Personal Learning
Dr. Robert Costello The Graduate School University of Hull United Kingdom
[email protected]
Dr. Nigel Shaw The Graduate School University of Hull United Kingdom
[email protected]
Abstract Traditional, on-line e-learning theories are contextually driven and influenced largely by learning management systems (LMS’s) through the use of mere technology. These conformities of standardisations have led away from personalisation and learner-centricity to a LMS, where the student is only the consumer (instructor-centred) and not a Prosumer. The whole idea of elearning was to allow a student to have a high degree of learner self direction and personalisation within the learning process. With the rapid development of technologies within the field of “Web 2.0”, is allowing for new educational strategies to support self-regulated learning in higher education contexts, through the use of personal learning environments (PLE). This paper will explore the multiple communication and creativity formats that social media can offer postgraduate students within higher education sector for supporting learning opportunities within a PLE’s. Firstly, exploring different types of andragogical theories and how to integrate new Web 2.0 technologies into the delivery and what supporting mechanising will be required.
1. Introduction Traditional e-learning environments establish a framework that enables contact between student and the curriculum lead tutor. E-Learning is an tool that uses web-based platform technology to provide training and development in the education industry. According to Derouin et al., (2005) e-learning can be defined as the following “e-learning is a powerful tool for the delivering many and varied instructional technologies and methods”, and can be used to “present online lectures, through the use of live stream audio and video technology” (Page 921). Van Raaij & Schepers (2008) agrees with Sampson & Karagiannidis (2002) and Derouin et al., (2005) about e-learning being powerful tool for teacher; and suggests that a “VLE is a web-based communications platform, that allows students, without limitation of time and place, to access different learning tools” (Page 840). Sun et al., (2008) indicates that even though
e-learning allows students to study at your own pace, 24 hours a day, there are still limitation associated with this technology. According to Sun et al., (2008) these can categorize as the following: (1) Learners’ satisfaction, dimension, interest and attitudes, (2) Educational tools available within the environment (3) Educational content, curriculum and choice of learning theory (4) Tutor or learner-centricity led Liaw (2008) suggests that there are other factors that might contribute to the dissatisfaction of e-learning for learners and that it to do with “absence of a learning atmosphere”, “e-learning lacks interpersonal and direct interaction among students and teachers”, and sometimes the design of the educational curriculum is not carefully thought out (Liaw 2008, Sun et al., 2008). According to Kozaris (2010) e-learning tries to create the direct opposite of what (Liaw 2008, Sun et al., 2008) indicates “absence of a learning atmosphere”. Kozaris (2010) indicates that on-line learning is trying to deliver “many enhancements to the teaching and learning experience; the largest impact occurs when the technology enables social and collaborative interaction where an individual person, students, or parties build actively their understanding” As indicated by Sampson & Karagiannidis (2002), Coats et al., (2005) and Kozaris (2010) e-learning environment are tailored around the Learning Management Systems (LMS) that provides the technology infrastructure for, which the educational materials can be delivered. Sclater (2008) suggests that current Learning Management Systems like that of Blackboard, Moodle, Ebridge, are controlling the educational creativity of the individuals. It is this feature that has led us away from personalisation and learnercentricity to a standard LMS, where the student is only the consumer (instructorcentred) and not a Prosumer. Sampson & Karagiannidis (2002) suggests that personalisation shifts away from the traditional LMS methods and focuses on the flexibility of learning materials, customizing and adapting content to suit individual learners, and incorporating a wealth of rich media through a learner-centric environment. Personalised learning “should not be restricted by time, place or any other barriers, and should be tailored to the continuously modified individual’s learner’s requirements, abilities, preferences, background knowledge, interests, skills, etc…” (Sampson and Karagiannidis 2002, Page 2). McLoughlin and Lee (2010) agrees with Sampson & Karagiannidis (2002) about personalisation within e-learning is important and indicates that there is a growing shift within education that is allowing the learner to take more autonomy in their own learning through the use of social media, and web-based platforms like that of (wikis, Eduwiki, Twitter, Skype, YouTube, www.Slideshare.net, etc…). According to Sant
(2013) EduWiki is used to “support innovative, active, low-cost activities for learners, promoting subject skills”. The next section will explore the personalisation of social media within education and how web-based platforms like that of Twitter, YouTube, Eduwiki, wikis are supporting students within their educational journal.
