Infusing instructional design principles into an active student-centred social learning framework

Transcription

1 Infusing instructional design principles into an active student-centred social learning framework Gail Casey Deakin University, Geelong, Australia Gayle V. Davidson-Shivers University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA Abstract: Social and participatory media offer a plethora of ways for students to communicate, collaborate, and learn in schools. Using a social learning approach, Casey (2013a) investigated ways that social media could be integrated into Australian public high school classrooms to enhance student learning. In the process, she developed a social learning framework as discussed in Casey (2013b). Similarly, Davidson-Shivers and Hulon (2013; Hulon & Daidson-Shivers, 2013) suggest ways to employ ID principles to prepare college instructors and pre-service teachers to integrate technology into classrooms. Prior to that, Davidson-Shivers with Rasmussen (2006) developed an instructional design (ID) model for creating effective Web-based learning environments. Through collaboration, Casey and Davidson-Shivers consider a wide range of social learning and instructional design principles and approaches to help develop frameworks for new media integration that can work within varying levels of education. Introduction Social and mobile technologies offer users unprecedented opportunities for communicating, interacting, sharing, meaning-making, content and context generation (Cook & Pachler 2012, p. 8). Within the face-to-face classroom, many school programs have evolved as they move from desktop computers to banks of portable computers and one-to-one laptop programs and, recently, to tablet and mobile device programs. Currently, there are also glimpses of the possibilities that Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD) and Open Educational Resources (OER) might bring to schools. It is clear that the educational world in which our parents and grandparents grew up has significantly and permanently been altered (Bonk, 2009). There is a movement for a new culture of learning to happen almost anywhere, and according to Thomas and Brown, (2011) it is powerful. With recent and future changes in technology, Jahnke and Norberg (2013) suggest that it becomes paramount to begin a dialogue about the design of creative spaces for learning rather than new and bigger lecture halls. They also argue that such creative online spaces blur the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Social and participatory media for use in creative learning spaces. Additionally, the literature on creative online spaces where social and participatory media have been integrated into schools is important to consider. For instance, Casey (2013a) developed a social learning framework to integrate social and participatory media into multiple classes in an Australian high school. Related to the social learning framework for media integration, she focused on three key areas: (a) teachers and professional development to meet demands that the framework might impose; (b) students and a need for scaffolding within the framework to assist their learning; and (c) learning environments that assist in development of curriculum to meet learning needs. Casey s study developed online social environments using a Ning platform (Glam Media, Inc.), in which students could interact both formally and informally on a daily basis. This was developed for use within and across her classes. As part of the teaching and learning process, Casey implemented action research cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflection to improve student participation and learning within all of her classes. The purpose was to value student incorporate knowledge and new literacy practices while exploring social learning through peer-to-peer interaction and multimodal methods. Ravenscroft and Boyle (2010) posed the question, how does or will the increasing prevalence of the social and media-rich Web, or Web 2.0 or future Web # influence the ways individuals communicate, think and

