Introduction Universities have largely ceased to enjoy their - - PDF document

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 1

eLearning Forum Asia 2011, Singapore

E-

• Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes

Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Folks? for Different Folks?

• Dr. David H. Wong

Chair of Teaching and Learning Curtin Business School E: David.Wong@cbs.curtin.edu.au

Introduction

Universities have largely ceased to enjoy their relative geographic monopolies.

– Competitive work culture and the aging population have decreased the potential market. – Funding issues have increased the need to be competitive (Dolinsky & Quazi 1994). – Technological developments have increased the scope of competition (Allen & – Technological developments have increased the scope of competition (Allen & Seaman 2008; Ryan & Lane 1998).

Introduction

Trends in teaching:

– Curriculum design is long been recognised as a factor in differentiating educational services (Kotler & Murphy 1981). Flexibility in delivery is now increasingly relevant in differentiation. – Use of technology to increase market reach (Binsardi & Ekwulugo 2003; Ivy 2001; McDonald & Postle 1999; Foster, Sauser & Self 1994; Smart & Ang 1992). Example: WebCT Blackboard Web 2 0 Example: WebCT, Blackboard, Web 2.0.

Trends in industry:

– An economy increasingly reliant on the integration of technology and other

• rganisational functions to be competitive (Heckman 1999).

– These developments have presented crucial implications for the knowledge and skills required in the future (Wee, Kek & Kelley 2003; Flynn & Kamm 1999).

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 2

Introduction

Trends in the student population:

– Prensky (2001) defined ‘digital natives’ as a generation that has grown up with digital technology, operating at “twitch speed”, and performing multiple activities simultaneously. – Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) characterise next generation (“n-gen”) - students as digitally literate, highly Internet familiar, connected via networked media, used to digitally literate, highly Internet familiar, connected via networked media, used to immediate responses, preferring experiential learning, highly social (“being a friend

• f a friend is acceptable”), preferring to work in teams, craving interactivity in image

rich environments (as opposed to text intensive environments), and having a preference “for structure rather than ambiguity”.

Introduction

Two major demands on Universities:

– To use technology in a way that enables effective learning. – To adapt their curricula to meet the changing skill requirements of the future (Wee, Kek & Kelley 2003; Smart, Kelly & Conant 1999).

Learning from Past Research

Mode of Delivery:

– Use of technology in learning brings flexibility (Malhotra 2002; Spooner et al. 1999). – May increase student retention rates (IUPUI). – Does not necessarily increase demand (Lawley, Summers & Gardiner 1999). – May result in loss of interaction between students and instructors (Kriger 2001; Clark 2000; Neumann 1998 Spooner et al 1999) Clark 2000; Neumann 1998, Spooner et al. 1999). – Paladino (2008), and Mood, Stewart and Bolt-Lee (2002) prompts consideration of interactive and experiential factors.

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 3

Our Recent Research

Mode of Delivery Results

FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor Variables Description Loadings Alpha Mean V09 Access to immediate response to questions 0.774 V10 Allow personal interaction with instructor 0.763 V05 Ability to have two way interaction with instructor 0.734 V11 Allow social interaction with fellow students 0.701 V23 Pressure free 0.860 V24 Stress free 0.858 V21 Minimum paper work 0.544 OPPOV28 Use of case studies to illustrate theory (inverse coded) 0 478 Interactive Pressure Free 0.8239 0.7106 5.5682 4.7564 OPPOV28 Use of case studies to illustrate theory (inverse coded) 0.478 V20 Interesting and fun 0.456 V15 Exposure to people of different cultures and views 0.683 V29 Use of visual material 0.639 V14 Exposure to industry 0.593 V26 Technology easy to use 0.516 V07 Ability to self study 0.779 V08 Ability to study from home 0.752 V22 Minimum time spent on university campus 0.468 Minimise Effort V25 Teaching in a language other than English 0.736 in Understanding V06 Ability to learn with minimal self effort 0.498 Utilise a Comfortable & V12 Comfortable environment 0.849 Convenient Environment V13 Convenient 0.727 V18 Incoporate the use of email and the internet 0.834 V19 Incorporate the use of computers 0.724 V17 Flexible timetable 0.641 OPPOV27 The need to be disiplined (inverse coded) 0.571 V16 Flexibility to work at own pace independent to rest of class 0.481 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 43 iterations. 5.3591 4.4818 0.7914 5.6591 5.3932 5.1636 3.6591 Enable Self Study Utilise Technology Flexible 0.7863 0.3045 Experiential 0.7219 0.6137 0.3671

Our Recent Research

Mode of Delivery Results

T-TEST (AGE GROUPS) Variable Age Group Variable Description Mean

• Std. Dev.