2. Personal Learning Environments By enabling the learner to engage in a variety of web-based platforms can activity assist the individual to learn within a formal/informal learning scenario? This particular classification of web-based learning, in which the learner uses different media platforms to engage in curriculum activities, is called Personal Learning Environments (PLE’s). PLE’s are currently being investigated and used Nussbaumer et al., 2012) within education settings to enable the individual learners to grasps current web-based technologies to help them within their studies. Sclater (2008) suggests that by using PLE’s within the learning activities the individuals can embrace learner centricity through a multitude of on-line tools, like Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, Skype, etc…). Nussbaumer et al., (2012) suggest that PLE’s provides the individuals with the opportunity to build and develop through the use of web-based technologies their own choice of educational activity, for example: face to face interaction using Skype; Twitter to share and communicate questions with other students on the course or globally; YouTube and SlideShare.net for Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), Facebook to communicate discussion and engage within collaborative development challenges. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, (2006) suggests that students, who use SRL, automatically engages, in thinking, motivation and accommodate their behavior to the learning activity. “In practice, self-regulation is manifested in the active monitoring and regulation of a number of different learning processes, e.g. the setting of, and orientation towards, learning goals; the strategies used to achieve goals; the management of resources; the effort exerted; reactions to external feedback; the products produced.” (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, Page 1). According to Petrovic et al., (2012) studies have showed that social network tools like that of Facebook can encourage collaborative development activities, critical thinking and problem solving opportunities. The use of Facebook within education enables the individuals/groups to create: “Create a shared group for educational purposes ‘Open, Closed, Secret’ Notes, Events Calendar Photos Messages and Notifications, real time chat, and Mobile support. Another useful educational tool to be used within PLE’s, is that of Twitter. Skiba (2008) suggests that Twitter is used “to communicate, to ask questions, to ask for directions, support, advice, and to validate open-ended interpretations or ideas by discussing with the others” (Skiba 2008, Page 2).
Benefits of using twitter within HE especially at postgraduate level is to create a virtual classroom community in which teams can formed to promote and develop academic writing skills. This enables students to keep a personal development of progress on line “record their cognitive trails” and this will enable them to submit work for their reflective dairies. The lecturer can send out questions relating to a variety of topics relating to PGTS modules to encourage extra curriculum activities, in which the groups will have to respond to out of hours within an informal/formal setting allowing them to engage in discussions, reflect ideas, and share conceptual thoughts (collaboration). Twitter enables you to post web-links redirecting students to other guidance on topics expanding further; used for complex areas, or diagrams needed to support PhD research students. However, limitations of these approaches can be: students being easily distracted from other web 2.0 applications and usages; lack of educational structure (not clearly thought out tasks designed by the course lecturer); privacy of thought and intellectual property; lack of support or willing to engage with conversations 24/7. According to Skiba (2008) Twitter can be used by many mobile devices on the go to share views on global topics, connect with colleagues, or send out messages, engage in curriculum activities, and create collaborative development – within a Personal Learning Environments (PLE’s). The use of social learning theories within Twitter would enable students to engage and learn from one and another within a informal/formal collaborative environment. Within Higher Education, Twitter can be used to “Knowledge Probe” and interrogate technical principles. Skiba (2008) suggests that “Twitter can be used to facilitate active, interactive and reflective learning”. The use of Twitter will enable students to develop “metacognition, forcing users to be brief and to the point” enabling them to work on descriptive and communication skills. Nussbaumer et al., (2012) agrees with Skiba (2008) about using supporting and encouraging students to engage in metcognition development through PLE environments. According to Nussbaumer et al., (2012) PLE’s will enable individuals to building and develop their planning, monitoring their own learning paths through reflection. PLE, through the use of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) tasks via aid of web 2.0 platforms like that of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc... Will encourage learners to engage informal learning to “pursue educational goals” (Page 1). The use of PLE within an informal learning situation while using web-based platforms can create a customised learning environment, tailored to a variety of learners needs. This can support interoperability through multimedia, open standards, and reusability’s of curriculum materials. Issues of PLE’s: Assessments (Fluency’s, accuracy, literacy’s); Feedback (teacher: online to groups, peer support informal times), time: social-connect ability. According to Meyer et al., (2009) the use of PLE’s within web-platforms within
education can provide valuable evidence to support formative assessment. Black and Wiliam (2009) suggests that Formative Assessment Theory enables students to work together to accomplish group takes and create contributions from different communities. According Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) the use of social networking within Higher Education has shown to improve student’s learning, through interactive curriculum designs, collaborative development, and peer review exercises. As mentioned by Blaschke (2012) andragogical theories have been extensively used on-line to reinforce distance learning to improve competencies and capabilities of the individual. Blaschke (2012) suggests that the tutor uses andragogical learning theories to support and develop the learner capability to become more self-directed in his or her learning. “The instructor shows learners how to find information, relates information to the learner experience, and places a focus on problem-solving within real-world situations” This is known as Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), mentioned in the introduction section. Blaschke (2012) indicates that SRL through the use of andragogical learning approach may not be adequate enough to challenge the individual through the use modern webbased platforms and a new holistic approach is needed. Kirkwood (2010), Cochran et al., (2012) and Blaschke (2012) suggests that one approach that could be used is called Heutagogy.