2 learn? (p. 2). In response, they discussed the need for a deep learning design that is suitable for the digital age. At present, students are increasingly expected to develop technological fluency, digital citizenship, and other competencies despite wide variability in the quality of learning opportunities that schools might provide (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009). In exploring educational and socio-cultural perspectives, Pachler, Ranieri, Macnca, and Cook (2012) remarked on the increasing convergence of mobile devices and digital media for social networking, both in formal and informal learning contexts. They asserted that... there is no place for techno-centric rhetoric, but only for a careful and cautious consideration of the interplay between education, social practices and technological change (p. 710). What is needed now, as asserted by Brown (2013), more than ever, are theories and practices that bridge between formal and informal learning, didactic and experimental learning, peer-based and master-based mentoring, local and distributed learning, the cognitive and the social dimensions of learning. This could be achieved with the worldwide expansion of mobile phones that appear to be fostering the emergence of mobile learning. Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani (2010) explain that these devices could be used to support instruction in a safe manner and suggested that such tools could significantly change instructional activities, learner roles, and learning location. However, as pointed out by Leer and Ivanov (2013), understanding the need for education in schools to change is different from knowing how best to help effect that change. Opportunities and Challenges for Educators to bridge gaps Although opportunities for developing creative learning spaces as well as incorporating social and mobile media might abound, they are also viewed by many educators as challenging. Brown (2006) states that the tools for engaging students in inquiry and learning are vast and teachers must be prepared to use such tools. Davidson-Shivers and Hulon (2013) suggest that school professionals might not have the knowledge and skills to integrate appropriate technology into their classrooms. This lack of knowledge, skills and experience might be even more exacerbated when educators are faced with developing creative learning spaces that blur lines between formal and informal and bridge the gaps in learning approaches. However, in this presentation, we suggest that there are two perspectives, or theories, that might assist educators to not only understand what and why such changes need to occur, but also how to develop and implement these new learning environments to meet learner needs and motivations. The first is using a sociocultural perspective for learning and the second is incorporating instructional design principles and procedures that support such a perspective. Using sociocultural perspective to bridge the gaps Using a sociocultural perspective is one way to connect the gaps between in-school and out-of-school learning and this also supports interdisciplinary literacies (Casey, 2013b). In observing different ways that social computing applications can be used for teaching and learning, Lee and McLoughlin (2007, p. 1) argue that pedagogical changes are needed to support greater learner control, agency and engagement in content creation, and peer-to-peer sharing and review of ideas. Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, and Morris (2008) also offer a sociocultural perspective on literacy and take a critical stance by arguing that power, identities and agency also play important roles in valuing social and cultural practices. Their findings present several important implications that raise questions regarding how to build on what motivates adolescents literacy practices in order to promote the development of their social selves and improve their academic outcomes. Similar to Casey s (2013b) views, Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, and Jones (2012) maintain that learning, or meaning-making, is a social practice. Charitonos, et al. (2012) investigated the use of social and mobile devices to support meaning-making activities as learners encountered museum artefacts on a school field trip. The results of their study indicate that such tools helped in fostering social interactions and ultimately the process of shared construction of meaning making among their participants. Charitonos, et al. (2012, p. 804) commented that a good learning design is needed when using social and mobile media. This includes one that allows learners to switch between different contexts such as (a) off and online, (b) individual and social, and (c) formal and informal settings and is based on effective pedagogical strategies that encourage students to use technology in different ways. Likewise, Casey (2013c) also highlights similar considerations in her social learning framework. Additionally, with the expansion of new technologies, collaborative learning projects in education are now being conducted worldwide. In defining collaborative learning, Goggins and Jahnke (2013) explain that it involves the co-construction of knowledge and competence development whereby different people have the opportunity for creative thinking, introducing new ideas, and taking creative actions. Furthermore, they suggest that this perspective transforms learning from a concept focusing on knowledge transfer to one that can foster innovation. They go on to explain that by fostering innovative thinking and knowledge through collaborative process, learners acquire newly developed skills that results in learning becoming a visible change in their behaviour. As found in Casey s study, social and participatory media also foster a more visible learning and