P-Value 21 or under 6.091 0.811

• ver 21

5.000 1.386 21 or under 6.636 0.658

• ver 21

5.538 1.421 21 or under 6.273 0.883

• ver 21

5.231 1.142 0.002 0.001 0.001 Allow personal interaction with instructor Comfortable environment Convenient V10 V12 V13 21 or under 6.364 1.093

• ver 21

4.962 1.483 21 or under 5.818 1.140

• ver 21

4.923 1.412 0.001 0.021 Flexible timetable Incoporate the use of email and the internet V18 V17

T-TEST (YEA

R OF STUDY GRO UPS) Variable Year Group Variable Description Mean

• Std. Dev.

P-Value first y ear 5.000 1.298 continuing 5.857 1.145 first y ear 5.300 1.302 continuing 6.071 1.120 first y ear 4.100 2.532 continuing 5.571 1.709 first y ear 5.800 1.361 continuing 4.786 1.641 V2 8 Use

• f case

studies to illustrate th 0.028 V1 Allow pe rsonal interaction with i t t 0.020 V1 4 Ex posu re to industry 0.033 V2 4 Stress free 0.031

Recent Web 2.0 Developments at the School of Marketing School of Marketing

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 4

Recent Traditional T&L Developments at the School of Marketing School of Marketing Online and Offline Learning: Where do we draw the line in Blended Learning? in Blended Learning?

Characteristics of MODE Delivery Methods Pressure Free  E-Learning tools that are fun and interactive – blogs, wikis, self paced reflective journals. Flexibility*  E-Learning tools  Industry Mentoring Programs Interactive  E-Learning tools  Instructor Led Discussions  Industry Mentoring Programs

Our Recent Research v2

Balanced Modes of Deliveries

 Industry Mentoring Programs  Case Study Approach Utilize Technology*  E-Learning tools Experiential  Industry Mentoring Programs  Instructor Led Sessions  Industry visits/study tour User Friendly*  E-Learning tools  Academic mentoring/individual tuition Foster Discipline  Instructor Led Sessions  Industry Mentoring Programs  Industry placement Utilize Case Illustration  Case Study Approach  Industry Mentoring Programs  E-Learning tools Attributes marked * are of particular importance

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 5

Rules of Engagement in Online Learning Environments

Guiding Philosophies:

– Student engagement is a highly valued quality indicator. – Defined: “active and collaborative learning, participation in challenging academic activities, formative communication with academic staff, involvement in enriching educational experiences, and feeling legitimated g g g and supported by university learning communities” (Coates, 2007, p. 122). – There needs to be congruency in the various elements in the above definition:

• Learning resources
• Learning activities
• Communication and collaboration
• Student support
• Assessment and feedback

Rules of Engagement in Online Learning Environments

3 Levels of Student Engagement:

– Level 1: minimum engagement, heavily reliant on face-to-face interactions – Level 2: medium engagement – Level 3: online technologies facilitate ‘active’ learning.

Level 1 Level 2 (Assumes L1) Level 3 (Assumes L2) Online Environments

Students refer to the Blackboard unit to gain unit information and download lecture and tutorial materials. Online learning space provides the student with access to learning resources, assessment guidelines, and basic communication tools. Students refer to the Blackboard unit for personal learning needs and as scheduled for collaborative learning activities. Online learning space provides the student with collaborative learning tasks, formative assessments, various communication tools and complex learning activities. Students engage with the teaching staff and student community via appropriate collaboration tools and in a variety of authentic online learning activities. Online learning space allows the student to be an 'active' learner who creates and interacts with the resources of the unit.

Level 1 Level 2 (Assumes L1) Level 3 (Assumes L2) Learning resources

Media rich resources e.g. videos, animations or simulations. Are students ready?

Learning activities

More formative and scaffolded activities leading to summative assessments. Self directed learning?

Achieving Congruency

directed learning?

Communication & collaboration

Collaborative learning using Web 2.0 tools - Social media, reflective journals, wikis, bookmarks. Students as co-

• teachers. Are students willing to share?

Student support

Industry involvement may help. Are staff ready?

Assessment and feedback

More authentic assessment tasks. Students create podcasts, video learning blogs?

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 6

Implications of an e-Learning 2.0 Strategy

Management Issues:

– Impact of technology use on required skills set? – Academic workload issues? – Ownership/re-usability/control/censorship of student generated content?

Impact on Students: Impact on Students:

– Are students ready? Should students be co-teachers? – Assessment of group work using Web 2.0 tools? – Will students be more satisfied, greater perceived value for money? – Student equity/accessibility issues? – Personal security issues? Cyber bullying? – Appropriate student/faculty relationships on Facebook? – Will a Fully Online student be as emotionally attached to the Uni.?

Impact on Individual Teaching Staff: ???

Where to now?

Martin Luther King did not say…

“I have 5 new policies on teaching and learning… “ 'It is our dream that students will ...experience their classrooms as invigorating, even inspiring environments - places they look forward to going to and places they hate to

• leave. It is our dream that they will come to know

themselves as masters of various crafts It is our dreams

What is your dream?

themselves as masters of various crafts...It is our dreams that ...they will come to love the process of learning itself... by making it their own.'

Paideia Schools