3. Heutagogy According to Bhoyrub (2010), Kirkwood (2010) and Blaschke (2012) Heutagogy refers to the personal learning experience of an individual within a constantly changing environment. Blaschke (2012) suggests that Heutagogy “can be viewed as progression from pedagogy to andragogy to heutagogy, with learners likewise progressing in maturity and autonomy” (Page 2). Within Heutgogy, the learner helps to steer the direction of the learning curriculum, designing and developing the map of learning, and assessment through reflection. Bhoyrub (2010) suggests that heutagogy enables the learner to engage and learn from acknowledging from other people responses to “unpredictable need, frequently when faced with the limits of their current knowledge or capabilities”. It is this unpredictability learning approach that the learner has to readjust his or her own learning that makes this appealing to use with web-based technologies. This type of approach supports a selfregulated learning and incorporates a more holistic learner-centric, which will, according to (Bhoyrub 2010), can improve “individual capabilities in terms of knowledge, skills and values” and develop “expertise and linking theory to practice”. According to Kirkwood (2010) using heutagogy within social media to delivery curriculum can overcome the boundaries that traditional LMS one-fit all approach suffers from.
4. Heutagogy in Practice
The Graduate School has applied a variety of web-based applications to support postgraduates through the 2012 and 2013 Easter School. In particular the modules of ‘Project Managing your Research Degree’ and ‘Research Design & Practicalities’, which involved the use of: YouTube, Facebook, GVRE (ebridge), www.Slideshare.net, and Skype to enable students to maximise their learning experience. The use of Heutagogy has enable students to engage in self-regulated learning through questions being placed within Facebook and YouTube. The lecturer would load up series of images to the Facebook account, please see fig 1 “Facebook in Action” and allow the students to engage in a series of questions associates with the slides. However, due to the nature of Heutagogy, this is where the curriculum can change due to what the student learner wants to learn. Giving that project management is such a large area, topics within can be explored and alternated due to the directions lead by requests. Minimum curriculum must be covered to enable credits to be achieved, within the PGTS. YouTube was encourage by the lecturer to record personal views belonging to the topics associated with project management to enable others to share and contribute in self-regulated learning. Resources from this task enabled marking to be collated through reflective accounts. Skype and mobile devices were heavily used throughout the week long course at the graduate school to encourage interactive and collaborative development, while working on group tasks.
Figure 1 “Facebook in Action” The next section will look at the quality module evaluation response from students who took part within the course.
5. Quality module evaluation Using the end of course evaluation forms, we can depict that 46% (18n) of the students from the 2013 cohort found that this approach to learning was intellectually stimulating, while 38% no opinion and the finally 15% disagreed with the whole idea. However, extracting the results from the 2012 data set, 57% (21n) of students found that using a more student led educational experience was more beneficial to their learning needs; 19% agreed with this, 14% of students had not opinion at all relating to
the methods used within the classroom and 10% disagreed and wanted a complete lecturer led curriculum based module. The feedback belonging to the Easter School shows that this approach can assist the individuals to engage in self-regulated learning, while supporting a more holistic learning approach through web-base media. We found that by adding flexibility to the curriculum can improve the student overall learning experience.