3 provide opportunities for interaction and collaboration that can support the emergence of new ideas, knowledge growth and creative actions. Incorporating instructional design theories The ID field is more than just media production to include design processes, which are based on theories, research, and practice (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). Instructional designers determine whether it is appropriate to use technological tools to accomplish the goals and objectives to facilitate learning or improve performance (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). More recently, Davidson-Shivers and Hulon (2013) discuss ways of employing such ID principles for the integration and appropriate use of technology tools into teacher education programs, while Hulon and Davidson-Shivers (2013) describe having in-service teachers use ID principles for technology integration into teaching. Although teachers are currently using technology in an attempt to increase productivity in their classroom (Larson & Lockee, 2014), they may not be able to design the instruction or learning for successful outcomes (Davidson-Shivers & Hulon, 2013). They may not realize learning outcomes and technology tools need to be aligned (Hulon & Davidson-Shivers, 2103). One ID principle is that any given technology tool needs to be congruent with the specified learning outcomes and their corresponding instructional strategies (Davidson- Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006; Van Eck, 2006). A second principle is that for instructional or learning situations, it is the identified learning outcomes that drive the selection of appropriate instructional strategies and, in turn, the choice of these strategies drives the technology tool selection (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006; Smith & Ragan, 2005). However, Davidson-Shivers and Hulon (2013) suggested that these basic principles be taught to teacher education instructors so that they are able to identify and select technology for their own classroom use. Hulon and Davidson-Shivers (2013) also maintained that technology selections are completed when the analysis of learning outcomes (i.e. goals and objectives), learners, instructional [or learning] context and content are completed and implications of those findings are identified. Based on the analysis findings, the ID process is to determine the types of strategies and delivery modes that should be selected. Technology or media selection can then be determined based on their given characteristics that best reflect the specific instructional strategies and delivery modes (Davidson-Shivers & Hulon, 2013). Among other ID scholars and professionals, Davidson- Shivers and Hulon suggest that selecting media must also take the advantages and disadvantages of a given media into consideration. Similarly, Larson and Lockee (2014) developed a four-step process to help make technology selections; their steps include examining: 1) learners; 2) learning context, 3) instruction including identified strategies and pedagogy, and 4) depth and breadth of the content. The overall practicality of the tool may impact the technology selection and, therefore, needs to be considered (Dick, 2009). However, to be able to make changes in the teaching and learning process, school educators need to be schooled on ID principles that are not only associated with technology integration, but also the ID procedures found in most ID models. That is, obtaining knowledge and skills in the what, the how, and the why of the basic ID stages of analysis, design/development, implementation, and evaluation of learning or instructional innovation. Although focused on organizational learning in settings other than schools, Goggins and Jahnke (2013) also suggested the importance of knowledge sharing and making learning practices more visible in workplace settings. This approach has implications for school settings and involves individual learning, collaborative learning and organizational learning as three distinct capabilities that influence each other. Goggins and Jahnke (2013) identify three elements in proposing a research framework and this includes: a) technical elements, that include technology tools and resources such as learning management systems and social media platforms; b) social elements, which include forms of communication, roles of learners, organizational issues and social structures; and c) pedagogical elements that embrace concepts of learning, phases of individual/group learning, support of developing new skills and interconnections between instruction from work and opportunities for coconstruction of new. To determine successfulness of design, Goggins and Jahnke (2013) also consider the structural coupling, or extent of interconnectedness among the elements; quality, or extent of knowledge sharing and co-construction among other things; and concept of success, the need for critical thinking about the overall design, among other aspects. The design shown in Table 1 has been amended from Goggins & Jahnke (2013, p.9). This design emerges from an understanding of important design considerations for social media, learning and knowledge management (Goggins & Jahnke, 2013) as well as ID principles (Davidson-Shivers & Hulon, 2013; Davidson- Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006; Hulon & Davidson-Shivers; 2013). Building on this social learning model provides a mechanism to identify more closely the important aspects presented by Casey (2013a) and Charitonos, et al. (2012) among others.

