensional Enterprise in the Connected Economy

Networked Neighbourhoods: The Connected Community in Context

Hyperinnovation: Multidimensional Enterprise in the Connected Economy

Networked Neighbourhoods: The Connected Community in Context

Surgery on Simply-Connected Manifolds

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space Exploration (Space Innovations)

The Connected Learning Space

The Connected Company

The Connected Company

Well-Connected

Connected Sociologies

Connected - double L error

Connected - double L error

Well-Connected [Short stories]

Britannica Learning Library Volume 01 - Exploring Space

Space and Learning: Lessons in Architecture 3

Cyclicly Connected Continuous Curves

Hyperinnovation: Multidimensional Enterprise in the Connected Economy

Networked Neighbourhoods: The Connected Community in Context

Hyperinnovation: Multidimensional Enterprise in the Connected Economy

Networked Neighbourhoods: The Connected Community in Context

Surgery on Simply-Connected Manifolds

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space

Space Exploration (Space Innovations)

Recommend Documents