6. Conclusion
This research does indicate that the use Heutagogy within postgraduate level can have some beneficial factors; however, there are some limitations associated with this study and that is the number of the study, the class size of (18) and (21) over the 2012 and 2013 year period. More research would be needed trying to adjust more Question and Answering sessions through Twitter or up and coming technologies to see if results follow suit.
7. References:
Ajjan, H., and Hartshorne R., (2008) “Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests” The Internet and Higher Education, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 71-80 Bhoyrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, R. G., Ramsay, M., Smith, M., (2010). “Heutagogy: An alternative practice based learning approach”. Nurse Education in Practice, Volume 10, Issue 6, November 2010, Pages 322-226 Black, P., & Wiliam, D., (2009). “Developing the theory of formative assessment” Educ Assc Eval Acc (2009) 21:5-31. DOI 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 Blaschke M. L., (2012) “Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance learning, Vol 13, No 1 ISSN: 1492-3831 Coats, H., James, R., and Baldwin G., (2005). “A Critical Examination of the Effects of Learning Management System on University Teaching and Learning”, Tertiary Education and Management 11: 19-36, 2005, Springer Cochran, T., Antonczak, L., Gordon, A., Sissions, H., & Withell, A., (2012). “Heutagogy and Mobile Social Media: Post Web 2.0 Pedagogy” ascilite (2012) Future Challenges | Sustainable futures 25-28 November 2012, New Zealand Derouin, E. R., Fritzsche A. B., and Salas, E., (2005). E-Learning in Organisations, Journal of Management 2005 31: 920 DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279815 Grosseck, G., & Holotescu (2008). Can we use twitter for education activities? The 4th International Scientific Conference, eLearning and Software for Education. Bucharest, April 17-18, eLSe 2008 Henter, R., and Unianu, M, E., (2012) Metacognition in On-line Foreign Language Learning http://www.icvl.eu/2012/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper13.pdf Kirkwood, K., (2010) “The SNAP Platform: social networking for academic purposes” Campus-Wide Information Systems Vol. 27 No. 3, 2010, pp. 118-126 Kozaris A, I., (2010). “Platforms for e-learning, ABCs of Teaching Analytical Science”. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Springer-Verlag 2010. 10.1007/s00216-010-3587-x Liaw, S-S., (2008) “Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system”. Computers & Education Volume 51, Issue 2, September 2008, Pages 864–873 McLoughlin, C., and Lee, W. J. M., (2010) “Personalised and self regulated learning in Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2010,26(1), 28-43. Meyer, E., Abrami C. P., Wade A. C., Aslan, O., Deault, L., (2009) “Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePearl” http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=coe_dean Nussbaumer, A., Kravcik, M., and ALbert D., (2012) “Supporting Self-Reection in Personal Learning Environments Through User Feedback”. Vol, 872. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-872/pale2012_paper_7.pdf Sampson D., and Karagiannidis C., (2002). Personalised Learning: Educational, Technological and Standardisation Perspective Interactive Educational Multimedia, Number 4 (April 2002), pp. 24-39 Sant T., (2013) EduWiki Conference 2013, https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/EduWiki_Conference_2013 Skiba. J. D, (2008) “Can you post a Nugget of Knowledge in 140 Characters or Less? Emerging Technologies Center, Nursing Education 2.0: Twitter & Tweets”. Nursing Education Perspectives 2008 Vol.29 No.2 Pages 110-112 Sun, P-C., Tsai, J, R., Finger G., Chen, Y-Y., and Yeh, D., (2008) “What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction”. Computers & Education 50 (2008) 1183-1202 Petrovic, N., Petrovic D., and Jeremic, V., (2012) “Possible Educational Use of Facebook in High Environmental Education” (2012) ICICTE 2012 Proceedings 355 http://www.icicte.org/Proceedings2012/Papers/09-1-Petrovic.pdf Van Raaij., M, E., and Schepers, L. J. J., (2008). “The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China”. Computers & Educations 50 (2008) 838-852 Webster, R., (2013). “Metacognition and the Autonomous Learner: Student Reflections on Cognitive Profiles and Learning Environment Development” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.4007&rep=rep1&type=pdf