4 Table 1: A proposed model for a social and active student-centred ID framework adapted from (Goggins & Jahnke, 2013, p.9) Technical Social Pedagogical (Element 1) (Element 2) (Element 3) Structural Coupling (Key factor 1) The degree of interdependency of the three elements - to what extent the elements are connected: are they strong and formalized or flexibly usable? How closely or loosely are the elements connected? This could also relate to ID analysis of learning goals, context, content, and learners as well as instructional and motivational strategies and delivery modes (Davidson-Shivers & Hulon, 2013). Quality (Key factor 2) Useful for driving the analysis of the design elements. e.g., to what extent are knowledge sharing, and the co-construction, of knowledge and learning, connected? The types of instructional strategies employed could be determined along with technology tools aligned with them, these then evaluated (Hulon & Davidson-Shivers, 2013). Concept of Success (Key factor 3) Consider whether technologists, teachers or peers within a system would view the design as a success. This requires critical thinking about the overall design. A good design includes a visible concept of what is meant by learning and involves different views or, at least, supports a common understanding. (Different target groups and people in different roles have different cognitive conceptions of success.) Within ID field, success is a broad term when it relates to learning and/or instruction. Using evaluation processes and by asking whether the learning was effective, efficient and appealing (interesting) to the participants, ease of use and ease of integration among other tasks and that it had value and worth (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006). Further consideration also needs to be given into how teacher interactions will affect student learning and perceptions (Davidson-Shivers, 2009). In building on the three basic elements: Technical, Social and Pedagogical from Goggins and Jahnke (2013), Casey and Davidson-Shivers will continue to collaborate to combine their frameworks to develop an active student-centred social learning framework for educators. An ID/Learning Design/Digital Didactical Design framework that, we hope, will also support peer-to-peer learning across different subjects, schools and even countries, while taking advantage of the unique qualities of social media. References Betrus, A. (2012). Linking research and practice to improve learning. TechTrends, 56(5), Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open : How Web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, J. S. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(5), Brown, J. S. (2013). Foreword - CSCL@Work. In S. Goggins, I. Jahnke & V. Wulf (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace: CSCL@Work (pp. v-vii). New York, NY: Springer.

5 Casey, G. (2013a). Building a student-centred Learning framework using social software in the middle years classroom: An action research study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12, Retrieved from Casey, G. (2013b). Interdisciplinary Literacy through Social Media in the Mathematics Classroom: an Action Research Study. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(1), Casey, G. (2013c). Social media in the classroom: a simple yet complex hybrid environment for students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(1), Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social and mobile technolgies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), Cook, J., & Pachler, N. (2012). Online people tagging: Social (mobile) networking(ing) services and workbased learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2009). Frequency and type of instructor interactions in online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8 (1), Retrieved from Davidson-Shivers, G.V. & Hulon, S.I. (2013). Using instructional design principles to prepare college instructors and preservice teachers to integrate technology into the classroom. In Jan Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp ). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7 th ed). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson Education. Glam Media, Inc. (2013). Ning: A scalable host platform. Brisbane, CA: Glam Media, Inc. Goggins, S., & Jahnke, I. (2013). CSCL: Computer-Supported Collaborative learning at the workplace - making learning visible in unexpected onlline placeses across established boundaries. In S. Goggins, I. Jahnke & V. Wulf (Eds.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning at the Workplace: CSCL@Work (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Springer. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in onlne social networks. Learning Media and Technology, 34(2), Gustafson, K. L. & Branch, R. M. (2007). Survey of instructional development models (4 th ed). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Hulon, S. I, & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2013). A guide to selecting technology for classroom use: Assisting preservice teachers in the use of appropriate tools. In M. Simonson (Ed.), The 36th Annual Proceedings: Selected Research and Development Paper Presented at AECT International Convention for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA. Jahnke, I., & Norberg, A. (2013). Digital Didactics - Scafolding a new normality of learning. Open Education 2030 Vsion Papers, Part III: Higher Education, Retrieved from Koszalka, T. A., & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G. S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge. Lee, M., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved from Leer, R., & Ivanov, S. (2013). Rethinking the future of learning: The possibiliites and limitaitons of technology in education in the 21st Century. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 5(4), Moje, E., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), Pachler, N., Ranieri, M., Macnca, S., & Cook, J. (2012). Editorial: Social networking and mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5),

6 Ravenscroft, A., & Boyle, T. (2010). A dialogue and social software perspective on deep learning design. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (Special Issue on Researching Computers and Learning). Retrieved from Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Strand, K.A., & Staupe, A. (2010). The concurrent e-learning design method. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific (pp ). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Thomas, D., & Brown, J., S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Charleston, SC, USA: Amazon.com.